Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
86Women, Gender & Research No. 3 2021
From individual to organizational bias:
A norm-critical proposition for unconscious
bias intervention in organizations
By Bontu Lucie Guschke & Jannick Friis Christensen
Bontu Lucie Guschke, PhD Fellow, Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School.
Jannick Friis Christensen, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy,
Copenhagen Business School.
Abstract
It is generally accepted in organization and management studies that individuals are implicitly bi-
ased, and that biased behavior has organizational consequences for diversity, equality, and inclu-
sion. Existing bias interventions are found not to lead to signifi cant changes in terms of eliminating
individual bias, reducing discrimination, or increasing the numbers of underrepresented minorities
in organizations. This article links the absence of positive change to a lack of engagement with the
structural-organizational contexts, processes, and practices that reproduce bias. We identify three
concrete shortcomings in the literature: that interventions are: 1) largely ignorant of broader soci-
etal power structures; 2) detached from specifi c organizational contexts; and 3) decoupled from
concrete organizational action. By combining insights from unconscious bias research with norm
critique and design thinking, we develop a proposition for a new intervention model that forgoes the
individualization of unconscious bias and extends to a structural understanding of bias as embedded
in organizational norms. The article draws on data from an action research project that included a
workshop series developed and organized in three Scandinavian countries over one year. The data
provide the basis for an empirically grounded conceptualization of the organizational bias interven-
tion advanced by the authors.
KEYWORDS: Unconscious bias, implicit bias, norm critique, organizational diversity, action
research, design thinking
ARTICLES
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
87Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Introduction
Research on unconscious/implicit bias1 has tak-
en us a long way in terms of grasping otherwise
tacit and intangible aspects of organizational life.
It is generally accepted among organization and
management scholars that individuals are biased
(Marvel 2016; Murray 2016; Noon 2018) and that
their biases, which work unconsciously without
people being aware of them, may contradict and
thus counteract espoused values and beliefs
(Muhr 2019). Beyond infl uencing individual atti-
tudes, biases also affect organizational behavior
and outcomes with regard to diversity, equality,
and inclusion (Brief et al. 2000; Chamorro-Premu-
zic 2019; Ellemers 2014). Critical scholarship has
long argued that biases are woven into the fabric
of organizations, thus rendering them gendered,
raced, classed, etc. (Acker 2006; Ahonen et al.
2013; Ashcraft 2013; Christensen and Muhr 2019;
Cohen and El-Sawad 2007; Janssens and Zanoni
2014; Nkomo and Hoobler 2014). However, its rel-
ative success in bringing to the forefront such un-
conscious processes of organizing is also where
the existing literature begins to fall short.
Since unconscious biases operate outside
people’s awareness, a common means of inter-
vention is to raise awareness, for example through
training or testing, to let people know of their own
biased attitudes and behavior. The Implicit Asso-
ciation Test (IAT) is probably the best known and
academically most disputed example thereof due
to its common use in several hundred research
papers published since the introduction of the
test in 1998 (Blanton et al. 2009; Steffens 2004).
However, raising awareness as a means of inter-
vention is criticized by some for being not enough
(Applebaum 2019) and the least effective method
if the aim is to prevent discrimination caused by
bias and increase the number of underrepresent-
ed minorities in organizations (Emerson 2017; Ka-
lev, Dobbin and Kelly 2006). While several studies
report short-term bias reductions from educating
people about bias and teaching individual strate-
gies for overcoming it (Girod et al. 2016), a gener-
al concern is that such effects wear off over time
and, relatedly, that diversity training in the form of
awareness-raising can be pointless since “know-
ing about bias does not automatically result in
changes in behavior by managers and employees”
(Noon 2018, 198). In other words, an approach ad-
dressing awareness through knowledge alone is
inadequate for fostering progressive organization-
al change (Dobbin and Kalev 2018).
Unconscious bias training thus seems in-
suffi cient for eliminating bias if it is based on the
common assumption that knowing about bias
will automatically lead to acting differently (Noon
2018), not least because the emphasis on indi-
vidual agency presupposes that people are both
willing and motivated to act and that they have
the capacity to do so (Correll 2017). Crucial to our
argument in this article is that a narrow focus on
individually held biases comes at the cost of ex-
ploring the level of structural-organizational con-
texts, processes, and practices that play a part
in activating and reproducing bias. For example,
an infl uential study by Devine et al. (2012)—later
replicated by Forscher et al. (2017)—approaches
unconscious bias as being akin to personal (bad)
habits that can be broken. Yet individuals are not
isolated islands; habitual, discriminatory behavior
is institutionalized and embedded in organization-
al processes, practices, and routines (Acker 2006;
Correll 2017; Holck 2018). We argue therefore that
the existing literature points to three limitations
due to interventions being largely: 1) ignorant of
broader societal power structures; 2) detached
from specifi c organizational contexts; and 3) de-
coupled from concrete organizational action.
We address these critical insights by fi rst
differentiating between individual bias and what
we term organizational bias, which is understood
to be a bias that is built into formalized process-
es and practices in organizations (Correll 2017).
Stressing the need for intervening at the level of or-
ganizational biases, this article then explores the
following research question: How may we counter
unconscious bias at a structural-organizational
level of norms that is beyond individual attitudes
and behavior? The research question is built upon
the underlying claim that, if bias is incorporated
into organizational practice—as organizational
bias—the initiatives taken to counter bias must
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
88Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
necessarily also be integrated into processes of
organizing with the purpose of establishing new or
alternative practices that consider the potentiality
of unconscious bias.
To answer the research question, we devel-
op a workshop format that situates the bias inter-
vention at an organizational rather than individual
level; that is, it moves unconscious bias training
from the level of individual agency to one of struc-
tural-organizational processes and practices.
The notions of norm critique and design thinking
build the theoretical basis for the developed for-
mat. Empirically, the development is grounded in
data produced from fi ve workshops held across
three Nordic countries in collaboration with sever-
al case organizations to develop an intervention
format. Our aim in proposing this new intervention
is to overcome the bias toward individualization
we fi nd in many current antibias interventions.
We suggest instead that organizational bias in-
terventions need to account for the effects of or-
ganizational norms on individual biased behavior.
Specifi cally, we put forth the argument that while
current interventions focus on creating awareness
(through knowledge) and assume that a behavior
change will follow from increased awareness, our
proposed workshop format creates more explicit
links between knowledge, awareness, changed in-
dividual behavior, and adapted organizational pro-
cesses and practices.
This article offers two overall contribu-
tions to unconscious bias research and practice
in organizations. First, we propose an empirical-
ly grounded conceptualization of an organiza-
tional bias intervention that is anchored within a
norm-critical understanding of unconscious bias.
Second, we extend the Devine et al. (2012) and
Forscher et al. (2017) bias intervention models by
integrating a norm-critical perspective with design
thinking methodology. In doing so, we address the
three concrete limitations identifi ed in the existing
literature, thereby advancing bias research and
bias intervention practice. In proposing a new in-
tervention format, we follow Kalpazidou Schmidt
and Cacace’s (2019) argument that, while diversity
training seems ineffective in isolation, its effects
can be improved if it is incorporated into a wider
program of change. The trick is, as Dobbin and
Kalev (2018) point out, to couple diversity training
with the right complementary measures. Rather
than give up on countering unconscious bias, we
thus echo Correll’s (2017) call to aim for small wins
and, specifi cally, propose adding a complementa-
ry measure of norm-critical refl ection combined
with action-oriented elements of design thinking
processes to unconscious bias interventions in
organizations.
The remainder of the article is structured as
follows. After reviewing the literature on bias and
identifying the three concrete limitations in the
existing literature, we briefl y describe the notions
of design thinking and norm critique that provided
the theoretical starting points for the intervention
development. We follow that with a presentation
of the methodology for the action research project
that builds the empirical basis for our proposi-
tion of a new organizational bias intervention. We
then discuss the developed intervention in terms
of the knowledge, awareness, practice, and action
elements that we derive from the empirical mate-
rial produced during the action research project.
A concluding discussion allows us to synthesize
those four elements and propose our conceptu-
alization of an organizational bias intervention as
a norm-critical extension to that of Devine et al.
