Calling out bias, a form of allyship, involves labeling a biased action (e.g., “That is sexist!”) and pointing it out as unacceptable (“That’s not OK!”). It is often considered essential to ending discrimination. Calling out can educate a colleague about their biases and reduce future instances of biased behavior. Allies who call out bias are often upheld as courageous fighters who combat injustice.
But is calling out the most effective form of allyship? My team’s years of scientific research using a variety of experiments, surveys, and interviews with thousands of leaders and employees paints a nuanced picture. Sometimes, calling out bias can cause unintended harm to the marginalized people allies are trying to support, to the allies themselves, as well as to their organization’s culture. If we aren’t careful and calling out is the first tool we reach for, we risk overusing it, and this has limited effectiveness in improving inclusive behaviors in the long term. Instead, it may breed guilt, shame, polarization, and hostility.
Calling Out Feels Heroic. That’s Part of the Problem
Calling out can sometimes appear uncannily similar to saviorism, which matches the stereotype and patriarchal narrative of a powerful and courageous hero fighting injustice. Yet our research shows that calling out an individual’s bias is no more effective than many other non-confrontational forms of allyship.
Although experiencing righteous indignation is natural in the face of injustice, don’t jump into calling out bias because you are enraged or want to vent your own emotions. It may be tempting to do so, because as our research shows, when allies call out bias from a sense of indignation, they are more likely to be perceived by others as sincere. The problem, however, is that this validation from others can trap allies into making outrage a habit and overusing call-outs even when it fails to be effective. Be mindful about how you are supporting the victim, so you don’t inadvertently do more harm than good.
Plus, some of us may—knowingly or unknowingly—be motivated to call out bias for our own personal gain, especially if allies are revered in our environment. Performative allyship not only harms victims, but also fuels others’ cynicism toward equity and inclusion efforts.
Calling Out May Be a Poster Child of Allyship, but Few Do It. That Might Be Wise
Even though calling out is seen as the poster child of what allyship looks like, our research shows that many people freeze when they believe they need to call out bias to be a good ally. For instance, even among men who strongly value gender equity, only a third can see themselves calling out discrimination. Further, they believe that calling out bias is justified only when a transgression is particularly egregious in the context of their organization. In contrast, over 90%, that is, most men who value gender equity, are willing to engage in non-confrontational forms of allyship — which, importantly, our research shows are even more effective in supporting victims of injustice. Besides, for those who are not skilled at calling out bias effectively, utilizing non-confrontational approaches might carry the fewest unintended negative side-effects.
When Leaders Call Out Bias, It Elicits Strong Reactions
Studies on reward and punishment show that when criticism feels harsh and punitive, it evokes defensiveness, shame, withdrawal, and surface-level compliance rather than long-term learning. And it hurts relationships. We can expect similar reactions if being called out feels harsh and punitive.
This appears to be the case even when people observe leaders who call out others’ bias. Our research shows that they tend to have one of two strong reactions. While some observers voice their own support for the victim of bias on whose behalf their leader called out bias, others lash out and blame the victim, even though they had nothing to do with the leader-ally’s decision to call out. Further, when leaders call out bias, some observers intensify their support for the transgressor and attempt to justify or condone their biased behavior. The leader-allies are also likely to be criticized for ‘going too far’. Ultimately, after this kind of pushback, many well-intentioned leaders and employees—including marginalized ones—may hesitate to speak up about injustice in the future.
As a leader or manager, consider the kinds of allyship behaviors you want to model for the observers in your environment. How observers perceive different allyship interventions is a relevant consideration for leaders who want to normalize and scale up allyship.
Toxic Environments Breed Toxic Call-Outs
Ironically, in toxic environments, where the urge to indignantly call out bias might be the strongest, it might carry the most dysfunctional consequences. So it makes sense that, as my team’s research shows, marginalized groups—particularly in toxic environments—prefer that allies prioritize advancing and promoting them over calling out individual transgressors on their behalf. So before calling out, it might be useful to first ask yourself: Can my team’s or organization’s culture handle bias call-outs productively by learning, forgiving, and establishing better behavior patterns rather than getting defensive, lashing out at the victim, or justifying the transgressor? Will calling out one person’s behavior be effective if a particular instance of bias is part of an organization-wide pattern? Or would it be more useful to address this pattern through system-wide policy or culture change? Then decide whether a different approach to allyship may be more effective.
When Is It Useful to Call Out Bias?
- If a transgression is egregious and urgent. Egregious transgressions unquestionably call for bold action to create safety. Observers are also less likely to justify or condone egregious behaviors and more likely to support the victim and ally. Importantly, when leaders do not call out egregious behaviors, they normalize them and lose the trust of their employees.
- When the “transgressor” is an organizational structure or system. When we call out individuals’ bias, we risk intensifying backlash and polarization. But calling out biased systems and structures in a de-personalized manner points to problems that leaders and employees can come together to address through values-driven action. Of note, setting realistic goals that can be accomplished in a given period of time is essential to unifying people and avoiding overwhelm or defensiveness.
- If the victim wants you to confront on their behalf. Confronting without first having a victim’s consent can pose problems. Because allies have different lived experiences than marginalized groups, allies may be blind to the impact of their confrontation. And some people may simply prefer not to be dragged into the spotlight as victims of bias because it may not be the right time for them. If you see something questionable, talk to the person you believe is affected. Asking for their consent and input before intervening can alert you to underlying toxic dynamics and prevent harm.
Allyship should not be considered a binary choice between calling out bias or being silent. Rather, a wealth of research suggests that leaders should consider calling out bias as one tool within a broader repertoire of allyship strategies such as pivoting to loudly celebrate marginalized members’ strengths. Especially during times of hostility and polarization, leaders who respond to discrimination in ways that maximize inclusion and minimize adverse effects will be most successful.
