Tackling unconscious bias at personal and staff level is an essential ingredient of ethical leadership

DAN ALLERTON, YEASMIN MORTUZA, HELEN ANDREWS, REBECCA KNOWLES AND VICKI PARRY, ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION (ASE), UK

Introduction

A strong awareness of unconscious bias is one of six signature traits of ethical leadership (Bourke and Titus, 2020). In this article, we explore how a continuous drive to identify, challenge and mitigate for bias at leadership level is an essential ingredient of ethical leadership. Few leaders would consider themselves to be ‘unethical’, yet the data shows persistent inequalities in student outcomes, staff recruitment, progression and pay (Lee et al., 2023; Worth et al., 2022). These disparities exist where biases are not challenged, and unintentional poor practice happens when ethics are assumed. Ethical leadership cannot happen by accident but must be proactively nurtured, driven and rigorously checked for. 

We unpick four common types of bias that can affect the work culture in schools, as well as affecting how teachers are recruited and promoted, namely affinity bias, gender bias, overconfidence bias and confirmation bias. We explore their relevance for school leadership teams, drawing on case studies and data trends, and then suggest strategies to identify, challenge and avoid them, providing a basis for a stronger ethical leadership team. Lastly, we discuss how fairness and equity for our young people in schools can only happen when there is fairness and equity within the school workforce. Fairly treated staff are needed to drive compassionate and equitable learning environments for students, and to create a culture in which the entire school community thrives.

Ethical principles for leadership

There is no doubt that ethics should be at the core of successful leadership. It is also important to consider the impact that this has on the school’s students and staff; as Carolyn Roberts explains in her book (2019), the measure of a leader’s success is reflected in the extent to which a child in their care can manifest the values and virtues exemplified by the adults around them. Roberts (2019, p. 33) describes the student who is ‘able to demonstrate what [they have] learned from the character of the adults around [them], selfless public servants modelling the best in character and virtue’. These words highlight the important role that educational leaders play in serving as models of ethical conduct. By living and breathing qualities such as integrity, honesty and selflessness, leaders in education can cultivate a morally sound and nurturing environment that should be highly conducive to the holistic development of students.

Roberts (2019) identifies the core principles underpinning ethical leadership as trust, wisdom, kindness, justice, service, courage and optimism. Her suggestion is that together these principles can be seen as an imagined checklist of the qualities that a school leader must strive to fulfil in order to meet the needs of their team, children and community. Roberts’ proposed principles of ethical leadership not only uphold rigorous standards but aim to develop an inclusive and supportive educational environment. It is worth noting that these closely link to the Nolan Principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 1995; also referenced in the headteachers’ standards, DfEDepartment for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England, 2020).

When we start with an ethical approach to inclusive leadership, we need to think about the attributes that a leader needs in order to be a successful inclusive leader. Bourke and Titus (2020) found that inclusive leaders share a cluster of six signature traits:

• visible commitment
• humility
• awareness of bias
• curiosity about others
• cultural intelligence
• effective collaboration.

These traits fall naturally alongside Roberts’ ethical principles (2019) and the Nolan Principles. But having an effective understanding of the traits and principles is not always sufficient; you must be aware of the pitfalls that can befall a potentially successful leader.

Impact of bias on ethical leadership

Leadership that is not driven by ethics can come from a lack of understanding and awareness of biases. Here, we focus on four biases that can affect how an organisation is run, its ethos and its culture. Mitigating for these biases allows an organisation to diversify its leadership team and change the inclusivity of the school.

Affinity bias 

This is an example of a leadership team being very similar to the headteacher. A more diverse team from different backgrounds can promote hard work, diligence and open-mindedness (Phillips, 2014). This diversityThe recognition of individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, religious beliefs and other differences should consider not only the ethnicity and gender of the team, but also (but not limited to) their academic, social, socio-economic and religious backgrounds, as well as any disabilities or neurodiversities.

In one school that an ASE inclusionAn approach where a school aims to ensure that all children are educated together, with support for those who require it to access the full curriculum and contribute to and participate in all aspects of school life consultant supported, a newly appointed headteacher had quickly replaced the leadership team with teachers who came from the same social and cultural background as them. Within a year, the leaders had launched several new initiatives to improve the school. These overwhelmed both staff and students, with rapid detrimental effects to the school’s exams results. The issue seemed to be that leaders were willing neither to challenge the headteacher’s initial ideas nor to make suggestions for better alternatives, ultimately leading to ‘groupthink’, in which polarised decision-making was constantly being reinforced. Baron (2005) explains that groupthink is actually a widespread phenomenon.

