Helping Employees Overcome Bias with Objectivity

Have you ever heard someone say, “He never listens to my ideas,” or “My manager always favours the same people”? Such comments are common in the workplace. Sometimes, they reflect genuine problems that deserve attention. At other times, they come from conclusions formed after one or two disappointing experiences.

The difficulty begins when people become so certain of their conclusions that they stop looking for other explanations. Our experiences, expectations and emotions influence how we interpret what happens around us. This is a natural part of human thinking. However, when those interpretations go unquestioned, they can affect how we communicate, make decisions and work with others.

For managers and leaders, helping employees develop a more objective view can make a meaningful difference to workplace relationships and collaboration.

Recognising Bias in Employees

Bias is a tendency to interpret information or make judgements in ways influenced by our existing beliefs, preferences or experiences. Everyone has biases. They are not always intentional, and they are not necessarily signs of poor judgement or bad character.

Consider an employee who believes a colleague is uncooperative. During a meeting, the colleague questions a proposal. The employee immediately interprets the question as another attempt to create difficulties. Yet the colleague may simply be seeking clarification. The employee’s existing belief has influenced how the situation is understood.

In everyday workplace conversations, there are several signs worth paying attention to:

Generalising from limited experiences

Statements such as “She always rejects my suggestions” or “Nobody in this department supports me” may indicate that individual experiences have become broad conclusions.

Assuming other people’s intentions

An employee might interpret a delayed reply as disrespect or a manager’s questions as a lack of trust, without knowing the actual reason.

Paying attention mainly to supporting evidence

Once someone believes a colleague is difficult, they may notice every disagreement while overlooking occasions when that person has been helpful.

Dismissing different viewpoints too quickly

An employee may reject another person’s explanation before considering whether it contains useful information.

These behaviours are more informative than body language or tone of voice alone. Crossed arms, silence or a sharp response can have many explanations. The manager’s responsibility is to understand what is happening before drawing conclusions about the employee’s attitude.

How Objectivity Builds Collaboration and Trust

Objectivity involves making a conscious effort to consider the available facts, examine our interpretations and remain open to information that may challenge our initial judgement.It does not mean ignoring emotions or pretending that every viewpoint is equally accurate. For example, an employee may feel disappointed after their proposal is rejected. That disappointment is real and deserves to be heard.

However, the conclusion that “My manager doesn’t value my contribution” requires further examination. Was the proposal rejected because of its content, timing, cost or business priorities? Did the manager explain the decision? Have other suggestions from the employee been accepted previously? Exploring these questions can reveal a more complete picture.

Three benefits are particularly relevant in the workplace:

Clearer communication

Employees become better able to describe specific situations instead of making sweeping statements about people.

More considered decisions

They are more likely to examine available information and alternative explanations before deciding how to respond.

Healthier working relationships

Misunderstandings become easier to address when people can discuss what happened without immediately questioning one another’s intentions.

Objectivity also requires leaders to examine their own assumptions. Employees are unlikely to feel comfortable reconsidering their views if managers have already decided who is right or wrong.

Coaching Employees from Bias to Objectivity

When an employee expresses a strongly held opinion about someone, the manager may be tempted to correct it immediately. For example:

• “You shouldn’t think that way.”
• “I’m sure your colleague didn’t mean it.”
• “You need to be more positive.”

Although these responses may be well-intentioned, they can make employees feel that their concerns are being dismissed. A coaching conversation offers a different approach. The aim is to help the employee examine their thinking, consider the available evidence and decide how to respond constructively.

1. Understand the Employee’s Experience

Begin by listening carefully. Allow the employee to explain what happened, what concerned them and why the experience mattered. Avoid agreeing with their judgement before understanding the situation. You might ask:

• “Can you walk me through what happened?”
• “What was said or done that concerned you?”

Listening gives the manager a clearer understanding of the issue and helps the employee feel heard.

