University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

"After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations

(USC Thesis Other)

"After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
“After a Neutral and Impartial Investigation…”:
Implicit Bias in Internal Workplace Investigations

by
Tracy A. Pearson

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Tracy A. Pearson 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Tracy A. Pearson certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Darline Robles
Meric Bloch
Cathy Sloane Krop, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Internal workplace investigators wield power in deciding the scope of an investigation, whom to
interview, what questions to ask, what documentary evidence to gather, as well as in analyzing
what the testimonial and documentary evidence means when applied to organization policies;
investigation findings can form the basis for employee discipline. The findings are justified by
relying on neutrality, or impartiality. Yet, decades of research across social and hard science
domains established that implicit bias, an unconscious obstruction to neutrality, informs thinking.
The purpose of this study was to understand, using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework, internal workplace investigators’ knowledge of implicit bias as applied to workplace
investigations and what motivates these investigators, as well as what organizational factors
reinforce or mitigate implicit bias in workplace investigations, to develop strategies or
recommendations, if implemented, that would reduce the impact of implicit bias on workplace
investigations. The study proposes a new definition of implicit bias rooted in neuroscience to
address resistance. Based on a mixed-methods design, 117 participants were surveyed on
multiple variables (prejudgment of complaints, knowledge, motivation, attitudes, organizational
factors). The survey included the SDS-17 (Stӧber, 1999, 2001) measure to quantify the degree of
social desirability to understand how likely an internal workplace investigator would be to resist
organizational pressure. Semi-structured interviews of internal workplace investigators were
used to understand the lived experience related to motivation and organizational factors. The data
identified five themes across three gap analysis areas. Three recommended strategies are
proposed, including a new conceptual model for implicit bias training.
Keywords: workplace, investigations, investigator, implicit bias, neutral

v
Dedication
To Employees, Lawyers, and Ethical Learning Organizations:
If you are one, may you never need one, because you work for one.

vi
Acknowledgments
Writing this document and advancing through various hurdles to earn this degree was like
crawling on my belly through mud, in rain and wind, uphill, trying to make it to safe territory in
one piece. Mike O’Brien’s (1990) The Things They Carried tells the stories of soldiers by what
was found in their rucksacks. Similarly, the people who carried me on this journey help to tell
my story. They are a diverse cast of characters.
When I met Michael, my partner and spouse, I never dreamed we would find ourselves
moving to Los Angeles, to begin a new life and face even half of what we were confronted with.
That was before I went back to school! There is no one else whom I would rather have sleeping
in the next room at 7 am every Saturday morning while I attended class year-round from January
2019 through August 2021. Thank you for making me coffee and, at first, leaving the house so I
could comply with the program’s expectations when we lived in a teeny-tiny WEHO apartment.
I hope this new achievement brings us both fair winds and following seas. Most importantly, I
hope this research begins a serious and sustained conversation about how to conduct
investigations and helps our brothers and sisters in the legal system make arguments that prevail.
Rossier taught me there is more than one way to effect change, and this research may create the
change in the legal system that two individual lawyers could not achieve through logic and
argument alone. Now, there is evidence.
Every dissertation committee needs a Chair, who is part coach, part therapist, part parent,
part mentor, part tutor, and part first-line editor. For all of the challenges, by the grace of God, I
caught a break when I was assigned to Dr. Cathy Sloane Krop. She was a rudder in a swift
current, steady and keeping me pointed out of irons, so I didn’t stall. I would luff from time to
time, flapping about or doing bat-turns, wondering, in panic, how to get back on course. She
gently, calmly intervened, grasped the tiller, and patiently reoriented me, keeping us moving in

vii
the direction of my destination. It was indeed a team effort. It is impossible to sufficiently thank
a person who captained the ship to take you to this destination, a goal that began in high school
but is realized some three decades later, during what was, hands down, the worst time of my life.
So, I simply, warmly, genuinely, and respectfully say, “thank you, Professor.”
There are people who, when you meet them, you feel like you have known them your
entire life. Dr. Darline Robles is that person. My dear friend and mustache enthusiast James
Concannon and I entered a pact to avoid the other’s potential committee members, with the hope
of claiming our best of the best. That is how much I wanted to have Dr. Robles serve on my
dissertation committee. To have Rossier’s associate dean of equity and inclusion on one’s
committee is a coup. Dr. Robles leads by example and disrupts normative culture by walking
into a room and without shedding who she is to take her seat at the table. As my Diversity
professor, she was instrumental in the conception of this problem of practice. Without her, it
wouldn’t have happened. It is a privilege and an honor to have been your student and to have
your counsel as I made this journey.
Meric Bloch, Esq. is a brave soul. We met at a conference in 2019 in San Diego, CA. The
lone non-academic on my committee, he didn’t pause or flinch when I asked if he would serve
on my committee as an external member. I needed an expert set of eyes and an experienced
professional to think about the field implications and applications. He brought decades of expert
investigative knowledge to the problem from a variety of different professional experiences, as
well as an equally important set of traits in this strange environment: humility, humbleness, and
curiosity. He demonstrated the core attributes of a competent leader, and he never took a class in
our program. I hope every doctoral candidate can be so fortunate to work with a professional like
Meric. I am grateful for your support and to have you not only as a committee member but also
as a colleague.

viii
In March 2020, the world was hit by a disaster: COVID-19. It upended our existence. I
huddled in my home while a microscopic virus took millions of lives. As the world grappled
with how not to become sick, how not to die, and how to continue with life from behind a
computer screen, in that order, I isolated myself with Michael to avoid the first two problems. Ss
to the latter, I was practiced. As they say in Southern California, no worries. My cohort, “Lucky
13,” was fully immersed in the world of online education and building relationships through a
webcam. It was the one area of my life that remained unchanged and stable. We would have our
ups and downs from January 2019 forward. Many would not continue the journey, opting for a
different route. The remaining original “Saturday Weekend Warriors” plodded along, some like
the tortoise (me), some like the hare, all at our own pace, in parallel to one another. We are the
Gordian Knot that managed to make it to the end, a jumbled mess, but still together from a
distance and unbreakable. We would survive group assignments, disagreements, illnesses,
medical procedures, workplace challenges, deaths, legal proceedings, divorces, multiple moves,
committee strife (well, not me), and an array of other challenges, not the least of which was
“unstable internet connection” and “you are muted.” We began our journey those early mornings
(for me, pacific time) eager and shiny. By the end, we exchanged eager and shiny for “over it,”
desperate, and maybe showered. We cheered each other on as, one by one, we FinishEd.D. We
would be deprived of a doctoral hooding, a whole-cohort photo in front of Tommy, and hugs
from our committee chairs. We banked all the hugs that will eventually be paid out with interest.
Thank you for everything you taught me, sometimes when I didn’t want or think I needed to
learn, sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident, sometimes without knowing it. Hooyah!
Hooah! Oorah! May you remain safe and healthy, and may you change the world in a
meaningful way.