(2012). Finally, we refl ect on the limitations and
implications for future research and the practice of
unconscious bias interventions in organizations.
Literature review: From individual
bias to organizational bias
Overall, research on bias differentiates between
conscious/explicit bias and unconscious/implicit
bias (Dovidio et al. 2010). This article’s focus is
the latter type of bias; we use the terms unconsci-
ous and implicit bias interchangeably in line with
the preferences of the authors cited. Biases can
be formed against and based on different social
categories and their associated attributes and
characteristics. This is evident from the existing
literature covering, for example, ethnicity (Ager-
ström and Rooth 2009), race (Brief et al. 2000),
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
89Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
body size (Agerström and Rooth 2011), sexuality
(Banse, Seise and Zerbes 2001), gender (Dasgup-
ta and Asgari 2004), culture (Correll et al. 2008),
and intergroup bias (Crisp and Beck 2005). When
bias operates unconsciously, it is formed outside
of awareness and may lead to automatic prefe-
rences and prejudices (Dovidio et al. 2010). One
example of unconscious bias and its possible ef-
fects in an organizational setting can be found in
Braun et al.’s (2017) study of gender bias, which
shows a clear tendency to associate men more
strongly with a manager/leadership role than wo-
men, whose gender role, conversely, is associated
with being a follower. The fact that women are
perceived as less ideal for management positions
might, as the authors note, contribute to an under-
representation of women while having the opposi-
te effect on men, whose gender role is perceived
as an ideal fi t.
As Noon (2018) points out, the general
standpoint in the literature is that we are all bi-
ased, but since biases are deeply engrained, we
remain mostly unaware of them. Nevertheless,
it is assumed that unconscious bias is measura-
ble or at least quantifi able. This is clear from the
overwhelming research interest in testing that
which is outside of subjects’ conscious or active
awareness using, for example, the IAT (Greenwald,
McGhee and Schwartz 1998).2 The IAT is often
used for testing participants’ implicit biases be-
fore and after unconscious bias training to assess
the success of the intervention in reducing individ-
ual bias. See Gawronski et al. (2008) and Quillan
(2006) for other test versions and methods.
The focal point of this article, however, is not
the testing of unconscious bias per se, but rather
the activities aimed at redressing the impact of
unconscious bias on organizational outcomes.
For promoting diversity, training is the most com-
mon activity undertaken by organizations (Dob-
bin, Kalev and Kelly 2007).3 Yet in a systematic
analysis of the effi cacy of different approaches to
promoting diversity in organizations, Kalev, Dob-
bin, and Kelly (2006) found that diversity training,
in the form of educational programs designed to
raise awareness of how bias affects actions, is the
least effective measure for increasing the share of
underrepresented groups in managerial positions.
Other studies suggest that such training programs
activate and even reinforce bias rather than reduce
it, thereby becoming part of the problem instead
of the solution (Duguid and Thomas-Hunt 2015;
Kidder et al. 2004). Research reporting positive ef-
fects on unconscious bias from diversity training
tends to show only immediate, short-term effects
that erode within a few days (Dobbin and Kalev
2018). Devine et al. (2012) were the fi rst (to their
knowledge) to publish a study showing a long-
term change in implicit (race) bias. This study has
since been replicated by Forscher et al. (2017).
Devine et al. (2012) developed an antibias
intervention in which they conceptualized implic-
it bias as a habit. They argued that implicit bias,
much like a deeply entrenched habit, can be bro-
ken through awareness of implicit bias paired with
concern about its effects and knowledge about
how to apply strategies that reduce bias. Their
argument builds upon the idea that motivation
to change behavior is triggered by awareness of
a problem in combination with concern about its
consequences. Regarding bias reduction strate-
gies, these authors highlight that:
People need to know when biased respons-
es are likely to occur [i.e., in which situations]
and how to replace those biased responses
with responses more consistent with their
goals (Devine et al. 2012, 1268).
However, Devine et al.’s (2012) empirical results
demand a cautious assessment of the concept
they propose. In their initial study, they argue that:
The complexity of the intervention results in
ambiguity regarding which components are
responsible for its various effects. […] sev-
eral components likely work in combination
to prompt […] chronic awareness, concern,
and self-regulatory effort (Devine et al. 2012,
1277).
In a 2017 replication of the study, the results nota-
bly show that:
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
90Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Although intervention participants increased
in concern more than control participants,
they did not decrease in implicit bias more
than control participants. […However,] the
habit-breaking intervention appears to have
a robust, enduring impact on the degree to
which people characterise […] discrimination
as a problem (Forscher et al. 2017, 41).
This shows that while their intervention had a pos-
itive effect on the acknowledgment of the prob-
lem and concern for its effects, it did not decrease
bias.
The reason for that, we argue, may be found
in the failure to account for organisational struc-
tures and norms that allow and encourage the
reproduction of biased behaviour. Devine et al.’s
(2012) intervention model and conceptualisation
of implicit bias relies on the individualised idea
that a decrease in individual bias will result in less
biased behaviour. They argue that:
‘Breaking the habit’ of implicit bias therefore
requires learning about the contexts that ac-
tivate the bias and how to replace the biased
responses with responses that refl ect one’s
nonprejudiced goals (Devine et al. 2012,
1268).
Yet they fail to account for the mentioned context’s
effect on biased behavior and how that context—
understood here as organizational structures,
norms, and processes that enable the reproduc-
tion of bias—needs to be changed for individuals
within it to be able to reduce their biased behavior.
In other words, Devine et al. (2012) fail to account
for habitual behavior being institutionalized and
embedded in organizational processes, practic-
es, and routines (Acker 2006; Correll 2017; Holck
2018). Although the authors argue that an individ-
ual’s motivation is not only intrinsically based on
their personal values and beliefs but extrinsically
driven by “a desire to escape social sanctions”
(Devine et al. 2012, 1269), they fail to consider
that the organizational context might need to be
actively shaped and changed to not just encour-
age but actually sanction biased behavior.
Three concrete limitations in the
existing literature
The shortcoming of Devine et al.’s (2012) inter-
vention at the organizational level points to three
concrete limitations, more general to the body
of research, that seek not only to investigate but
also to counter unconscious bias. The limitations
can be summarized by noting that these interven-
tions focus on awareness of individual bias but
are largely: 1) ignorant of broader societal power
structures; 2) detached from specifi c organiza-
tional contexts; and 3) decoupled from concrete
organizational action.
Existing interventions focus on awareness
of individual bias, but they are largely ignorant of
broader societal power structures. As Tate and
Page (2018) argue, knowledge about broader pow-
er structures, their sociopolitical and historical sit-
uatedness in the specifi c context of intervention,
and how they are structurally reproduced is an es-
sential precondition to understanding how biases
come about. Such knowledge avoids bias being
seen as primarily an individual-level issue. These
authors, therefore, highlight “the foregrounding of
the individual that ignores the institutional and the
systemic” as an “inherent weakness of contem-
porary approaches” (Tate and Page 2018, 145).
We further argue that interventions are largely de-
tached from specifi c organizational contexts. Giv-
en this, we wish to critique how the common view
that everyone is biased (Quillan 2006) and the
agent-focused modes of intervention that the view
inspires tend to neglect structural constraints of
action at an organizational level. As Noon (2018,
203) states, overlaying individual awareness of
bias are issues of “context and praxis,” which in
the normal, everyday operations of organizations
are unlikely to provide the conditions necessary
for changing biased behavior (Smith, Brief and
Colella 2010). This links to our third point, that
interventions are decoupled from organizational
action points. We suggest that individual aware-
ness and action need to be supported by collec-
tive responsibility for changing an organization’s
processes and structures to mitigate the effects
of bias (Chang et al. 2019; Noon 2018).