2. Separate Observations from Interpretations

This is often the most useful part of the conversation. Help the employee distinguish between what they directly observed and what they concluded from it. For instance:

Observation: “My manager did not respond when I suggested a different approach during the meeting.”

Interpretation: “My manager thinks my ideas are worthless.”

The observation describes an event. The interpretation assigns meaning to it. That interpretation may eventually prove justified, but the event alone does not establish it. A useful question is: “What do you know for certain, and what are you assuming?”. This encourages the employee to examine their conclusion without feeling personally criticised.

3. Explore Other Possible Explanations

Once the employee recognises the difference between observation and interpretation, invite them to consider what else might explain the situation. Perhaps the manager was short of time. Perhaps the proposal needed more information. Perhaps there was a business constraint that had not been communicated.

These possibilities should be treated as possibilities, rather than excuses for the other person’s behaviour. Ask:

• “What other explanation could there be?”
• “What information would help you understand the situation better?”

The purpose is to broaden the employee’s perspective while remaining open to the possibility that their original concern is valid.

4. Agree on a Constructive Next Step

Reflection becomes useful when it helps the employee decide what to do. Depending on the circumstances, the next step could involve seeking clarification, arranging a conversation, checking relevant information or raising a concern through the appropriate channel.

For example, the employee might approach their manager and say: “I noticed we didn’t have time to discuss my suggestion during the meeting. Could we arrange a few minutes to review it? I’d like to understand your feedback.”

This creates an opportunity for a more productive discussion. The manager can then follow up to understand what happened and whether further support is needed.

Coaching Questions to Foster Objectivity

Managers do not need fifteen questions for every conversation. A few well-chosen questions, asked at the right moment, are often enough.

Here are five worth keeping:

1. “What actually happened?”
   Helps establish the observable facts.
2. “What are you assuming about the situation?”
   Encourages awareness of personal interpretations.
3. “What evidence supports your conclusion?”
   Helps the employee examine the basis of their judgement.
4. “What might you be overlooking?”
   Opens the conversation to additional information or perspectives.
5. “What could you do to understand the situation better?”
   Moves the discussion towards a practical next step.

These questions should support a natural conversation. Asking them mechanically or in quick succession can make the employee feel interrogated.

Managers also need to recognise when coaching alone is insufficient. If the employee describes repeated unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment or another serious workplace concern, the matter may require appropriate investigation and organisational action. Objectivity should never become a reason to dismiss legitimate complaints.

A Workplace Example: When Assumptions Affect Collaboration

Consider a project team where two departments regularly disagree over deadlines. During a planning meeting, the operations team raises concerns about a proposed delivery schedule. A colleague from the commercial team responds afterwards: “Operations always makes things difficult. They don’t want to support our plans.”

The team leader notices that this belief is beginning to affect cooperation between the departments. Rather than debating whether operations is difficult, the leader asks the employee to describe the specific objections raised during the meeting. As they review the discussion, they identify two concerns: the proposed timeline depends on information that has not been confirmed, and the operations team needs additional preparation time.

The leader then asks: “Which part of their response suggests they are unwilling to help, and which part relates to the work that needs to be done?”. This question helps the employee reconsider the situation. The commercial team may still disagree with the proposed timeline, but the discussion can now focus on the actual constraints and possible adjustments. Both departments have a clearer basis for deciding what needs to happen next.

This example illustrates an important point: a more objective perspective does not guarantee agreement. It helps people disagree more constructively.

Conclusion

Our first interpretation of a situation is not always the most accurate one. In the workplace, unchecked assumptions can influence how employees judge colleagues, respond to feedback and make decisions. Over time, these patterns can weaken communication and cooperation.

Managers can help by listening carefully, encouraging employees to examine the evidence and making room for alternative explanations. The same discipline applies to leaders themselves.

Before deciding that someone is difficult, uncooperative or unwilling to change, consider what has actually been observed and what may still be unknown. A simple question worth practising is: “Am I responding to what happened, or to what I believe happened?”. That moment of reflection can change the quality of the conversation that follows.