ix
A special thank you to my dear classmates James Concannon, Brianne Mongeon, Nina
Tatar, Wes Parker, Carlos Cruz, and Zeke Ramirez, who deserve a special mention. When we
needed it, we kept each other afloat and made each other laugh. I do believe if the bear were
chasing one of us, the remainder would not keep running, relieved that we didn’t have to outrun
the bear, but, instead, after some loud deliberation about the best way to solve this problem, we
would turn around and with a flip flop, a copy of Clark & Estes, an unopened APA publication
manual, and anything else we could marshal, position ourselves behind Jim and Wes and make
sure, with style, that bear knew that it picked the wrong target.
Every problem of practice begins with a spark that becomes a passion, a problem that
needs solving with the willingness of someone to be seen and heard in the face of inertia, or,
worse, they are armed with a curiosity to question and courage to propose solutions. While
earning my degree, I worked as an investigator in a new office in a large organization. This new
office, created as a reaction to an external force, began with avoidable problems in two areas:
leadership and organizational change process. There was experience and knowledge offered.
There were warnings. There were solutions proposed. They were ignored. There were
predictions. They were right. It was a laboratory where I watched the worst nightmares in
organizational change in real-time. The more I learned at Rossier, the more I saw and the more I
understood how it went wrong. The irony was that knowledge and a nickel got us nowhere. This
real-life case study provided a counterpoint to the best practices I learned at USC. I try to put the
experience in perspective. Every experience teaches us who we are, who we are not, what we
will allow, what we will tolerate, and what we will stop. The experience helped me define who I
was and who I was not. It provided the inspiration for this research. When the dust finally clears
and reaction again results in what comes next, and it is for this reason I mention them here: I
want my co-workers—the investigators—to be remembered as well-meaning and hard-working

x
people, who, based on what they know, tried to do the best they could for the people relying on
their help in a dismal system where, despite their attempts to be heard, their voices and expertise
were ignored or dismissed.
A heartfelt thank you to Leivera Fonti, our cohort’s academic advisor, who herded the
cats in her care as well as one could. Special thanks, as well, to the many support staff at Rossier
and throughout the university, known and unknown, the dedicated professors and their families,
patient librarians, overworked IT professionals, Rossier’s leadership team, and all other USC
staff who contribute to our success and without which we would be at a complete loss. We didn’t
earn this achievement alone.
Finally, I want to acknowledge United States employees.The 2020–2021 pandemic
highlighted the importance of employees who are forgotten, the hourly workers on whom depend
in grocery stores, in restaurants, in retail, and for delivery services, as well as the doctors and
nurses that we, without question or another thought, expect will be there for us if we need them,
seeing them as immune to the illness that brings us to their doors. I also want to, with my
privilege and power, acknowledge disabled employees, whether the disability is visible or
invisible, I see you. You are enough and you belong.
All workers are valuable. For every person who works, there is a story, an experience,
and it left a mark, whether good or bad. Every human being deserves to be treated as an asset,
with respect, with care and afforded dignity, especially at vulnerable moments. People are
imperfect at best; they make mistakes, and, at times, they have poor judgment. Some are
motivated by the worst flaws, beliefs, and principles, and worse they aren’t aware of it and don’t
want to be aware. I hope that this research helps to change the way we address concerns raised to
power and privilege, generally, but especially for the people who have a responsibility to help
the vulnerable employee that is brave to speak. It is a privilege to lead, not a right. Leadership

xi
may be a title or class of employee in an organization, but it is better understood as a course of
conduct that is demonstrated over time. Whether one demonstrates leadership is decided by
others, not by the “leader.” Your title affords you power, privilege, and responsibility. Be
accountable to those following you. Honor yourself, as well as those who similarly occupy that
leadership space by fostering an environment that encourages and rewards employees, without
the need for courage, the ability to provide the feedback you need to hear. Encourage feedback
on an ongoing basis. Do not hide from problems, misdirect attention, provide excuses and
justifications, and especially, do not blame or excoriate the courageous human who decided that
saying nothing, that doing nothing was a worse choice than standing up and stepping forward to
be seen and have their little voice heard, and unless systemic change comes, with the knowledge
that tomorrow, it will likely be worse for disclosing a concern or for speaking truth to power.
Fight on!

At the time of the defense, Tracy A. Pearson, J.D., was a full-time workplace investigator.
This research was not directly supported by any grants or financial contributions from outside
sources. The research was not conducted in cooperation with or for any professional organization.
Correspondence concerning this research should be addressed to Tracy A. Pearson via
email at tracyapearsonjd@gmail.com or tracy@tracyexplains.com.

xii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xvi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice .....................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................4
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................8
Field Context and Purpose .................................................................................................11
Description of the Stakeholder Group and Performance Goals .........................................12
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ...................................................................14
Overview of Theoretical and Methodological Framework ................................................15
Definitions..........................................................................................................................16
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................19
Implicit Bias Defined in Context .......................................................................................19
Scientific Support...............................................................................................................22
Presence of Implicit Bias in the Workplace .......................................................................24
Prior Recommended Strategies to Address Implicit Bias ..................................................31
Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’ Framework ..34
Summary ............................................................................................................................40
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................41
Overview of Methodology .................................................................................................41
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................43

xiii
Ethics and Role of Researcher ...........................................................................................47
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................48
Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................50
Participants .........................................................................................................................51
Results: Research Question One ........................................................................................56
Results: Research Question Two .......................................................................................76
Summary ............................................................................................................................81
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................82
Overview ............................................................................................................................82
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................99
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................101
References ....................................................................................................................................104
Appendix D: Informed Consent Information Sheet .....................................................................145
Appendix G: Statistical Significance: Sex ...................................................................................148
Appendix H: Statistical Significance: Sex and Sex-based Allegations .......................................154