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
91Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Thus, the purpose of this article is to pro-
pose a workshop format for a new form of inter-
vention that should be able to address the three
limitations. To that end, and to answer the re-
search question of how to counter unconscious
bias at a structural-organizational level of norms
that is beyond individual attitudes and behavior,
we present the elements of knowledge, practice,
and action in addition to awareness—the common
focus of existing interventions—to accommodate
each of the current shortcomings. Relating the
outlined shortcomings to the reviewed literature
on diversity training, we put forth the argument
that the focus of existing antibias training is on
creating awareness through knowledge, while the
link to action, understood as a change in behavior,
is implicitly assumed; thus, its apparent fallacy is
ignored (Dobbin and Kalev 2018; Noon 2018). As
Tate and Page (2018, 145) highlight, “to overcome
bias, an awareness of normalisation [of biases] is
insuffi cient; instead, what is needed is a more ac-
tive process.” The intervention that we conceptual-
ize in this article therefore rethinks and broadens
the category of knowledge and integrates the two
additional elements of practice and action to cre-
ate explicit links between knowledge (understood
as knowledge of broader societal power struc-
tures and their relevance in the specifi c context
of the organizational intervention), awareness of
biases, changed individual behavior, and adapted
organizational processes and practices. We also
consider not only an individual perspective on per-
sonal bias but also a structural understanding of
organizational and social norms. In doing so, we
aim to reduce the reproduction of biased behavior
at a structural level, meaning the organizational
context with its processes and practices in which
biased behaviors are situated. By adopting that
approach, we move from primarily working with
individual bias toward addressing organizational
bias.
Design thinking and norm critique
Design thinking and norm critique provide the the-
oretical starting points for the development of
the intervention. It will become clear in the subse-
quent section how design thinking and norm cri-
tique were used in the intervention’s development.
In this part, we briefl y explain the theoretical basis
of both approaches to show why they are relevant
for countering unconscious bias at a structural-or-
ganizational level of norms beyond individual at-
titudes and behavior. Design thinking describes
an approach for creating solutions to complex,
or wicked, problems (Buchanan 1992) that relies
on working with (not working for or on behalf of)
the people that are affected by such problems
(Brown and Wyatt 2010), an example of which
could be gender bias in entrepreneurship pro-
grams (Warnecke 2016). Design thinking is aimed
at establishing a mindset and practice of curiosity,
constructiveness, and experientiality originally in-
spired by the practices of designers (Elsbach and
Stigliani 2018).
By norm critique, we mean critically attend-
ing to the normative processes and practices for
organizing that reinforce inequalities through im-
plicit expectations of conformity (Arifeen and Syed
2020). Norms are understood as having performa-
tive power while also being constituted performa-
tively and thus allowing for change (Butler 1990,
2011/1993; Christensen 2018). The critical aim
lies in the continuous questioning and challenging
of norms that structure social and organizational
relations, standards, and expectations (Ghorashi
and Ponzoni 2014; Plotnikof and Graack-Larsen
2018). We suggest working with norm critique
for two main reasons. One is that it avoids the
conscious or unconscious singling out diversity
subjects (Ahmed 2004; Wiggins-Romesburg and
Githens 2018); that is, it avoids othering those in-
dividuals who fall outside normative expectations.
Instead, it focuses on what norms a differentiation
of same/other or same/diverse is built on and how
to challenge them. The second, and related, rea-
son is that a critical inquiry into the performative
effects of norms enables a shift in the level of in-
tervention from individual to organizational bias.
By not questioning individual subjects and their
(non)conformity to an existing norm, but instead
focusing on the norms themselves, their reproduc-
tion, and their performative effects, norm critique
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
92Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
moves attention to the level of organizational
practices, processes, and structures (Christensen
et al. 2021). From that perspective, it thus be-
comes possible to focus on organizational biases
and their reproduction within normative practices,
processes, and structures.
The motivations for combining norm cri-
tique and design thinking, as Christensen et al.
(2020, 8, italics in original) refl ect, are to integrate
“action-oriented and productive elements from
design thinking with norm-critical perspectives
and exercises” to allow for critical refl exivity and
to “mitigate bias in the design process.” As such,
the emphasis is on changing processes, not indi-
vidual attitudes or behavior. Design thinking on its
own comes with the risk of reaffi rming existing
bias due to the focus on producing a large quan-
tity of output when ideating, with little or no time
for the participants to think critically about which
normative, and perhaps prejudiced assumptions,
expectations, stereotypes, or other generaliza-
tions, underpin the activity. Ironically, this element
of design thinking prioritizes doing over thinking. It
is for this reason that norm critique is introduced
as a refl exive element to both raise awareness of
existing norms and make immediate use of the
raised level of awareness—given that the knowl-
edge that this state of increased awareness is
short-lived (Dobbin and Kalev 2018)—to qualify
the design thinking process.
Methodology and method
To establish a shared point of reference, we in-
troduce the workshop format, in which our con-
ceptualization of the proposition for a new model
for organizational bias intervention is empirically
grounded. This article builds upon an action re-
search project in which the authors, together with
other researchers, practitioners, and participants,
created a workshop series entitled “Co-creating
Gender Equality from Classroom to Organization:
Innovations in Nordic Welfare Societies.”4 Data
was generated in a joint learning process with
the research participants (Greenwood and Levin
2007) and analyzed alongside the development,
organization, and delivery of fi ve workshops in
three Scandinavian countries between Novem-
ber 2018 and December 2019. In the following
two sections, we describe the empirical settings
and content of the workshops, followed by a pres-
entation of our approach to data generation and
analysis.
Empirical setting
The workshop development process was initi-
ated in November 2018 as a cooperative project
between Copenhagen Business School, KTH Roy-
al Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Hanken
School of Economics in Helsinki, the GODESS In-
stitute (based at Hanken, facilitating transnational
research collaboration in the fi elds of gender, or-
ganization, diversity, equality and social sustaina-
bility), KVINFO (the Danish Knowledge Centre for
Gender Equality and Diversity) and Ekvalita Ab (a
Finnish diversity and inclusion consultancy). The
project was sponsored by NIKK (Nordic Informa-
tion on Gender, a cooperative body under the Nor-
dic Council of Ministers).
The fi rst workshop took place in Copenha-
gen on International Women’s Day, March 8, 2019,
with around 350 participants. The workshop pro-
vided initial insights into the workshop format and
structure. It is described in detail by Christensen
et al. (2020). It allowed us to shape the different
elements and building blocks and then develop
three workshop formats to be tested in Copenha-
gen on April 2, Stockholm on April 6, and Helsinki
on April 10, 2019. Each workshop contained the
same main elements but with a different set of ex-
ercises to try out a variety of possible formats. The
workshops were open to a diverse target group
consisting of organizational leaders, academics,
university students, NGO representatives, and
other relevant stakeholders. They were attended
by 30–70 people each. Building on the learning
generated by the preceding workshops, we devel-
oped a fi nal workshop model that was presented
at a dissemination conference in Copenhagen on
December 12, 2019. With approximately 100 at-
tendees, the fi nal event included a presentation of
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
93Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
the development process, the fi nal product, and a
shortened version of the workshop.5 Figure 1 pro-
vides a timeline of the various workshops and the
actions taken between them.
To provide a basis for understanding the
conceptualization we offer in this article, we also
present a table outlining the shortened version of
the workshop setup. The developed intervention
consists of fi ve phases, as described in Table 1.
Each phase can be adapted in terms of length
and focus as needed for a particular workshop’s
needs, aims, and scope while staying consistent
with regard to the elements included. Importantly,
the process should not be considered linear but
cyclical, as it is possible to return to any step at
any point in the process. This creates an iterative
process, as shown in Figure 2.
Data generation and analysis
Alongside the workshop development and execu-
tion, we generated data from a variety of sourc-
es, consisting of written documentation of the
development process, video/audio recordings, 78
pages of observation notes from the workshops,
transcripts of all materials used and produced
(such as Post-its and worksheets), and feedback
from organizers, facilitators, and participants. The
feedback from organizers and facilitators was
shared and recorded in an open discussion after
each workshop. Following Gilmore and Kenny’s
(2015, 56) idea of collective refl ection as a pro-
cess that goes beyond “self-refl exivity […] as an
individual concern, the responsibility of the lone
researcher,” we shared refl ections from everyone
involved in the project. These refl ections were the
basis for further development of the intervention
format and were later transcribed to be included
as data for this article. The participant feedback
was collected through a short survey sent to all
participants after each workshop (except for the
dissemination conference) and submitted by a to-
tal of 77 participants.6 While we do not report sep-
arately on the survey results or fi ndings, we do use
feedback from them in combination with the oth-
er materials so we can take into account insights
from the research team, organizers, workshop fa-
cilitators, and participants. With this approach, we
aim to work critically in a way that Yanow (2012,
31) described as a “refusal to privilege one sort of
voice above another.” Moreover, it acknowledges
informants as knowledgeable subjects rather than
dismissing them as objects to be researched and
understood by a knowledgeable researcher (Col-
lins 2000).
