Access your free copy
of the full article!!!
"*" indicates required fields
Labels in Leadership
How do the labels we use make you a better Leader?
Leadership, labels and learning
Everybody – even those who consider themselves to be open minded and accepting – has bias. Some is conscious, some unconscious – but labelling people is a natural and innate behaviour, and something that we all do.
In most organisations there are processes in place to ensure that the bias that shapes who we are doesn’t negatively impact the people working with us, whether that’s in recruitment, in the day-to-day environment we work in, or in the communication between Leaders and their teams. A well-researched EDI strategy should be the basis of every organisation, and be factored into workplace processes, training and the culture in your teams – but if your bias is unconscious, how can your Leaders ensure that they aren’t harming the people they lead?
Again, even if you consider yourself to be very accepting and non-judgemental, everybody is aware of the labels we all use to ‘categorise’ and identify ourselves, and those around us. Every media platform and social network is flooded with commentary and debate on these labels, and the pros and cons of the labels we use (and how many we see so commonly) and whether or not they are helpful. You might be thinking “well I don’t label people!” – but of course you do! You may consciously work to overcome your initial thoughts or behaviours in response to those labels, but each and every one of us does it, because who we are is vital – which means that who we are in relation to others is also vital.
Let’s look at some of the most commonly used labels, and the categories they tend to fall into, to clarify what I mean: whether these labels are positive, negative or neutral will depend on your own perspective – and for the purposes of this article I’d like you to consider which you think they are, and why.
Identity and Demographics:
Gender: Man, Woman, Non-binary, Transgender, Cisgender – Nationality and Ethnicity: Black, White, Asian, European, American, British, Hispanic, Immigrant, Ex-Pat – Sexual Identity: Straight, Gay, LGBTQ+, Queer, Monogamous, Poly
Status and Occupation:
Student, Employee, Manager, Leader, Trainee, Coach, Apprentice, Unemployed, Employed, Temp, Contractor, Consultant, Retiree, Ex-convict, Teacher, Doctor, Landlord, Tenant, Resident
Health & Well-being:
Addict, Patient, Client, Coach, Therapist, Bipolar, Depressed, Anxious, Disabled, Neurotypical, Neurodivergent, Autistic, Sick, Fit, Athletic
There are, of course, countless other categories and labels that we all use without even thinking about it – but hopefully you’ve noted your initial response to those I’ve listed, and understand the way it could impact Leadership and workplace culture.
How most people feel about the most commonly used labels often depends on further social constructs and bias – some labels are seen as positive, and others as negative – though most are nothing but neutral descriptors. Whether those are seen as positive or negative changes from person to person, and depends on their own identity, the society and community they were raised in, and their own unconscious bias or perspective; what one may think is a compliment is an insult to others, and labels that are intended as neutral can never truly exist in a vacuum. Our brains are complex places, filled with neurological connections and pathways that inform how we respond – to people, to the labels they use, to the instinctive and innate way we react to those terms and to the behaviour we then model.
The questions I think we need to explore here are:
What reaction do I have to those labels, and why? How can people ensure that unconscious bias doesn’t negatively shape their Leadership? Should these labels even be used at work?
For most of us, the labels we use to identify and categorise ourselves, and to understand where we fit with others, are a mix of conscious and unconscious thought. Finding our ‘tribe’ – those who like us and are like us – is one of the most basic and fundamental human needs. Anyone who’s scrolled social media will have seen comments from both sides of this debate; those who think labels are vital, to form connections, community and to identify our own place in the world – and those who feel that too many labels actually creates more barriers, division and conflict than it does connection.
For some these labels are entirely neutral – nothing more than descriptors. But for most, the labels we use (and the connotations and opinions we hold about the label and the people we assign it to) are probably far more prevalent than you’d initially think. It’s impossible to avoid! What we can avoid, and this is especially important in Leadership, is allowing the initial and instinctive bias we might have impact the way we treat people, our behaviours, and the way we work and communicate.
Can we ever label - and therefore categorise - people without bias?
Leading People Without Labels
A lot of our Programmes include some kind of psychometric tool – an assessment, before your learning, that explores people’s traits, behaviours and personality, and how they are perceived by those around them. We look at your strengths, weaknesses, and whether you see yourself the way others around you do. That information helps us to tailor the Development, Coaching and training more effectively, shaping it to each individual and their specific needs.
There are countless tools and options for these assessments, some better than others – you’ve probably heard of things like MBTI types, 360 degree feedback, the DiSK Personality Test – and even if you’ve not done them yourself, you’ll have heard people discussing the pros and cons of using them. In most cases, they provide a brief glimpse into someone’s psychometrics and personality, and are a good place to start, and to open conversations into what Development would have the most impact on someone, on how they work, how they lead others, and how they progress.
There are various schools of thought about these psychometrics too; about their accuracy, the influence of bias on the responses, and the labels they assign in the results. As with any other labels, socially, professionally or internally, these can be positive, negative or neutral – and we all feel differently about which qualifies as what! Different clients like different tools, as do our Consultants, Coaches, Associates and the Business Psychologists who create our Programmes. The more ways humanity find to label and categorise one another, the more variants we seem to see in response.
When you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (another simplistic introduction to what becomes far more complicated psychology!) we see that, once our physical / physiological needs are met and we know that we are safe, the biggest need we all have is social. Belonging. Finding our tribe, finding those who like us and are like us, who we align with, have shared opinions, views, interests. It’s the biggest driver behind the development of the internet and social media – the need we all have to find others we fit with. For that reason, the labels we use to identify who we are, and who others are, are vital – because they’re a simple way to categorise where we all fit. That same desire is why all of these psychometric tools have evolved, why psychology and sociology are so widely studied, and why we all seek to continue our personal and social evolution. Why we learn, grow and develop.
On the other hand, in that endless drive to categorise, we also see that the labels we use to identify who is like us also clarifies who is not like us. Who is ‘other’. The downside of this is that finding our tribe can make people tribal; can build dissent, in those differences. ‘Like and unalike’ can become ‘right and wrong’ or ‘friend and not friend’ – and each category risks being walled in by people only wanting to be surrounded by those who align, who are alike, who are in the ‘right’ categories.
This is where Leaders – and Leadership Development – needs to circle back to the issue of bias, and especially unconscious bias. To establish the neutrality of the labels, and the differences they describe. To ensure that none of those labels are ranked above others – and that people from different cultures, categories, backgrounds and ‘tribes’ are all given equal and equitable access to success, progress, support and understanding.
Though the ‘labels’ are inevitable, they can’t be the sole factor in the way that any training or policy is shaped. The priority should always be your people – no matter how they identify, or how they are labelled by others.