xiv
List of Tables
Table 1: Performance Goals Related to the Problem of Practice 13
Table 2: Research Questions 14
Table 3: Knowledge Influences 37
Table 4: Motivation Influences 38
Table 5: Organizational Influences 39
Table 6: Data Sources 42
Table 7: Demographics: Sex and Race 52
Table 8: Demographics: Age and Sexual Orientation 53
Table 9: Professional Profile: Education, Experience, Training, Certification 54
Table 10: Research Question 1: Themes Related to Knowledge of Implicit Bias and
Motivation of Investigators 57
Table 11: Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Retaliation 60
Table 12: Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Non-Protected-Class Misconduct 60
Table 13: Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Age/Race Allegations 61
Table 14: Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Sex-Based Allegations 61
Table 15: Answers to What Motivates You? 70
Table 16: Social Desirability Score 73
Table 17: Research Question Two: Themes Related to Organizational Factors’ Impact on
Implicit Bias 77
Table 18: Questions about Organizational Culture 79
Table 19: Organizational Interference 80
Table 20: Study Summary 83
Table 21: Examples of Job Aids 89
Appendix A: Survey 133
Appendix C: Interview Questions 145

xv
Appendix G: Toolkit: Center Equity 151
Appendix H: Phase 2 Interview Invitations and Participants 153

xvi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Google Trends Search Activity for Implicit Bias January 2010-June 2020 9
Figure 2: Implicit Bias Mitigation Training for Growth Model 85
Appendix A: IRB Approval Letter 133
Appendix C: Social Desirability Measure 142

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
“I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that doesn’t have a slant.
All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no [person] is born perpendicular...”
E.B. White
Implicit bias is an ignored factor in workplace investigations. A generally accepted
definition and what, for this study, is a working definition of implicit bias is an unconscious set
of beliefs that guide our actions (Payne et al., 2017). Employers hire internal workplace
investigators to conduct fact-finding to determine the likelihood that conduct occurred and, in
many cases,
1
if that conduct violates an organization’s policies. Investigations determine facts
that aid in deciding whether there is a violation of policy and, ultimately, whether a person
engaged in discrimination
2
or harassment (moral harassment or bullying), misappropriation of
assets, and other kinds of misconduct contrary to the accepted norms and codes of the
organization. Investigations may also occur to ascertain an organization’s level of risk for
liability. Universally, investigators are expected to be neutral (Association of Workplace
Investigators, 2021; Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021). In its guidance to employers, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires investigations to be conducted
impartially and neutrally (Ho, 2015).
Neutrality intersects with implicit bias because neutrality means, in the context of
investigations, that the determination was made without bias or a preference. Neutrality or
impartiality is akin to indifference, where there is no position taken or preference; there is no
opinion either way. In making decisions such as to investigate, an investigator is required to be

1
Not all investigation processes ask the investigator to make policy findings.
2
Investigators who include making policy violation determinations as part of their investigations draw a distinction between
making legal conclusions and policy violations. Policies are often, but not always, the result of laws that make the conducted
regulated by the policy unlawful.
2

neutral and not have a preference. If an investigation begins, the same requirement applies in
terms of what kinds of evidence to collect and how, including interviewing and gathering
documentary or physical evidence. Instead, the investigator is required to make decisions,
drawing “reasonable” inferences (interpretation) based on evidence collected, and then, based on
those reasonable inferences, draw conclusions (judgments based on interpretation) that are not
based on their identity (point of view), beliefs, or experiences.
An organization designates an investigator as neutral when the organization hires and
pays the investigator and exerts authority over the investigator as codified in labor law in many
jurisdictions. However, neutrality in the investigation context constitutes a legal fiction.
3
It is
important to understand that a legal fiction, while the term can be used negatively, is a term of art
in the legal system. Legal fictions are not based in law or authority but are derived from habit,
practice, tradition, and culture (Wacks, 2017). A legal fiction allows a court, for example, to
ignore some information so that it justifies action taken. A legal fiction is the creation of a fact
that does not exist and is necessary to operate (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). For example, a
common example of a legal fiction is that possession of alcohol, a criminal charge, is often
determined based on intoxication. The legal fiction is that one cannot consume alcohol without
possessing it. Another example of a legal fiction is that a court that cannot exercise jurisdiction
over a person’s body can exercise jurisdiction over the person by exercising jurisdiction over the
property of the person, by treating them as one and the same when the legal action is not against
the property (as can be the case in criminal forfeiture or maritime law), but is, instead, against the
person. Similarly, neutrality in investigations is a legal fiction. This legal fiction is adopted by

3
Notwithstanding the expectations of neutrality, the investigator will make a determination, and does take a position, on the
ultimate issue, whether the conduct occurred, did not occur, or it couldn’t be determined, thus inconclusive. If policy violations
are part of the investigation process, the investigator will take a position on whether the conduct as applied to the policy is a
violation.
3

the courts, lawyers, and employees. Sustaining the legal fiction becomes problematic when
neutrality is considered in conjunction with implicit bias and the science behind implicit bias.
The problem of implicit bias in investigations arises because implicit bias is unconscious;
4
the
investigator is not aware that they have the bias and that they are making decisions or drawing
inferences and conclusions based on that bias. Therefore, neutrality is a legal fiction that is
adopted to resist allegations of investigations’ inadequacy, just as neutrality was adopted by the
legal system to imbue it with authority.
Surprisingly, there are scarce empirical, peer-reviewed studies on the problem of implicit
bias in investigations. Scholarship about implicit bias in investigations is theoretical
5
and based
on analogy (Lattal, 2016). Therefore, support for the problem, discussed in Chapter Two, comes
from considerable research on implicit bias in education and in workplaces involving hiring,
recruitment, including artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, interviews,
references/recommendations, performance evaluations, as well as delivery of services.
Consequently, based on implicit bias literature, investigators are not immune to implicit
bias, and the notion that an investigator can ever be neutral or impartial in the investigative
process is a fallacy. The literature supports that implicit bias is constant, and accounting for the
bias and mitigating it require knowledge, vigilance, infrastructure, and resources to do it
properly. For example, investigations are often held to time standards by their organizations,
with time being a resource that is needed to engage in metacognition or thinking about why the
investigator thinks what they think.