We take the data generated in the process
of developing, organizing, and facilitating the
workshops as our point of departure for an em-
pirically grounded conceptualization of our pro-
posed model for organizational bias intervention.
Following the idea of action research, which “re-
jects the separation between thought and action”
(Greenwood and Levin 2007, 5), the data analysis
was conducted simultaneously with continuous
data generation, and our thought processes ac-
companied our actions, as also depicted in Fig-
ure 1. We purposely avoided following a linear
process of workshop development and execution
(as action) and consecutive data generation, data
Figure 1: Workshop Timeline
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
94Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Workshop phase Description Examples
1 – Initial problem
and context
defi nition
The problem and its context are introduced
to workshop participants by the workshop
facilitator or a representative from the focal
organization. The workshop format and aim are
introduced: facilitators familiarize participants
with the theoretical concepts of unconscious
bias, norm critique, and design thinking.
In the workshops in Copenhagen and Stockholm,
Danish Defence was one of three case organiza-
tions. A Danish Defence representative helped the
facilitators to prepare a context description in the
form of a brief written summary of the case to be
shared with the participants before the workshop
and introduced by the facilitators at the start.
Danish Defence had defi ned a lack of women pur-
suing a career as soldiers as its main challenge.
2 – Norm- critical
exercise
Participants are guided through a norm-crit-
ical exercise in which they refl ect on social
and organizational norms and their infl uence
on individual and organizational behavior.
One exercise called My multidimensional self
was used in the dissemination workshop in
December 2019. Participants were asked to
come up with fi ve self-identifi ed categories
that represent an attribute or aspect of their
identity. They selected their identities based
on how they saw themselves, not how others
might see them. For two of those identities, they
formulated a sentence on a stereotype typically
associated with the identity categories, which
failed to accurately describe the participants as
individuals. Using these identity categories and
refl ections on related stereotypes, participants
were invited to introduce themselves to each
other while discussing in which contexts and sit-
uations the identities become salient and when
the stereotypes are experienced as constraining.
In Helsinki, the exercise on My multidimensional
self triggered a conversation about what it means
to be Finnish and how belonging to that normative
category is defi ned and restricted. When asked to
describe their identity, one participant shared that
she considered choosing between ex-pat, interna-
tional, and migrant but realized that all three were
constructed in opposition to a normative ideal
of being Finnish, even though she would, despite
not being Finnish, identify as local. This enabled a
discussion on how being Finnish becomes a nor-
mative category that is, on the one hand, implicitly
linked to the category local and ideas of belonging,
while, on the other hand, constructed against cat-
egories such as ex-pat, international, and migrant.
The creation of this dichotomy, however, limits
the possibilities of ex-pats, internationals, and
migrants to also defi ne themselves as local and
gain a sense of belonging to Finnish society.
3 – Point of view
and ideation
Participants are guided through an idea de-
velopment process. They are asked to write
and draw their point of view on the problem
introduced at the start. They are triggered to
activate their own perspective and knowledge
to defi ne the problem. Two rounds of brain-
storming are facilitated, with all participants
brainstorming ideas for solutions to the vari-
ous problem understandings they created.
The ideas do not have to be realistic or feasi-
ble at this point. The aim is rather to prompt
participants toward thinking outside their
usual frame of reference and developing
creative ideas to address existing problems.
One round of brainstorming can also be struc-
tured and re-energized by assigning everyone
a role relevant to the problem, asking par-
ticipants to come up with solutions based
on their role’s point of view instead of their
own, thereby also considering organizational
power hierarchies, and considering what lev-
erage might come with different positions.
In the workshops in Copenhagen and Stockholm,
with Danish Defence as one case organization,
participants were asked to redefi ne the introduced
challenge (a lack of women pursuing a career as
soldiers) to a norm-critical frame. In Stockholm,
one group reframed the challenge to “Stereotypical
‘male’ leadership attributes [create] norms of how
leadership is seen [in the military].” The context
information provided in the case summary and
the insights from the prior norm-critical exercise
were used to redefi ne the challenge. Framing the
challenge from a structural perspective with a
focus on norms, rather than on an individual level,
allowed the groups to develop not only individ-
ual but also structural-level solutions during the
brainstorming session. One group in Stockholm,
for instance, proposed an idea of a norm-criti-
cal training program for soldiers to discuss and
refl ect on gendered stereotypes permeating the
military work setting. Another group suggested
leadership training to question the normative
idea or ideals of what it means to be a good
soldier and a good military leader to challenge
the gendered implications of those norms.
Table 1: Workshop Description
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
95Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
4 – Norm- critical
exercise
Before assessing the developed solutions,
another norm-critical exercise is integrated
to deepen and maintain the participants’
norm-critical refl ections. Participants are en-
couraged to take organizational and societal
norms as points of reference for critically
refl ecting on dominant norms and how some
of them can be needlessly exclusionary to
people who do not fi t or perform the norms.
During the workshops conducted in Copenha-
gen, Helsinki, and Stockholm in April 2019, this
exercise included a refl ection on privileges,
norms, and biases by linking the topic of uncon-
scious biases, as introduced in the fi rst phase, to
organizational norms as structural components
enabling biased behavior. The exercise consist-
ed of an individual refl ection on the participants’
own privileges and a shared group exercise on
the benefi ts and constraints of certain privileg-
es. It allowed participants to realize how certain
norms can create privileges for people with
certain identity categories, yet at the same time
produce stereotypes and expectations that gov-
ern how that identity needs to be lived and per-
formed in a normative way. They further learned
and experienced how biases are embedded with-
in normative frames that enable and reproduce
them in organizational settings. Importantly, this
allowed for a refl ection not only on biases but
also on their normative bases, thereby paving
the way for establishing norm-critical perspec-
tives on organizational processes and practices.
During the workshop in Stockholm, the norm-criti-
cal exercise triggered a conversation about a heter-
onormative masculinity norm. It had already been
noted in the My multidimensional self exercise that
women were more likely than men to choose their
gender as a category with which they self-identify.
Similarly, people who did not self-identify as heter-
osexual more often mentioned their sexual orien-
tation than heterosexual participants. Linking this
realization with the exercise on privileges, norms,
and biases allowed an exploration of the invisibility
of heteronormative masculinity as a norm against
which othered identities are created. It opened the
learning space for a discussion on how certain
privileges are taken for granted by those inhabiting
privileged positions, whereas people not fi tting
or breaking a norm might be more aware of their
marginalized position due to a lack of privilege.
As one participant in the Stockholm workshop
expressed, “It’s diffi cult to see how I think, my
norms. […] It’s easier to see what other people do.”
That further fostered a conversation about the
privileges linked to normative positionalities. For
example, returning to the Danish Defence case,
participants discussed that men might have easier
access to leadership positions due to more easily
fi tting the norms of the good soldier and the good
leader. They also refl ected on the need to perform
masculinity correctly, for instance through the lens
of heteronormativity, so as to fi t the norm. The
exercise thus provided further encouragement for
participants to think norm-critically when choos-
ing solutions to explore further in the next step.
5 – Idea
selection
Participants assess the solutions they devel-
oped during ideation and select three ideas
they want to work with further. They are en-
couraged to choose ideas not only based on
their feasibility but also from a norm-critical
perspective by assessing the extent to which
they can tackle the problem at the structural
level of organizational and social norms.
Participants fi ll out an idea form in which
they specify their perspective on the prob-
lem, their solution idea, its users or target
groups, key milestones, involved partners,
most important results, and the time ho-
rizon for implementing the solution.
For the fi rst workshop in Copenhagen in
March 2019, we used Padlet—an online
brainstorming tool—to gather all the ideas
produced by the participants. This tool had
the advantage of rendering ideas for solu-
tions accessible and visible to everyone.