The National Education Union noted that ‘Black teachers, in particular, spoke about being labelled “troublemakers” or being viewed as “aggressive” if they challenged any decisions.’ (Haque and Elliott, 2016, p. 6) Worth et al. (2022) reported stark percentages in which teachers from all ethnic groups except White were under-represented at every stage of teaching, with representation becoming worse with seniority. This highlights some of the unacceptable consequences of bias. 

It is important for leaders to consider how the local community and student population are reflected in its leadership and whose voices may be missing. If it is not possible to recruit (due to a lack of diversity in the available pool), can they be found in governors, parents, local community leaders or through student voice? A strong ethical leadership in a school will be aware of potential blind spots and will actively look to hear from those who are missing, they will welcome constructive challenge and they will actively promote diversity of thinking.

Gender bias

A bias of this kind is evident when a leader favours one gender over the others. This bias happens when a person unintentionally links specific preconceptions with various genders. The gender pay gap is sustained by gender biases, which negatively impact on prospects for advancement and growth. Between 2010 and 2020, there was a strong male bias in school leadership. Men were in the minority in the teaching population (14 per cent in primary and a third in secondary) but then relatively over-represented at headteacher level (26 per cent in primary and 59 per cent in secondary) (DfE, 2022). The Royal Society (2015) has a short blog and animation that explains how to avoid implicit bias distorting the outcomes of selection processes.

Overconfidence bias

Leaders may believe that they are best at specific skills and competencies. An aspect of human psychology is that we have more subjective confidence in our judgments than an objective evaluation would support. 

Kassiani Nikolopoulou (2023) suggests steps that can be used to keep overconfidence bias in check and avoid misleading evaluations. These include:

• Perform a ‘premortem’ on your decisions. Imagine that your decision led to a negative outcome and work backwards, thinking of all the possible reasons why this might have occurred. 
• Ask for feedback and seek out viewpoints that come from a different background to your own. Hearing other people’s perspectives can help you to identify areas where you may need improvement. 
• Learn from your mistakes. When a decision doesn’t work the way in which you hoped, evaluate your decision-making process. This will lead you to better-informed decisions and shield you from being overly optimistic in the future.

Confirmation bias

Leaders risk seeking out or interpreting new information in ways that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs. This makes it simpler for leaders to trust individuals and information that align with their own values and beliefs and more challenging to trust those who do not. Eventually, this might lead to unfair interpretations of information and neglecting information with conflicting perspectives.

One case study shows an inner-city school judging between two candidates for a job promotion. Candidate A met the job criteria much better than Candidate B. When choosing between the two candidates, the school ended up offering the job to Candidate B. The senior leaders had not realised that they had used confirmation bias to make their decision. Candidate A was rejected because, despite being a highly experienced and skilled teacher, they challenged the thinking of the interview panel, forcing them to re-evaluate their beliefs. Conversely, Candidate B (the less skilled and experienced of the two) was offered the promotion because their overall lack of experience and skills was interpreted as a positive thing – they would arrive in the role with no prior ‘bad habits’ and they could be moulded more readily to the preconceived thinking of the leadership group.

All employers should be able to evidence their compliance with the public sector equality duty (s. 149) and Equality Act (2010), which places a legal responsibility to have strategies in place to avoid bias that can lead to discrimination. For example, in recruitment, preferred qualities for the job should be pre-identified and made transparent to all concerned. A candidate can be scored accordingly, replacing human judgement with a formula (Kahneman, 2012). The decision panel should be as diverse and representative as possible, to ensure that there is a breadth of expertise and experience present to challenge assumptions and decisions.

Conclusion

True meritocracy can only happen under ethical leadership. Without it, not every student would be accessing the best possible education and we would not be placing the best teachers in the best roles. This would be both inefficient and unfair. Inclusive leadership at all levels requires the core ethical principles of trust, wisdom, kindness, justice, service, courage and optimism, and the overlapping Nolan Principles, but these are not sufficient on their own. Leaders need to have the following traits: a visible commitment to diversity of people and diversity of thinking; humility; awareness of their own biases; curiosity about others; cultural intelligence; and effective collaboration. With these traits and principles and a strong awareness of the many biases that our subconscious mind applies to our thinking, leaders can become truly inclusive in their decision-making and actions.