4
Investigations can also lack required neutrality/impartiality when the investigator is aware of a bias about a particular case type,
for example, and does not mitigate to address the bias. This study is focused on the unknown bias, or the biases that humans have
of which they are unaware but that nonetheless guide their thoughts, decisions, and conduct.
5
A journal article about unconscious bias and workplace investigations reasserts that neutrality is required for a workplace
investigation and does not challenge the construct of neutrality (Lattal, 2016). This study’s foundation challenges the social
construct of neutrality.
4

Implicit bias has thoroughly been studied in the education context (Gullo, 2020; Gullo et
al., 2018a, 2018b; Kamm, 2019; U.S. Congress, 2019). If altruistic teachers can attribute
negative behaviors to minority students and those students are perceived as less credible, then
investigators in workplaces deciding to investigate and investigating the conduct of an adult who
is alleged to have engaged in behavior outside the organization’s expected or established norms
is also at risk of replicating the same discriminatory thought process (Gullo, 2020; Gullo et al.,
2018a, 2018b; Kamm, 2019; Starck et al., 2020). This study sought to identify investigator gaps
in knowledge and motivation and organizational factors that may impact investigations,
potentially impeding equity for marginalized voices, whether a reporting or responding
employee, who depend on the outcomes of a competent investigation.
Background of the Problem
Investigators are researchers. They collect data in the form of testimonial or
physical/documentary evidence, and they interpret that data (Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch,
2021). With few exceptions,
6
in comparison to the parties to an investigation, investigators are
perceived to be the experts. Investigators decide what and how to collect the data (whom to
interview, by what means, and what tangible information to request (Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne
& Bloch, 2021). It may not be obvious to an unsophisticated
7
participant in an investigation what
information or sources to offer. Investigators are experts in interpretation. They decide what that
evidence means (Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021). Investigators consider the relevancy
of evidence, meaning whether it should be considered or is unrelated to the scope of the
allegation being investigated and, therefore, excluded (Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch,

6
The exceptions include personnel who are investigators or who are in the legal field.
7
Unsophisticated is used as a term of art to refer to a person without certain specialized training and knowledge.
5

2021). They consider the materiality of evidence in terms of whether it proves or disproves the
allegation (Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021). They consider how much weight to give
the evidence in the context of other evidence in terms of whether it is direct and undisputed or
tangential and subject to validity threat (Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021). In the
gathering and interpretation processes, the current state of investigations aligns with the
positivist paradigm; the investigator’s epistemology, how they know what they know, is based
on objectivity (Cherryholmes, 1992; Crotty & Crotty, 1998; Lincoln et al., 2011). Investigators,
in practice, disavow Benjamin’s(1935) belief that “ALL human knowledge takes the form of
interpretation” and that what we know is not the product of immediate knowledge, but is instead
mediated knowledge, information that is constructed ( p. 1066). What data means is interpreted
or understood through the filter of personal identity, beliefs, and experiences.
Without question, fundamental to the core element of an investigation is that
investigators conduct neutral and impartial investigations (Ho, 2015) and can know (a fact) based
on immediate and not mediated knowledge. There is an absence of empirical research that
explores the pretense, and sometimes pretext, of neutrality, its purported achievability, and the
pretense being more effective than any other strategy (e.g., admitting to bias in conflict dispute
processes, including investigations).
Widely, across disciplines, including law, there appears to be, based on the ubiquitous
use of the word neutral, an untested truth that neutrality is real and achievable and the most
effective means for conducting a conflict resolution process. There is scarce evidence of studies
that have tried to prove the existence of neutrality. Some researchers have examined the
effectiveness of neutrality. Byer (2017) conducted a limited qualitative research study to explore
disparities within the academic ombuds field. Ombuds are neutrals who neither represent the
interest of the individual seeking assistance nor the institution for whom the ombud works
6

(International Ombudsman Association, 2019). The role of an ombud is to listen, elevate
concerns to the highest levels, at times, conduct mediation, and help an individual think through
options available within the organization for resolving the conflict (International Ombudsman
Association, 2019). Byer’s (2017) study, conducted in the form of limited interviews with
ombuds, identified a disparity in how ombuds embraced their ethical obligation to remain
neutral. While some participants felt strongly that an ombud should never advocate for anyone,
others questioned whether fairness is achieved if the ombud cannot advocate for an individual in
the interest of justice (Byer, 2017). The importance of this qualitative study is not only that it
identified disparity, but, more significantly, others in the ombuds profession were questioning
the effectiveness of neutrality in performing their duties.
Similarly, prior to 2017, other researchers noted the lack of studies examining the
effectiveness of neutrality. Cobb and Rifkin (1991) isolated a distinction in previously conducted
research as it pertains to mediator neutrality in practice. To underscore the lack of work in this
area, Cobb and Rifkin reviewed studies dating back over 20 years (circa 1985) and learned that
the focus of the work was on assessing participant satisfaction, mediation conduct, and mediation
outcomes. As a result, these studies do not add to the understanding of whether neutrality can be
achieved, as these studies evaluate the perception of the mediator as neutral, which is different
from whether neutrality itself is achievable and useful in solving interpersonal disputes.
Consequently, because of the lack of empirical research on neutrality as a construct, the work is
mostly theoretical (Deakins, 2017; Lattal, 2016).
This research gap is reduced but still exists when extending the review outside more
formalized or traditional conflict resolution processes, like investigations, to informal conflict
resolution processes, such as family therapy. Not unlike the other researchers, Stancombe and
White (2005) identified the challenge of neutrality in family therapy. Family therapists are called
7

upon to help resolve interfamily disputes by creating accountability-neutral (non-blaming)
versions of conflict (Stancombe & White, 2005). Being able to discern what the facts are in a
dispute is not unlike the role of an investigator. Like ombuds and mediators, when presented
with blaming accounts, therapists are forced to make moral judgments to move people away
from blame toward accountability-neutral positions and are, thus, never genuinely neutral in their
roles (Stancombe & White, 2005).
In these different fields of conflict resolution, the issue of whether neutrality is real, or
achievable, and whether one can be free from bias, implicit or otherwise, hovers over the work
professionals do, even if researchers have yet to tackle it (Byer, 2017; Cobb & Rifkin, 1991;
Stancombe & White, 2005). Asserting neutrality as a truth, accepting neutrality at face value, or
questioning whether neutrality is a social construct is important to consider, given the research
into implicit bias and its role in mediating knowledge that is achieved through the interpretation
of evidence (Bloch, 2008; Holroyd, 2020; MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021). Research suggests that
neutrality functions, as Benjamin (1935) posited, a construction. It is a cultural myth endorsed by
those with power to ignore that people are not treated equally or as a justification for action as
studied in research focused on institutions and institutional norms (Frederickson et al., 2016;
Jackson, 2006; Portillo & Humphrey, 2018; Portillo et al., 2019). Indeed, those judgments, often,
but not always, are socially constructed beliefs about normality held by those who hold power to
set the norms of what is a legitimate concern, what behavior is wrong, and what the
consequences are for such behavior (Jackson, 2006). Therefore, the focus of this study was on
investigators, the personnel who conduct the investigations and are responsible for the outcomes
to understand whether neutrality, along with its doppelgängers impartiality or objectivity, exists
through demonstrated knowledge, and how knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
may contribute to the problem.
8