At the Stockholm workshop, the group working
on the Danish Defence case that developed the
idea of a norm-critical training program used the
idea form to specify elements such as weekly
refl ection sessions for all soldiers and feedback
loops between the Danish Ministry of Defence,
the military base commander, an equality offi cer,
and individual units and groups. They also devel-
oped a time plan including direct action that they
could initiate tomorrow, medium-term goals to
be implemented step by step within the next year,
and some action points to run continuously.
Further steps:
Prototyping and
implementation
Ideally, the process should not end with the
selection of ideas but continue into a phase of
prototyping. The prototyped ideas can eventually
be implemented and tested in the organization.
If the testing reveals insights that redefi ne the
problem, the fi rst phase of the workshop can
be repeated. Likewise, if the test creates new
ideas, it becomes relevant to do the third phase
of ideation anew. As such, the workshop pro-
cess is conceived as cyclical or non-linear.
All case organizations that participated in any
of the workshops were sent an overview of
the solutions developed, including the idea
form, highlighting concrete next steps to take
to test and implement the solution ideas.
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
96Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Figure 2: Cyclical workshop format. The
striped arrow after prototyping and imple-
mentation indicates that you can go back
to any prior step depending on the need.
For example, if testing produces new
ideas, it might be relevant to skip the fi rst
two steps and repeat the ideation step.
analysis, and claim formulation (as thought). In-
stead, we analyzed and discussed the insights
from collective refl ections and the participants’
feedback continuously during the workshop peri-
od. The analytical insights produced throughout
the process were integrated into the development
of the intervention format and are the underlying
basis for the conceptualization proposed in this
article. As part of that iterative and action-based
analysis, we developed the terms knowledge,
awareness, practice, and action. These terms
were established based on our analytical refl ec-
tions on the workshops’ structures and process-
es combined with our consideration of the gaps
in existing intervention formats, as outlined in
the literature review. Likewise, the four catego-
ries are conducive for further development of
the workshops while also providing the structure
for the next part of this article. We thus follow
Ashcraft and Muhr (2018, 223, italics in original)
in approaching “coding as a practice that begins
the moment we enter the fi eld and continues
throughout the life of a project [… and] analysis
as data in co-production” by acknowledging the
iterative process of generating and analyzing
data throughout the research project.
Conceptualizing a new model of
organizational bias intervention
The developed intervention combines four ele-
ments, which we term: 1) knowledge, 2) aware-
ness, 3) practice, and 4) action. These elements
were, as outlined, derived from the empirical mate-
rial produced as part of the action research project
and are used to structure this part of the article.
We describe below each element’s use and pur-
pose in the intervention, with examples provided
from the various exercises. We highlight how the
model goes beyond existing antibias interventions
by addressing the three shortcomings identifi ed in
the literature and how elements from both norm
critique and design thinking are woven into its set-
up and structure.
1.
Initial
problem &
context
definition
2.
Norm-
critical
exercise
3.
Point of
view &
ideation
4.
Norm-
critical
exercise
5.
Idea
selection
Prototyping
&
implement
ation
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
97Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
1. Knowledge
The fi rst element, knowledge, describes a theo-
retical introduction to unconscious bias to create
an initial understanding of how biases work, their
implications at a personal, organizational, and
societal level, and which problems they might
create in participants’ particular contexts. As
part of this introduction, we explain how biases
are linked to broader societal power structures
in the specifi c sociopolitical context in which the
organization is embedded, thereby mitigating the
fi rst shortcoming outlined in the literature review.
Furthermore, we share knowledge on norms,
norm critique (Christensen 2020; Henriksson
2017; Holck and Muhr 2017), and design thinking
(Brown 2008; Buchanan 1992; Elsbach and Stigli-
ani 2018), which we introduce as the workshop’s
methodological basis.
While we stress that both norm critique
and design thinking can only be fully understood
through practice, providing participants with a
theoretical introduction allows a frame for further
workshop elements to be established. We can, for
instance, prepare participants to feel stressed and
under time pressure during the design thinking
exercises (Brown 2008; Brown and Wyatt 2010)
and embody a sense of discomfort during the
norm-critical ones ( Christensen 2018; Staunæs
2017). The aim is not to make participants feel
less stressed or more comfortable but to famil-
iarize them with the need to deal with insecurity,
ambiguity, and unfamiliarity so as to learn in this
intervention format. This is especially true when
participants are realizing their individual position
within, and potentially their contribution to, struc-
tural inequalities and injustices in organizations. A
refl ection shared by many and explicitly expressed
by one participant captures the essence: “It is un-
comfortable. It is stressful. But it actually makes
you move” (Copenhagen, April 2, 2019). This quote
highlights how feelings of distress and unease in-
herent in the approach can provide the necessary
trigger to step outside one’s comfort zone, ques-
tion ingrained biases, and potentially change bi-
ased behavior.
2. Awareness
The second element constitutes the part that has
similarities to existing antibias interventions, but
in this case, it is conducted from a more structur-
al perspective. It starts with an in-depth refl ection
on participants’ social stereotypes, leading to
awareness about their own unconscious biases
and their infl uence on thoughts and behavior. Ex-
isting bias interventions tend to test participants
on predefi ned stereotypes of, for instance, race,
gender, bodily capability, etc., with each tested
separately. In contrast, this workshop prioritizes
refl ections closely related to participants’ own
experiences of encountering bias within their
organizational context. Postponing the use of
a priori categories allows for the exploration of
emerging categories relevant to the specifi c or-
ganizational context, its diversity, and its aim
for equality by considering intersectional iden-
tity categories, as called for by critical diversity
scholars (Hvenegård-Lassen, Staunæs and Lund
2020; Rodriguez et al. 2016). When asked to de-
scribe their identity, one participant shared that
she considered choosing between ex-pat, interna-
tional, and migrant but realized that all three were
constructed in opposition to a normative ideal of
being Finnish, even though she would, despite not
being Finnish, identify as local (Helsinki, April 10,
2019). By avoiding predefi ned normative catego-
ries, we enable participants to explore the norms
that exist within their organizational contexts
and biases linked to those norms. Instead of only
focusing on individual biases, we illuminate the
structural connection between biases, norms,
and privileged positions.
Another example is an exercise on privileges
concerning norms and biases. Many participants
were surprised by some of their own privileges. As
one participant in a workshop noted: “It’s diffi cult
to see how I think, my norms. […] It’s easier to see
what other people do” (Stockholm, April 5, 2019).
It opened the learning space for a discussion
about how certain privileges are taken for grant-
ed by those inhabiting privileged positions, where-
as people not fi tting or breaking a norm might be
more aware of their marginalized position due
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
98Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
to their lack of privilege (Ahmed 2004; McIntosh
2020; McIntosh, Kimmel and Ferber 2017; Sullivan
2006). Moreover, the effects of inhabiting a posi-
tion of privilege or marginalization were discussed
with the aim of avoiding an individualization of the
problem, which might lead to pity, shame, or envy,
instead of critically exploring the normative basis
that enables the existence and unequal distribu-
tion of privileges. Avoiding individualization fur-
ther allows for refl ection on how to deal with priv-
ilege in a more nuanced way than assuming that
privilege can be handed over to marginalized peo-
ple (Applebaum 2008). As individual privilege is
structurally embedded in social and organizational
norms, an individual cannot simply renounce their
privilege, at least not beyond a momentary act of,
for example, giving space. Individual awareness of
bias and privilege is not enough to change norms
(Ahmed 2004). This brings us to the third element
of practice.
3. Practice
The third element was integrated to avoid partic-
ipants just leaving the intervention with the new-
ly gained knowledge and awareness that every-
one, including themselves, is biased. That alone
does not seem to help change behavior (Correll
2017). The practice element, therefore, leads
them through a set of exercises in which they try
to act on their new insights. Participants are in-
troduced to an organizational challenge provid-
ed by a case organization. In Copenhagen and
Stockholm, Danish Defence was one such case
organization, with a lack of women pursuing a ca-
reer as soldiers being defi ned as their main chal-
lenge. Participants are asked to redefi ne the chal-
lenge using a norm-critical frame. One reframed
challenge defi nition read: “Stereotypical ‘male’
leadership attributes [create] norms of how lead-
ership is seen [in the military]” (Stockholm, April
5, 2019). Reframing is important, as framing the
problem infl uences the solutions that become
possible (Buchanan 1992). Participants learn that
framing problems from a structural perspective
allows structural, norm-critical solutions to be
developed, whereas individualized problem fram-
ing tends to inspire individual-based solutions.
