Managerial Perspectives on Implicit Bias, Affirmative Action, and Merit

• Author: Sue Williamson,Meraiah Foley
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12955

Managerial Perspectives on Implicit Bias, Aff‌irmative Action, and Merit 35

Abstract: Public sector organizations concerned about gender inequality have increasingly sought to address the

effect of implicit biases on merit-based employment practices through bias training and affirmative action programs.

Applying qualitative content analysis to interviews with 104 managers in three government agencies in which bias

training and affirmative action were being implemented, the authors find that many managers acknowledge the

existence of implicit biases and their potential to create unequal employment outcomes. However, this recognition of

bias does not translate into support for affirmative action, which is seen by many managers to be an unacceptable

violation of merit. The authors argue that implicit bias training and affirmative action are unlikely to create a

cultural “tipping point” to progress gender equality without a critical reassessment of merit.

Evidence for Practice

• Public sector organizations concerned about the potentially discriminatory effects of implicit biases are

increasingly taking steps to raise awareness about the effects of these biases on merit-based employment

decisions.

• Public sector managers largely accept that implicit biases exist and can unfairly influence merit-based

employment processes. When faced with affirmative action as a remedy for bias, however, many managers

reassert the primacy of merit.

• Educating public sector managers about implicit biases should be coupled with a critical reassessment of

merit, complemented by a reevaluation and reconfiguration of key human resource practices.

Public sector organizations around the world

have sought to redress persistent gender

inequality in their ranks, characterized by the

underrepresentation of women in senior management

roles (OECD 2014), occupational gender segregation

(Riccucci 2009), and a gender pay gap (Rabovsky

and Lee 2017). Although women in many countries

achieve education levels equal to or higher than men

(European Commission 2010) and hold a significant

proportion of public sector jobs (OECD 2014, 99),

gender inequality remains entrenched, challenging

long-held beliefs about the application of merit in

public sector employment.

Merit is a pillar of many modern bureaucracies, both

philosophically (Sager and Rosser 2009) and legally

(Podger and Chan 2015). Originally intended to

“guard against patronage, bias, and any other undue

influence” (APSC 2015, 42), merit has increasingly

been interpreted as “getting the best person for

the job” (Godwin 2011, 320). This modern

conceptualization of merit holds that individuals

should be rewarded according to their skills and

capabilities, irrespective of gender, race, or other

demographic characteristics (Scully 1997). Proponents

of merit argue that it gives everyone an equal chance

to succeed and is the fairest way to build an effective

bureaucracy (Hausser 2013; Ingraham 2006).

Despite this promise, decades of merit-based

employment have failed to produce gender equity

in the public sector, prompting renewed inquiries

about the sources of inequality (Riccucci 2009). An

increasingly common explanation is that women

face routine discrimination arising from implicit

(or unconscious) biases, defined as attitudes or

stereotypes that affect perceptions and decisions

in a nonconscious manner (Greenwald and Banaji

1995). In recognition that such biases “may prevent

meritocratic systems from working efficiently”

(OECD 2014, 67), many governments have made

bias training a cornerstone of their diversity and

inclusion strategies. In 2016, for example, the U.S.

Office of Personnel Management directed federal

agencies to provide employees with bias training

and education, acknowledging that the “employee

life-cycle is full of potential adverse impacts resulting

from implicit biases” (2016, 4). Other governments

Managerial Perspectives on Implicit Bias, Affirmative Action,

and Merit

Meraiah Foley

Sue Williamson

University of New South Wales

Research Article

Sue Williamson is senior lecturer

in human resource management at the

University of New South Wales, Canberra,

Australia. She specializes in two main

areas of research: gender equality in

the workplace and public sector human

resources and industrial relations. She is

currently examining how public sector

organizations can create and sustain

gender equitable and inclusive cultures.

Dr.Williamson has published widely on this

topic and shares her findings with industry

partners and the community.

E-mail: s.williamson@adfa.edu.au

Meraiah Foley is a postdoctoral

research fellow with the Public Service

Research Group in the School of Business,

University of New South Wales, Canberra,

Australia. She specializes in gender equity

in organizations, with a particular focus on

the Australian public sector. Dr. Foley has

consulted to public sector organizations

at the state and federal level and is a

regular media commentator on gender and

workplace issues.

E-mail: m.foley@adfa.edu.au

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 79, Iss. 1, pp. 35–45. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12955.