Importance of the Study
This problem of practice is important to study for many reasons. Implicit bias is
ubiquitous (Backhus et al., 2019; Maskaly et al., 2017). It is found in all areas of education, from
elementary school through professional education (Boysen, 2010; Gilliam et al., 2016; Staats,
2016; Sukhera & Watling, 2018; van den Bergh et al., 2010; Westerberg, 2016), health care
delivery (Champagne-Langabeer & Hedges, 2021; Hall, et al., 2015; Schwartz et al., 2003), and
hiring decisions (Albert, 2019; Axelson et al., 2010; Brief et al., 2000; FitzGerald & Hurst, 2017;
Hamilton, 2018; Segrest Purkiss et al., 2006).
Everyone has implicit bias. For the purposes of understanding the problem, examples are
used. These examples were selected based on current events to demonstrate the importance of
the problem but are not the only examples that could be used. They reflect the cultural backdrop
of current research. According to Google Trends, “implicit bias” was one of the least searched
phrases on the internet from January 20, 2010, until June of 2020. Then, on May 24, 2020,
George Floyd was murdered (Wamsey, 2021). Mr. Floyd was a Black man who died while lying
prone, on the asphalt of a city street in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during the daytime, handcuffed
securely with his hands behind his back (Hill et al., 2020). Mr. Floyd died of homicide caused by
a White law enforcement training officer
8
kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 14
seconds
9
(Hill et al., 2020).

8
Derek Chauvin was convicted on April 20, 2021 of unintentional second-degree murder; third-degree murder; and second-
degree manslaughter (Wamsey, 2021).
9
The complete video footage can be found online. It is graphic. (Witnesses, U., 2020).
9

Figure 1
Google Trends Search Activity for Implicit Bias January 2010-June 2020

Note.The word “Note” on the figure denotes points in time that Google improved its analytics
process. The figure was produced by Google Trends: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?
date=2008-01-20%202020-06-30&geo=US&q= implicit%20bias

After Mr. Floyd’s death, on June 6, 2020, in Atlanta, Georgia, another Black man,
Rayshard Brooks, died. He was shot by law enforcement. After Mr. Brooks fell asleep in a
vehicle in the driveway of a fast-food chain restaurant blocking egress, the business called the
local police, and officers, after inquiry, determined that Mr. Brooks failed a sobriety test. Law
enforcement (two White police officers) attempted to take Mr. Brooks into custody (Rojas &
Fausset, 2020). At first complying, after a 40-minute-long calm interaction, Mr. Brooks resisted
arrest. A 1 minute, 17 seconds, a struggle occurred with police, concluding with Mr. Brooks
taking an officer’s taser, attempting to flee, and an officer discharging a 9mm Glock service
weapon three times, two times into Mr. Brooks’ back
10
(Hutchinson, 2020; Rojas & Fausset,
2020). As Mr. Brooks lay on the ground, the officer’s body camera captured the officer kicking

10
The third bullet hit a nearby vehicle with three bystanders inside (Young, 2020)
10

Mr. Brooks while saying to his colleague, “I got him”
11
(Rojas & Fausset, 2020; Young et al.,
2021).
A law enforcement officer is the most powerful investigator because they are legally
authorized to take a human life if the conditions warrant it, to protect their own safety or the
safety of others. The origins and role of law enforcement in the United States are complex, and a
history of systemic racism and disparate treatment informed its genesis.
12
Researchers continue
to try to understand implicit bias and the part it plays in law enforcement carrying out duties
(Ghezzi et al., 2021) in identifying suspects (Gulati et al., 2020; Jones & Gray, 2020; Menifield
et al., 2018; Parlor, 2020), the use of lethal force (Price & Payton, 2017; Riksheim & Chermak,
1993; Sherman, 1980), and disciplining law enforcement officers for misconduct and poor
judgment (Maskaly et al., 2017).
Investigators are not law enforcement, but they play a vital role in workplace disciplinary
processes that can impact a person’s ability to take care of their basic needs, as the results of
such investigations form the basis for disciplinary action, up to and including termination from
employment. This study is the first empirical mixed-methods study based on Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis framework to examine implicit bias in workplace investigations, including
what investigators know about implicit bias, what motivates them, their belief systems, whether
they possess self-efficacy, are influenced by authority influence, and how their organization’s
structural influences contribute to their credibility assessments and fact-finding. The deaths of

11
That the officer kicked Mr. Brooks and said, “I got him” is disputed by the officer.
12
Sir Robert Peel’s Policing Principles provides nine principles that are considered to be the foundation of modern policing (Law
Enforcement Action Partnership, 2021). Simultaneously, when Peel’s Policing Principles was published in 1829, Black people
were enslaved, and a different set of laws applied, known as the Barbados Slave Code of 1661 (Palmer, 2006). All manner of
violence could be used because Black people were chattel (property) (Palmer, 2006). Jim Crowe laws, known as the Black
Codes, which codified violence against Black people for any number of infractions that attempted to place Black people as equal
to white people (Lindsey, 2008). In 1968, the Kerner Report commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson’s administration
identified law enforcement as part of the complex interconnected institutions that facilitate institutionalized racism (George,
2021).
11

Mr. Floyd and Mr. Brooks illustrate that decisions are made in a split second, and they can
manifest in irreversible consequences. While investigators do not use deadly weapons and are
afforded time to make decisions, investigators possess the power to inflict harm. The decisions
investigators make can impact individuals and organizations, with such impact being long-lasting
and having devastating consequences (Asfaw et al., 2014; Henning et al., 2017; Hollis, 2015).
Field Context and Purpose
In every state of the United States, both state and federal law requires organizations to
investigate certain concerns raised by employees. The EEOC, while advisory, but backed by
statutes and case law, requires employers to investigate complaints, or the EEOC warns that
organizations can be vicariously liable for the misconduct of their employees (EEOC, 2021).
Like the EEOC, the federal department of education (DOE) has promulgated regulations that
require investigations in the education domain, and which also apply to employees (Davis v.
Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 1999; Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 1998; Title IX,
2015). Because of these legal obligations, investigators are hired as factfinders and may make
policy violation findings.
Furthermore, though there is a general focus on discriminatory conduct, there is also a
duty to prevent and address non-discriminatory misconduct, what this study refers to as non-
protected-class misconduct. Non-protected-class misconduct ranges from simple harassment to
violence in the workplace (that is not hate-motivated). Violence in the workplace is not only a
potential risk to employers by way of tort and criminal law,
13
but the concern also falls under the