Still, we found that many ideas developed
throughout the ideation and solution develop-
ment phase were anchored within biased under-
standings of the problem. The Danish Defence
case provides a fi tting example. Several partic-
ipants reiteratively stated that “[in the military]
you have so many jobs that are not physical, but
brain based. So, [… as a woman] you can go the
civil way” (Copenhagen, April 2, 2019), thereby
positioning women in a next to role instead of
questioning the norms that inhibit women from
becoming soldiers. The facilitator, through ques-
tioning, guided participants to realize which
solutions were built upon their newly gained
knowledge and awareness and in which cases
they might have slipped back into biased frames
of thought and behavior. Participants are led to
refl ect on which normative assumptions and bi-
ases supported the production of those ideas.
In the case of Danish Defence, it was discussed
how two norms and related biases persist: fi rst,
that women are always physically weaker than
and, therefore, inferior to men; and second, that
the career of a contemporary soldier primarily
relies on physical strength. Meeting their own
limitations in practicing bias-awareness enables
participants to see and experience the structur-
al undercurrents that guide, facilitate, and inhibit
their organizational behavior. The practice ele-
ment thus initiates an in-depth refl ection on or-
ganizational norms and their performative power
(Butler 1990, 2011/1993), thereby addressing the
second shortcoming highlighted in the literature
review, namely the (lack of) acknowledgment of
structural constraints on actions in each specifi c
organizational context.
4. Action
A fi nal element, called action, translates insights
from the workshop into the participants’ organi-
zational contexts. Many of the exercises through-
out the workshop focus on the participants’ own
workplaces and organizations to allow them to
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
99Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
translate their learning into a relevant context.
Extending that approach, the fi nal part of the
workshop facilitates the development of an idea
catalog with norm-critical, bias-aware solutions
for the participants’ organizational challenges.
The selected ideas, after being assessed for their
norm-critical potential, inherent biases, context
relevance, and feasibility, are described in more
detail by using an idea form that we developed
as workshop material for this purpose. The goal
is for participants to leave the workshop with a
list of possible norm-critical solutions, including
an outline of how to feasibly test their implemen-
tation in their respective organizational contexts.
This fi nal step addresses the third short-
coming in the literature—the lack of concrete
organizational action points as part of inter-
ventions. To overcome this weakness, we cre-
ate space within the workshop format for par-
ticipants to develop specifi c action points that
need to be initiated so as to foster collective
responsibility for changing the organization-
al processes and structures that enable biased
behavior to persist. To return to the example of
Danish Defence, one group developed the idea of
a norm-critical training program to discuss and
refl ect upon gendered norms permeating the mil-
itary work setting. The training program included
elements such as weekly refl ection sessions for
all soldiers and feedback loops between the Dan-
ish Ministry of Defence, the military base com-
mander, an equality offi cer, individual units, and
groups. Leveraging their existing connections to
some of those contributors, the participants de-
veloped a time plan that included direct action
that they could initiate tomorrow, medium-term
goals to be implemented incrementally within the
next year, and some action points to be run con-
tinuously (Stockholm, April 5, 2019). The action
part is thus aimed at making it more feasible for
participants to follow up on the insights gained
in the workshop through concrete action within
their organizational contexts.
Concluding discussion: Toward a
structural understanding of bias
and a norm-critical approach to bias
intervention in organizations
In answering the overall research question of how
we may counter unconscious bias at a structur-
al-organizational level of norms that is beyond in-
dividual attitudes and behavior, this article offers
two overall contributions to unconscious bias
research and intervention in organizations. First,
we have provided an empirically grounded con-
ceptualization of an organizational bias interven-
tion that is anchored within a norm-critical under-
standing of unconscious bias. This means that
it is aimed at critically examining and changing
organizational norms that enable and encourage
biased behavior rather than being primarily aimed
at reducing individual unconscious bias. It is im-
portant to note that we do not wish to dismiss in-
dividual responsibility in organizational contexts.
The individuals taking part in the intervention are
encouraged and enabled to question critically and
disrupt organizational norms that are found to re-
produce biases and create exclusionary effects.
Yet we maintain that an individualized perspective
in which a change of individual attitudes or behav-
iors is deemed suffi cient for structural change dis-
regards the anchoring of inequality problems and
discrimination in organizational norms and thus
impedes success. Instead, we suggest rethinking
individual responsibility to account for the organ-
izational positioning of the individuals involved.
That is, it should not be up to the diversity subjects
(Ahmed 2004; Wiggins-Romesburg and Githens
2018) to create the needed progress. Change
needs to include participants in majority positions
(Christensen 2018, 2020) because organizational
norms are continuously produced—often uncon-
sciously (Plotnikof and Graack-Larsen 2018)—by
the people who make up the organization. It is
equally important that individuals who have more
power and leverage in the organization, such as
managers and leaders, be held accountable for
the structural changes that are needed to avoid
biased behavior.
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
100Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
As a second contribution, we extended
Devine et al. (2012) and Forscher et al.’s (2017)
bias intervention model by integrating a norm-crit-
ical perspective. Failing to take organizational
structures into account might be a possible rea-
son for the absence of clear empirical results in
the previous studies using the said model. By in-
tegrating a refl ection on normative organizational
processes and practices into our developed inter-
vention, we aim to overcome the bias toward in-
dividualization found in Devine et al. (2012) and
many other current antibias interventions. We
maintain that organizational bias interventions
need to be anchored within a norm-critical under-
standing of organizations to account for the effect
of organizational norms on individual biased be-
havior. Thus, by arguing alongside and extending
Devine et al.’s (2012) conceptualization, we assert
that biased behavior may be discouraged through
a combination of:
Awareness of unconscious bias and how it is
structurally reproduced;
Concern about its effects on an individual and
structural-organizational level of processes,
practices, and routines;
Learning about the normative contexts and
situations that activate biases;
Gaining knowledge and practical experience
of how to apply norm-critical strategies that
change the relevant organizational norms in
those specifi c contexts and situations.
The underlying idea of the developed intervention
is therefore not primarily to reduce or eliminate
individual unconscious bias, as has been the am-
bition of and measure for success in much (if not
most) research on unconscious bias training thus
far. Rather, we seek to work toward organization-
al behavior becoming less biased. To that end,
awareness is used solely to identify where action
should be directed. As Muhr (2019) indicated, bias
is only blocked by action, not by awareness. In oth-
er words, we advance the critical insight put forth
by Dobbin and Kalev (2018), Noon (2018), and
others that mere awareness of the existence of
biases is inadequate for fostering organizational
change. We further argue that interventions need
to foster change within the organizational context
so that biased behavior is prevented from kicking
in. The workshop format proposed and described
in this article provides one possible way of imple-
menting such an intervention.
Limitations and implications for
future research
As stated at the beginning of this article, the
developed intervention is a proposition for how
to address the three limitations identifi ed in the
existing literature to advance unconscious bias
training. While the development is empirically
grounded, we cannot claim to have proved that
this new workshop format is more effective in re-
ducing discrimination in organizations or increas-
ing the number of underrepresented minorities.
Providing such proof has not been our aim. For
future research, we, therefore, encourage other
scholars to adopt and, if necessary, adapt our
proposed workshop format to test the impact of
the intervention. To that end, we see fi t to revert
to our initial critique in this article regarding how
the effectiveness of bias interventions has fre-
quently been reduced to a measure of short-term
change in individual unconscious bias according
to one measured category (e.g. race, gender, or
sexuality). While it is beyond the scope of this ar-
ticle to suggest how best to measure the impact
of our proposed model for intervention, we hope
that our description of the experimental approach
to developing the workshop format will inspire
equally inventive ways of measuring its success.
