8. The Bias Hiding in “Neutral” Systems

By Michele Manocchi

R&D Consultant | EDI Strategist | SDG + ESG Integration Advocate

“We treat everyone the same here.”

“We hire based on merit.”

“We just want the most qualified person for the job.”

Do these phrases sound familiar? If so, I have another question for you:

Are they familiar because you think your organization is successfully implementing those behaviours, or because you see how much the lack of awareness in your work environment reproduces daily discrimination and hampers innovation and belonging?

Every experience is subjective, and I don’t want to make unfounded generalizations. However, based on my experience as a consultant, these two very opposite positions are almost always present. And they rarely communicate!

The main issue here is that without open communication and courageous conversations on these topics, the dominant group’s position will always prevail. The lack of dialogue creates an illusion that everything is fine, while allowing the dominant group’s framework to go unchallenged and reinforcing the myth of neutrality.

A few examples.

When we assess fit based on whether someone “feels right” or “fits the culture,” we might actually be favouring shared backgrounds, accents, schools, hobbies, or social norms. This creates homogeneity disguised as meritocracy.

During performance reviews, what counts as “leadership,” “initiative,” or “collaboration” often reflects dominant expectations about communication, confidence, and assertiveness — disadvantaging neurodivergent staff, racialized employees, and others who may express excellence differently.

During meetings and decision-making moments, if input is only valued when shared aloud, we promote extroversion and English fluency. If ideas are only legitimized when a senior leader repeats them, we uphold hierarchy and the status quo.

The unexpected challenge for the dominant group here is that equity can’t be simply added on — it must be integrated from the start. You can’t just "train your way out” of biased systems. Bias training might be useful, but only when combined with system redesign.

So, even if your organization can attract diverse talent through excellent advertisements and job postings, biased systems will push them out or hold them back.

What do we mean by “systems”? “Systems” refer to routines, norms, tools, and unspoken rules that shape decision-making and how people achieve success. These include hiring practices, promotion criteria, performance evaluation tools, conflict resolution procedures, decision-making norms, and leadership development pipelines. Most of these weren’t created with equity in mind. As a result, they often replicate exclusion, even without anyone “intending” harm.

These systems will harm you, as talented and valuable employees will leave for more inclusive competitors, your reputation will decline, and partners and clients will seek alternatives.

What can you do?

First and foremost, act intentionally and take initiative.

• Review job postings, scorecards, and interview practices for exclusionary language and norms. Ask yourself: What outcomes do our current systems consistently produce? What is your “ideal” candidate? Why so?

• Reevaluate how success is defined and rewarded. Who designed the processes, and for whom?

• Incorporate feedback loops from marginalized voices to identify where processes are falling short for them. Where do disparities arise, and why?

• Eliminate arbitrary gatekeeping standards that don’t genuinely predict success. How can we co-create more inclusive, accurate, and responsive systems?

Let’s Talk

Where could “neutral” systems be lacking for your team?

How can your organization evaluate its key people processes for fairness?

What minor adjustments could spark widespread change?

Let’s explore together. Leave a comment or message me for a diagnostic conversation about your organization’s systems and their impact on equity, diversity, and belonging.

Book a free 30-minute meeting, and we can discuss your needs.