13
While previously it was difficult to hold employers liable for workplace violence, that has changed (Beaver, 1997). Within tort
law, there are negligent and intentional torts and employers face claims for negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent
supervision, failure to protect, and the employer has limited affirmative defenses (Beaver, 1997). Collective Bargaining
Agreements provide additional claims for failure to substantiate the allegations such as conspiracy, interference with contractual
relationships and invasion of privacy (Beaver, 1997).
12

jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States
Department of Labor (OSHA, 2021). OSHA defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of
physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs
at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide”
(OSHA, 2021, para. 2). Therefore, investigators exist in almost every domain, and it is more
likely than not an employee will encounter one. This study’s focus was to understand any gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and any organizational factors in relation to implicit bias that may
impact investigations by studying the investigator.
Description of the Stakeholder Group and Performance Goals
For an internal workplace investigator to be competent, they need to be free from conflict
of interest, possess procedural knowledge, subject matter knowledge (Association of Workplace
Investigators, n.d.; Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021; Society of Corporate Compliance
and Ethics, 2020) and be able to identify and mitigate bias
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group for this study were investigators who perform services for their
employer, a single organization, as contrasted by external workplace investigators who perform
services for multiple organizations.
The stakeholder group was chosen because investigators can be from a variety of
different educational backgrounds and hold a variety of different world views depending on their
role. Human resources professionals conduct some investigations. Some companies have a
dedicated department or specialized departments of investigators who come from a varied
background of experience, like law, law enforcement, and even journalism.
13

As this is the first empirical mixed-methods study to address the issue of implicit bias in
investigations focused on investigators using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework,
the study aimed to gather data to provide a big picture view of this stakeholder group to help
respond to the problem of practice. In addition to understanding knowledge and motivational
factors, this study also aimed to understand the organizational factors that impact investigators.
As a result, the choice of stakeholder necessitated an internal investigator who would be
accountable within the organization’s hierarchical or matrix structure, as opposed to an external
investigator who may work with many organizations and have contractual liberties defining for
what and to whom accountability is owed (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). The unique position
of an investigator, working for the organization, but the organization designating the investigator
as a neutral helps to highlight the potential for gaps.

Table 1
Performance Goals Related to the Problem of Practice
Field Purpose
Workplace investigations are conducted by law to remedy conduct in the environment that
violates policies or laws that protect workers from maltreatment.
Field Performance Goal
Investigators must be accurate and thorough factfinders who actively mitigate implicit bias.
When appropriate to make policy findings, investigators should accurately and reliably apply the
facts found to organization policy.
Investigators must engender faith in the investigation process using approaches that support
equity, not equality, for an investigation to have validity and reliability.

14

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore what investigators know about implicit bias and to
gauge their awareness of how it intersects with the work they do. Because investigators are from
different professional and educational backgrounds, the study sought to understand how
investigator motivations may play a role in implicit bias in investigations. The study also sought
to identify organizational factors that may be keeping implicit bias in place. A mixed-methods
explanatory study design, using both quantitative and qualitative data, was used to answer three
research questions (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Table 2 identifies the three research
questions that guided this study.

Table 2
Research Questions
RQ# Research Question
RQ1 What is a workplace investigator’s knowledge of implicit bias as an issue in
workplace investigations, and what motivates internal workplace investigators?

RQ2 What organizational factors reinforce or mitigate implicit bias in workplace
investigations?

RQ3 What strategies or recommendations, if implemented, would reduce the impact of
implicit bias on workplace investigations?

15

Overview of Theoretical and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to
clarify organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on performance, was adopted as the primary conceptual framework. Assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact stakeholder capacity were
generated based on context-specific and general learning, motivation, and organizational theory.
These influences were explored via a mixed-methods approach, including both a
quantitative and a qualitative methodological framework. Specifically, quantitative data were
gathered using a survey instrument that gathers information about experience, knowledge, and
organizational structures; the survey seeks to assess a person’s desire to be socially accepted.
Embedded within the survey instrument is the SDS-17, a psychometric measure consisting of 16
true-false questions, which indicates whether an individual is more likely to act consistently with
a need for approval or to be seen as valuable (Stӧber, 1999, 2001). Whether an investigator is
more likely to act consistently with the need for approval may be important in understanding a
motivational gap impacting investigations. Social desirability measures the strongest implicit
bias humans have, what humans are born with, survival, or the bias toward self-preservation
(Roozeboom, 2021). Moreover, human behavior is shaped by others (Agarwal, 2020). Social
desirability can be understood as normative conformity, where the unconscious shift from what
an investigator believes to what a person with more authority believes to be liked and accepted
(Agarwal, 2020).
In addition to a survey instrument, the study relied on qualitative data gathered through
individual interviews to provide context to the survey data and to understand investigators’ lived
experiences, motivations, and perceptions about their role within their organizations.

16

Definitions
• Bias is a preference (Merriam-Webster, 2021).
• Descriptive Concept is a concept or term that is vague and can be knowingly or
unknowingly manipulated through implicit bias or conscious bias to favor a preference.
• Discrimination is different treatment without connection to rights or ability based on the
person’s membership in a protected class (EEOC, 2021).
• Equality is commonly understood as treating all people the same way (Caldwell et al.,
2007).
• Equity recognizes that certain members of a community have not been the recipients of
privilege, and changes need to be made to provide them the benefits realized by the ruling
class of people (Caldwell et al., 2007).
• Homophily is the act of identifying with those who are more like ourselves (Maskaly et
al., 2017).
• Conscious Bias is a conscious preference (Papillion, 2021).
• Implicit Bias is an unconscious set of beliefs that guide our actions (Payne et al., 2017).
This is a working definition that will be developed in the study.
14

• Knowledge Gap is derived from the gap analysis framework, equating knowledge to the
engine and transmission of a car or what makes it function (Clarke & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge is tied closely to skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). For this study, knowledge is
also the same as awareness, and knowledge must be demonstrated in context.