Such work could be conducted alongside testing
the intervention in other organizational contexts
and areas of inequality, as called for by Chang
et al. (2019). While the workshops we conduct-
ed primarily targeted gender bias, we suggest
broadening the focus of the intervention to tack-
le unconscious biases norm-critically in relation
to, for example, race and racialization, sexuality,
or class and explicitly addressing how they relate
intersectionally (Hvenegård-Lassen, Staunæs and
Lund 2020; Rodriguez et al. 2016).
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
101Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Acknowledgments
In addition to the project partners already men-
tioned in the article, we would also like to ac-
knowledge and give thanks to our colleagues Ea
Høg Utoft and Jette Sandager who both provided
constructive feedback on an earlier version of this
article. We are also grateful for the anonymous re-
viewers’ thorough comments and for our ongoing
conversations with the guest editors—all of which
helped us improve this manuscript.
Author biographies
Bontu Lucie Guschke is a PhD Fellow at Copenha-
gen Business School, Department of Organization.
Her research centers on harassment and discrim-
ination in contemporary organizational work set-
tings. Empirically, she works with data from Dan-
ish universities. Her focus lies within the research
fi eld of feminist and anti-racist critical organiza-
tion studies, including perspectives from queer
and Black feminist theories. Bontu is also part of
Copenhagen Business School’s Diversity and Dif-
ference Platform and works on research projects
in the area of gender and sexuality studies, includ-
ing intersectional perspectives and norm-critical
approaches to diversity work.
Jannick Friis Christensen is a Postdoctoral Re-
searcher at Copenhagen Business School and
Theme Lead for Gender and Sexuality in the CBS
Diversity and Difference Platform. Focusing on
norm-critical approaches to organizing and re-
searching diversity, Jannick has in recent years
studied conventional work organizations from
queer perspectives in collaboration with Danish
labor unions. He also engages with alternative or-
ganizations, for example Roskilde Festival, where
he explores the phenomenon of transgressive be-
havior, as well as practices for creating diverse
and inclusive volunteer communities. His current
project investigates the civil religious public ritu-
al of Copenhagen 2021 World Pride and its wid-
er socially integrative potential through corporate
collaboration.
Notes
1 For this article, we use the terms unconscious and implicit bias interchangeably in line with the prefer-
ences of the authors cited. Differentiating between these terms is not relevant to our argument.
2 See Project Implicit [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/aboutus.html].
3 Such training goes by many names, including awareness training, diversity training, unconscious bias
training, and antibias training. We do not distinguish between these terms in this article.
4 Visit [https://www.cbs.dk/en/knowledge-society/areas/diversity-and-difference/research-and-activi-
ties/networks-and-projects/learn-engage-create-with-genderlab-a-research-based-tool] for more infor-
mation on the research project, which was funded by Nordic Information on Gender—a cooperation
body under the Nordic Council of Ministers.
5 Link to dissemination report [https://www.cbs.dk/fi les/cbs.dk/genderlab_dissemination_report_1.pdf].
6 Out of the 77 participant responses, 27 were from the workshop held in Copenhagen on March 8, 9
were from Copenhagen in April, 20 from Stockholm, and 21 from Helsinki.
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
102Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Literature
Acker, J. 2006. Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society. 20 (4),
441-464.
Agerström, J. and Rooth, D. O. 2009. Implicit Prejudice and Ethnic Minorities: Arab-Muslims in Sweden. In-
ternational Journal of Manpower. 30 (1/2), 43-55.
Agerström, J. and Rooth, D. O. 2011. The Role of Automatic Obesity Stereotypes in Real Hiring Discrimina-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology. 96 (4), 790-805.
Ahmed, S. 2004. Declarations of Whiteness: The Non-performativity of Anti-racism. Borderlands. 3 (2),
n.p.
Ahmed, S. 2009. Embodying Diversity: Problems and Paradoxes for Black Feminists. Race Ethnicity and
Education. 12 (1), 41-52.
Ahonen, P., Tienari, J., Merilä inen, S. and Pullen, A. 2013. Hidden Contexts and Invisible Power Relations:
A Foucauldian Reading of Diversity Research. Human Relations. 67 (3), 263-286.
Applebaum, B. 2008. White privilege/White complicity: Connecting “Benefi ting From” to “Contributing To.”.
Philosophy of Education Yearbook. 292-300.
Applebaum, B. 2019. Remediating Campus Climate: Implicit Bias Training Is Not Enough. Studies in Phi-
losophy and Education. 38, 129-141.
Arifeen, S. R. and Syed, J. 2020. The challenges of fi tting in: An intersectional framing of minority ethnic
women managers’ career experiences in the UK. Personnel Review. 49 (5), 1194–1211.”
Ashcraft, K. L. 2013. The Glass Slipper: “Incorporating” Occupational Identity in Management Studies. The
Academy of Management Review. 38 (1), 6-31.
Ashcraft, K. L. and Muhr, S. L. 2018. Coding Military Command as a Promiscuous Practice? Unsettling the
Gender Binaries of Leadership Metaphors. Human Relations. 71 (2), 206-228.
Banse, R., Seise, J. and Zerbes, N. 2001. Implicit Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: Reliability, Validity, and
Controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie. 48 (2), 145-160.
Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Klick, J., Mellers, B., Mitchell, G. and Tetlock, P. E. 2009. Strong Claims and Weak
Evidence: Reassessing the Predictive Validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology. 94 (3), 567-82.
Braun, S., Stegmann, S., Bark, A.S.H., Junker, N.M. and van Dick, R. 2017. Think Manager—Think Male,
Think Follower—Think Female: Gender Bias in Implicit Followership Theories. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology. 47 (7), 377-388.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D. and Vaslow, J. B. 2000. Just Doing Business: Modern Racism
and Obedience to Authority as Explanations for Employment Discrimination. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes. 81 (1), 72-97.
Brown, T. 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. 86 (6), 84-92.
Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. 2010. Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
[Online]. [Accessed October 12, 2020]. Available from: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_
for_social_innovation#
Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues. 8 (2). 5-21.
Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. 2011/1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York: Routledge.
Christensen, J. F. 2018. Queer Organising and Performativity: Towards a Norm-Critical Conceptualisation
of Organisational Intersectionality. Ephemera – Theory & Politics in Organization. 18 (1), 103-30.
Christensen, J. F. 2020. Weird Ways of Normalizing: Queering Diversity Research Through Norm Critique.
In: Just, S.N., Risberg, A. and Villesè che, F. eds. The Routledge Companion to Organizational Diversity
Research Methods. London: Routledge, 59-72.
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
103Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Christensen, J. F., Guschke, B. L., Storm, K. I. L. and Muhr, S. L. 2021. The Norm of Norms in HRM Re-
search: A Review and Suggestions for Future Studies. Human Resource Management Review. Online
fi rst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100859.
Christensen, J. F., Mahler, R. and Teilmann-Lock, S. 2020. GenderLAB: Norm-critical De-
sign Thinking for Gender Equality and Diversity. Organization. Online fi rst. https://doi.
org/10.1177%2F1350508420961528.
Christensen, J. F. and Muhr, S. L. 2019. H(a)unting quotas: An Empirical Analysis of the Uncanniness of
Gender Quotas. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization. 19 (1), 77-105.
Chamorro-Preuzic, T. 2019. Why Do so Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (And How to Fix It). Bos-
ton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Chang, E. H., Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D. M., Rebele, R. W., Massey, C., Duckworth, A. L. and Grant, A. M.
2019. The Mixed Effects of Online Diversity Training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America. 116 (16), 7778-7783.
Cohen, L. and El-Sawad, A. 2007. Lived Experience of Offshoring: An Examination of UK and Indian Fi-
nancial Service Employees’ Accounts of Themselves and One Another. Human Relations. 60 (8), 1235-
1262.
Collins, P. H. 2000. Black Feminist Thought. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Correll, S. J. 2017. Reducing Gender Biases in Modern Workplaces: A Small Wins Approach to Organiza-
tional Change. Gender & Society. 31 (6), 725-750.
Correll, J., Park, B. and Smith, J. A. 2008. Colorblind and Multicultural Prejudice Reduction Strategies in
High-Confl ict Situations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 11 (4), 471-491.
