why do these trainings backfire? Why are white men who are asked to attend diversity trainings actually less likely to hire and promote women and minorities?
This unintended consequence can be credited, in part, to a pesky phenomenon known as moral licensing.
Diversity Trainings: Issuing Moral Licenses
To better understand where trainings go wrong, let's look at a study examining a phenomenon that confused political pundits following the 2016 election: Obama voters who voted for Trump.
Daniel Effron, a psychologist at the London School of Business, pioneered a study focused on people who publicly self-identified as supporters of Barack Obama. He found that not only did voting for Obama fail to indicate that the voters would be racially open in the future or continue to vote for progressive legislation, it could indicate the opposite—if those voters had a chance to let people know they voted for Obama.15
In two studies that yielded the same results, participants were asked to decide between equally qualified white and Black candidates to fill a hypothetical role. The participants—most of whom were white or Asian, and all of whom supported Obama—were divided into two groups. One group was allowed to openly endorse Obama before being given the study scenario. The other group wasn't.
Those who could not express their support for Obama before making a hiring decision tended to play it safe, saying that either candidate would be equally suited for the job. Those who had been allowed to openly endorse Obama before making a hiring decision were more likely to pick the white candidate for the job.
Another test explored the behaviors of those who harbored prejudice toward Black people. Effron's team used the Modern Racism Scale, which gauges people's racial attitudes, to identify participants who voted for Obama despite harboring negative feelings about Black people. These participants were given a scenario in which local government money could be given to two private organizations. One organization served a Black community, the other, a white one.
The subjects—who again were mostly white or Asian Obama supporters but who also backed Kerry in the 2004 presidential election—were split into two groups. One group was only given an opportunity to openly endorse Kerry, while the other group was only given an opportunity to endorse Obama.
When participants with more negative attitudes toward Black people, according to the Modern Racism Scale, had the opportunity to say they supported Obama, they allotted more money to the white organization than those who could only endorse Kerry.
What Effron and his team observed was a classic case of moral licensing. When those who harbored prejudicial attitudes were able to acquire moral capital by endorsing Obama, they felt more comfortable acting on prejudices that favor white people. It's the equivalent of saying “I have a Black friend” before making a statement that favors white people, to absolve oneself of the consequences of saying something prejudiced. Those who harbor prejudices feel they have more permission when saying something racially questionable, because they believe they've already proven through a different action that they're racially open.
This psychological mechanism is present in many parts of our lives, in ways that have nothing to do with race, gender, or bias. Classic examples include eating a donut because we ran an extra mile on the treadmill, or feeling okay about buying from a morally questionable but convenient business because we went to church yesterday. We provide mental loopholes for ourselves that justify certain behaviors, even if it doesn't lessen their consequences. These examples only sabotage small goals in our own lives, but moral licensing can wreak havoc in the workplace, especially following diversity trainings.
These trainings can actually amplify our tendency to morally license poor behaviors that will disproportionately impact women, people of color, and other underestimated groups. The training becomes the “good deed” we do now, that unconsciously makes us feel freer to do something less virtuous later. As we've seen in the Obama voter studies, this impulse to morally license one's own biased behaviors is even stronger in more prejudiced people—typically, the exact audience that trainings are intended for. Trainings provide an “out” for those who need the trainings the most. Employees who already hold discriminatory views feel they've earned a sense of protection from being accused of being prejudiced by acquiring their “I attended a training” certificate. They treat their accumulation of moral capital as a visible shield for themselves, rather than the beginning of a journey to becoming less biased in their behaviors.
Beyond Moral Licensing
Trainings don't work for another much simpler reason: We don't like being told what to do. Even with great diplomacy, trainers often come across as trying to police attendees' thoughts and actions. When we feel coerced into a choice or behavior, we often do just the opposite, even when we wouldn't have in any other situation, just to prove that we are our own person.
In research from the University of Toronto, subjects of a study read a brochure critiquing prejudice against Black people.16 When pressured to agree with it, participants actually strengthened their bias against Black people. When left to come to their own decisions about the reading, however, they were more inclined to agree with the critiques of prejudice.
Trainings that invite participants but allow participation to be fully voluntary have shown some promise. Those who voluntarily attend these trainings are more likely to promote Black men, Hispanic men, and Asian-American men and women. These findings don't necessarily speak to the role trainings play in countering bias, though. Participants who are willing to volunteer their time and energy to attend these trainings are probably already more comfortable with the concept of equity for underestimated groups, compared to their peers who choose not to attend.
Attending Trainings While Underestimated
The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology described white men's reactions to pro-diversity trainings and messaging as follows: “We found evidence that it not only makes white men believe that women and minorities are being treated fairly—whether that's true or not—it also makes them more likely to believe that they themselves are being treated unfairly.”17
If white men saw that diversity messaging was present before applying for or interviewing for a job, “[these] messages signaled to these white men that they might be undervalued and discriminated against. These concerns interfered with their interview performance and caused their bodies to respond as if they were under threat. Importantly, diversity messages led to these effects regardless of these men's political ideology, attitudes toward minority groups, beliefs about the prevalence of discrimination against whites, or beliefs about the fairness of the world. This suggests just how widespread negative responses to diversity may be among white men: the responses exist even among those who endorse the tenets of diversity and inclusion.”18
Underestimated employees aren't unaware of the reactions that their peers can have to diversity trainings and programming. They witness their co-workers becoming defensive or angry and worry that this friction will turn into retaliation.
Because trainers are aware of the defensiveness that white employees may feel, they often try to “tone down” the training content to avoid conflict. For many employees of color, this means having to sit through hearing their experiences being minimized or trivialized. The discrimination they've experienced becomes euphemized as “differences in perspectives,” or they are encouraged