14
This study establishes a new definition of implicit bias. See Chapter 2.
17

• Motivation Gap is derived from the gap analysis framework, equating motivation with
the fuel needed to operate the car (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is the reason and interest an
investigator has for performing this job.
• Neutrality is not aligning oneself with either party to a dispute and remaining objective
(Exon, 2008). Similarly, neutrality and impartiality are often used interchangeably (Cobb
& Rifkin, 1991). For the purposes of this study, “neutrality” and “indifferent” are treated
as synonyms.
• Normative Concept is a concept or term that contains a value judgment and is based on
the dominant culture’s point of view and value system.
• Organizational Factor is a concept derived from the gap analysis framework equating
organizational structures (process, procedures, and the way people are ordered within the
organization) with the conditions of the road, like traffic, that make it easier or harder to
arrive at a particular destination (Clark & Estes, 2008).
• Social Desirability is the propensity to act consistently with a need for approval or to be
seen as valuable (Stӧber, 1999, 2001).
• Stereotype is an overgeneralization of traits possessed by a group of people by virtue of
being members of that group (Proudfoot et al., 2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about gap analysis and implicit
bias. It introduced the stakeholder group and from where that stakeholder group is derived. The
field’s mission, goals, and stakeholders and the framework for the project were introduced.
Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study.
18

Topics include what implicit bias is, where it is found, and how it manifests itself in the
workplace. Chapter Two also presents the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
explored via the study. Chapter Three details the methodology, including the selection of
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data are assessed and analyzed,
and key findings are presented. Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice and future
research.

19

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This review covers literature under three primary topic areas that emerged from the
literature review process. These topic areas are (a) implicit bias defined in context, (b) presence
in the workplace, and (c) recommended strategies and effectiveness. Although the literature
presented here has been applied to a variety of contexts, this review focuses primarily on the
literature’s application to the problem of implicit bias in the context of investigations. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework and the
assumed influences that will help to guide answering the three research questions.
Implicit Bias Defined in Context
Cultural Backdrop
Some of the earliest research on implicit bias is from the 1970s, a decade that provided
space for the feminist, then-called gay rights, and Black power movements and against a political
landscape weighed down by war and global strife (Lemann, 1991; Ushistory.org, 2020). It was a
dark time, where conflict was abundant, and as minority voices increased in volume, researchers
examined prejudice and centered on the automatic nature of that bias, suggesting it could not be
controlled (Lemann, 1991; Ushistory.org, 2020). Research on implicit bias continued into the
1980s, a decade of consumption that rejected the 1970s drug culture, identified the rise of then-
called GRID
15
turned HIV/AIDS that took 80 years to make it to United States’ shores, and
prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community continued unabated in the White House
16

15
Gay Related Immune Deficiency, which was never used by the scientific community, but only the press (The New York
Times, 1982).
16
The Lavender Scare is a movie that documents White House sanctioned attempt to rid the federal government of all members
of the LGBTQ+ community, regardless of work performance (Atkins, 2016; Lim & Kracov, 2019). While this discrimination
stopped for civilian works in 1975, and for all officially in 1995, 42 years after it began, the attitudes that brought about the
assault on these professionals did not go away (Lim & Kracov, 2019). In the 1980s Nancy Reagan told then-President Ronald
Regan that he should not be involved with their long-time Hollywood friend Rock Hudson’s request to be admitted into the
Military Hospital in France, resulting in public disclosure that the heartthrob was a closeted gay man dying of the latest novel
coronavirus, HIV that had turned to full blown AIDS ((Langthorne, 2016). He died alone in his Beverly Hills mansion October 2,
1985 (Langthorne, 2016). It wasn’t until two years later that President Reagan determined that he could not ignore the disease;
20

(Langthorne, 2016). Efforts to understand implicit bias persisted through the 1990s, a decade that
birthed the beginnings of consumer access to the internet and the birth of the information age,
and with this unprecedented access to other places without leaving one’s home, the United States
moved toward globalism and relatedly toward multiculturalism (Gewirtz, 2018).
During the 1980s and the 1990s, these two different periods’
17
shared similarity was a
belief that one could have power over one’s future. In the 1980s, it was in the naive belief that
conscious choice was made in the consumption of products
18
and in the creation of one’s
identity. In the 1990s, it was an unrelenting focus on acquiring and disseminating information at
a fast speed,
19
and where a different school of thought emerged; research questioned the belief of
implicit bias’ uncontrollability of the 1970s and instead while accepting automaticity, rejecting
the 1980s naiveté, the 1990s focused on nuance, embracing unconsciousness, where awareness
was a possible answer (Brownstein, 2019). As further proof of a thought shift, by the late 1990s,
researchers conceded that unconscious messaging could change behavior (Stern, 2015). While
research on implicit bias continued, 2017 brought surprising findings to the conversation when
faculty at the University of Toronto revealed that implicit bias was both identified as being
automatic and unconscious. Not one but two studies established that children as young as 6
months old, who are only beginning to say their first words and were not able to appreciate the

only after Ryan White, a 14-year-old mid-western white boy and hemophiliac who contracted the disease through contaminated
blood products, became national news and only after the Surgeon General, C. Everette Koop forced President Reagan’s hand
(Geidner, 2015; Langthorne, 2016).
17
Another commonality was the highly controversial Colors of Benneton advertisements. These ads pushed the envelope
depicting whites and blacks together advocating an overt message of harmony, while others making political issues like HIV and
the death penalty unavoidable by bringing them into homes across United States. (“The United Colors of Benetton Campaign
history”, 2020)
18
The 1980s began a period of litigation focused on holding tobacco companies responsible for nicotine addiction and related
deaths (Cipolone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al, 1992). The litigation would uncover common scheme and plan by Big Tobacco to
study, understand, and manipulate the product employing secret labs to manifest an addiction resulting in consumers for life,
however short (Derry, 2020). Simultaneously, while consumers were being secretly addicted to nicotine, researchers largely
rejected claims that subliminal messaging, as in advertising, could change behavior (Stern, 2015).
19
The, the first text message, the first web browser, Windows 95 and Internet Explorer, the Palm Handheld, the founding of
Amazon, and the founding of Google all mark the decade (Gewirtz, 2018).
21

complexity of culture, were showing evidence of racial bias (Xiao, Quinn et al., 2017; Xiao, Wu
et al., 2017).
Altogether, over the last 50 years, researchers have transitioned through a continuum:
bias was an unfortunate truth, an automatic response, about which nothing could be done, to an
unconscious result of messaging, to an automatic response that was also unconscious, opening
the possibility that further investigation could identify a way of controlling these impulses
(Brownstein, 2019). Where explicit or overt discrimination and prejudicial beliefs were
identifiable in groups like the KKK, implicit bias was not wearing hallmark clothing that begged
for attention, inciting fear (Holroyd et al., 2017). Implicit bias was different; it stalked quietly
unknown to those who had it, much like HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, infecting our systems,
including those meeting out justice (Holroyd et al., 2017; Langthorne, 2016).
Definition
Implicit bias is a well-researched subject area
20
that continues to grow. As a result, there
are many definitions for the same concept. Implicit is generally understood as unconscious or
with lack of awareness (Holroyd et al., 2017). Bias is understood as a preference for one over
another, and, in this context, it is viewed negatively, highlighting a difference from a normative
position (Holroyd et al., 2017) over the less biased definition of a preference (Merriam-Webster,
2021). Moreover, implicit bias is a behavior, whether it is a feeling, a thought, or an action;
applying the Dead Person Test: “[i]f a dead [person] can do it, it ain’t behavior, and if a dead
“person” can’t do it, then it is behavior” (Malott & Shane, 2015, p. 6).
Because implicit bias is a behavior, it is something that can be changed (Brownstein,
2019). Implicit bias often takes the form of a microaggression, a term used in the 1970s applied