Crisp, R. J. and Beck, S. R. 2005. Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Moderating Role of Ingroup Identifi cation.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 8 (2), 173-186.
Dasgupta, N. and Asgari, S. 2004. Seeing is Believing: Exposure to Counterstereotypic Women Leaders
and its Effects on the Malleability of Automatic Gender Stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology. 40, 642-658.
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J. and Cox, W. T. L. 2012. Long-term Reduction in Implicit Race
Bias: A Prejudice Habit-breaking Intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (6), 1267-
1278.
Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. 2018. Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Aca-
demia. Anthropology Now. 10 (2), 48-55.
Dobbin, F., Kalev, A. and Kelly, E. 2007. Diversity Management in Corporate America. Contexts. 6 (4), 21-
27.
Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P. and Esses, V. M. 2010. Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination:
Theoretical and Empirical Overview. In: Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P. and Esses, V. M. eds. The
SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. London: SAGE, 3-28.
Duguid, M. M. and Thomas-Hunt, M. C. 2015. Condoning Stereotyping? How Awareness of Stereotyping
Prevalence Impacts Expression of Stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 100 (2), 343-359.
Ellemers, N. 2014. Women at Work: How Organizational Features Impact Career Development. Policy In-
sights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1 (1), 46-54.
Elsbach, K. D. and Stigliani, I. 2018. Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework
for Future Research. Journal of Management. 44 (6), 2274-306.
Emerson, J. 2017. Don’t Give Up on Unconscious Bias Training – Make It Better. Harvard Business Review.
[Online]. [Accessed October 25, 2020]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2017/04/dont-give-up-on-uncon-
scious-bias-training-make-it-better
Forscher, P. S., Mitamura, C., Dix, E. L., Cox, W. T. L. and Devine, P. T. 2017. Breaking the Prejudice Habit:
Mechanisms, Timecourse, and Longevity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 72, 133-146.
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
104Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Gawronski, B., Deutsch R., Mbirkou, S., Seibt, B. and Strack, F. 2008. When “Just Say No” Is not Enough: Af-
fi rmation versus Negation Training and the Reduction of Automatic Stereotype Activation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. 44 (2), 370-377.
Ghorashi, H. and Ponzoni, E. 2014. Reviving Agency: Taking Time and Making Space for Rethinking Diver-
sity and Inclusion. European Journal of Social Work. 17 (2), 161-174.
Gilmore, S. and Kenny, K. 2015. Work-worlds Colliding: Self-refl exivity, Power and Emotion in Organization-
al Ethnography.Human Relations. 68 (1), 55-78.
Girod, S., Fassiotto, M., Grewal, D., Ku, M. C., Sriram, N., Nosek, B. A. and Valentine, H. 2016. Reducing Im-
plicit Gender Leadership Bias in Academic Medicine With an Educational Intervention. Academic Medi-
cine. 91 (8), 1143-1150.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., Schwartz, J. L. K. 1998. Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cog-
nition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74 (6), 1464-1480.
Greenwood, D. J. and Levin, M. 2007. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Henriksson, A. 2017. Norm-critical Rationality: Emotions and the Institutional Infl uence of Queer Resist-
ance. Journal of Political Power. 10 (2), 149-165.
Holck, L. 2018. Unequal by Structure: Exploring the Structural Embeddedness of Organizational Diversity.
Organization. 25 (2), 242-259.
Holck, L. and Muhr, S. L. 2017. Unequal Solidarity? Towards a Norm-critical Approach to Welfare Logics.
Scandinavian Journal of Management. 33 (1), 1-11.
Hvenegård-Lassen, K., Staunæs, D. and Lund. R. 2020. Intersectionality, Yes, but How? Approaches and
Conceptualizations in Nordic Feminist Research and Activism. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and
Gender Research. 28 (3), 173-182.
Janssens, M. and Zanoni, P. 2014 Alternative Diversity Management: Organizational Practices Fostering
Ethnic Equality at Work. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 30 (3), 317-331.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. and Kelly, E. 2006. Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Effi cacy of Corpo-
rate Affi rmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review. 71, 589-617.
Kalpazidou Schmidt, E. and Cacace, M. 2019. Setting up a Dynamic Framework to Activate Gender Equali-
ty Structural Transformation in Research Organizations. Science and Public Policy. 46 (3), 321-338.
Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K. A. and Friedman, R. A. 2004. Backlash Toward
Diversity Initiatives: Examining the Impact of Diversity Program Justifi cation, Personal and Group Out-
comes. The International Journal of Confl ict Management. 15 (1), 77-102.
Marvel, J. D. 2016. Unconscious Bias in Citizens’ Evaluations of Public Sector Performance. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory. 26 (1), 143-158.
McIntosh, P. 2020. White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspond-
ences Through Work in Women’s Studies (1988). In: McIntosh. P. ed.On Privilege, Fraudulence, and
Teaching as Learning: Selected Essays 1981–2019. New York: Routledge, 17-28.
Mcintosh, P., Kimmel, M. S. and Ferber, A. L. 2017. White Privilege and Male Privilege. In: Mcintosh, P.,
Kimmel, M. S. and Ferber, A. L. eds. Privilege: A Reader. New York: Routledge, 28-40.
Muhr, S. L. 2019. Ledelse af køn. Hvordan kønstereotyper former kvinders og mænds karrierer. En bog om
barrierer og nye strategier. Copenhagen: Djøf Forlag.
Murray, B. 2016. The Unconscious Bias Trap: How Misconceptions About Unconscious Bias Can Trip Up
Any Business. Effective Executive. 19 (4), 20-26.
Nkomo, S. and Hoobler, J. M. 2014. A Historical Perspective on Diversity Ideologies in the United States:
Refl ections on Human Resource Management Research and Practice. Human Resource Management
Review. 24 (3), 245-257.
Bontu Lucie Guschke &
Jannick Friis Christensen
105Women, Gender & Research
From individual to organizational bias: A norm-critical proposition
for unconscious bias intervention in organizations
No. 3 2021
Noon, M. 2018. Pointless Diversity Training: Unconscious Bias, New Racism and Agency. Work, Employ-
ment and Society. 32 (1), 198-209.
Plotnikof, M. and Graack-Larsen, J. 2018. Case om normkritisk pædagogik og ledelse – pædagogisk ar-
bejde med (u)lige deltagelsesmuligheder. Lederliv. 3 December, 1-8.
Quillan, L. 2006. New Approaches to Understanding Racial Prejudice and Discrimination. Annual Review
of Sociology. 32, 299-328.
Rodriguez, J. K., Holvino, E., Fletcher, J. K. and Nkomo, S. M. 2016. The Theory and Praxis of Intersection-
ality in Work and Organisations: Where do we go from here? Gender, Work and Organization. 23 (3),
201-22.
Smith, A. N., Brief, A. P. and Colella, A. 2010. Bias in Organizations. In: Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick,
P. and Esses, V. M. eds. The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. London:
SAGE, 441-456.
Staunæs, D. 2017. Grøn af misundelse, rød af skam, og hvid som uskylden – (post)psykologiske tanker
om nye motivationsteknologier, følelsesøkonomi og affi rmativ normkritik. Lederliv. 12 December, 1-24.
Steffens, M. C. 2004. Is the Implicit Association Test Immune to Faking? Experimental Psychology. 51 (3),
165-179.
Sullivan, S. 2006. Revealing Whiteness: The Unconscious Habits of Racial Privilege. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Tate, S. A. and Page, D. 2018. Whiteliness and Institutional Racism: Hiding Behind (Un)conscious Bias.
Ethics and Education. 13 (1), 141-155.
Warnecke, T. 2016. Capabilities, Human Development, and Design Thinking: A Framework for Gender-sen-
sitive Entrepreneurship Programs. Review of Social Economy. 74 (4), 420-430.
Wiggins-Romesburg, C. A. and Githens, R. P. 2018. The Psychology of Diversity Resistance and Integra-
tion. Human Resource Development Review. 17 (2), 179-198.
Yanow, D. 2012. Organizational Ethnography Between Toolbox and World- making. Journal of Organiza-
tional Ethnography. 1 (1), 31-42.