20
As of August 11, 2020, there are approximate 154,999 articles on the subject in peer-reviewed journals.
22

strictly to Black people, then defined as “subtle, stunning, often, automatic, and nonverbal
exchanges which are ‘putdowns,’” but the term shifted to applying to any marginalized group
(Pierce, 1978, p. 66; Kendi, 2019). Sue (2010) discussed microaggression as applying to any
marginalized group as a way of more accurately describing implicit bias. In applying implicit
bias to any marginalized group, Sue said, “simply stated, microaggressions are brief, everyday
exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group
membership” (Sue, 2010, p. xvii). However, Black scholars, like Ibram X. Kendi, eschew the
concept of microaggressions for the same reason and prefer the term “abuse” (Kendi, 2019, p.
47). By referring to the conduct in terms that fail to illustrate the effect of the conduct,
21
it ceases
having real meaning (Kendi, 2019). Because implicit bias is inherent in the human condition,
some researchers have examined scientific support to understand the phenomenon.
Scientific Support
Natural Human Condition
Research supports a scientific basis for why implicit bias exists, which may be important
to the ability to identify it and change behavior. This scientific basis can mitigate resistance to
awareness and change because implicit bias is a natural phenomenon and not a character flaw
(Hinton, 2017).
The human brain is persistently unconsciously acquiring information, implicitly learning,
which is augmented by conscious learning, when a person deliberately acquires new knowledge

21
An example of how terminology “can hide the truth” of the conduct, one can review comedian George Carlin’s comedy routine
on shell shock (Carlin, 2016). The routine traces the terminology of a condition experienced by soldiers in combat (Carlin, 2016).
In World War I, the condition was referred to as shell shock (Carlin, 2016; Lasiuk & Hegadoren, 2006). In World War II it was
referred to as “battle fatigue” (Carlin, 2016; Lasiuk & Hegadoren, 2006). In the Korean War the condition was referred to as
“operational exhaustion” with the “humanity being squeezed out of the phrase” (Carlin, 2016; Lasiuk & Hegadoren, 2006).
Finally, the Vietnam War dubbed the condition, “post-traumatic stress disorder” (Carlin, 2016; Lasiuk & Hegadoren, 2006). “The
pain is completely buried under jargon” (Carlin, 2016). Post-traumatic Stress Disorder is a qualified disability (Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5, 2013). Disability, like race, can be a source of implicit bias (Larson, 2008).
23

(Tuarez et al, 2019). Because the brain is the body’s central command center, responsible for
formulating response strategy, the brain is acquiring information at a rapid rate using its best
resources (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin) to best evaluate the information to decide what to do
and how to react to protect the body from danger (Tuarez et al., 2019).
Our brains process new information in two primary ways, pattern detection and
probability determination (Clark, 2013). In the process of pattern detection, the brain’s focus is
on discerning whether the information is similar or dissimilar to information it acquired
previously (Konovalov & Krajbich, 2018). It is reducing information to its simplest form, much
like reducing a fraction to the common denominator. In probability determination, the brain is
using information acquired and making inferences (Pouget et al., 2013), or interpreting. A 2018
study invited participants to view images that consisted of a foot, a hand, and a landscape, while
magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) identified which parts of the brain were activated as each
participant tried to determine which image would appear next (Konovalov & Krajbich, 2018).
The participants earned money for each correct answer (Konovalov & Krajbich, 2018).
The study confirmed previous research findings that the brain learns through probability,
or guessing what is going to happen next (Konovalov & Krajbich, 2018). However, the study
also identified that the brain, in attempting to guess which image was next, based on
physiological findings in the MRI showing that the part of the brain that is activated when it is
discerning patterns were working with the part of the brain that is activated when engaged in
probability determination (Konovalov & Krajbich, 2018). As a result, the participants’ brains
were creating rules from the information that would allow for faster decision-making and more
accuracy (Konovalov & Krajbich, 2018). The problem identified is that laboratory experiments
often measure limited variables (Pouget et al., 2013). Real-world problems with multiple
variables create complexity that results in error (Pouget et al., 2013). When the brain attempts to
24

discern patterns and make fast decisions based on probability, it is subject to fallibility (Pouget et
al., 2013). Fast thinking is a factor in implicit bias (Kahneman, 2011). Fast thinking is intuitive
and not purposeful (Kahneman, 2011).
A New Definition
Based on neuroscience principles, this study reframes the definition of implicit bias. It is
an effort to ground it in human physiology and to provide an avenue for combating resistance
that can impact successful change (Bridges & Mitchell, 2000). This new definition and the one
used in this study is that implicit bias is a changeable behavior rooted in neuroscience, based on
pattern detection and probability determination, where the human brain, without malice, quickly,
automatically, and unconsciously applies a trait to an individual due to a shared similarity to a
person, idea, or object, as a result of experiences and beliefs.
Consequently, implicit bias is part of the natural human condition, which means that
investigators are not exempt from this human behavior, reducing the resistance that confronting
implicit bias generates.
Presence of Implicit Bias in the Workplace
Implicit bias, much like the coronavirus, unknowingly invades workplaces in other ways
besides investigations, but which can beget investigations.
22
The primary areas identified in the
literature are in hiring, performance reviews, and delivery of services.

22
For legal professionals thinking about the issue of implicit as a factor in their cases, consideration might be given, based on the
literature, that for the parties to those investigations, relying on the validity of a finding suggests by analogy accepting the
reliability of double-hearsay. Notwithstanding investigations can arise out of allegations of conscious bias, assuming implicit bias
is a factor, the first level of implicit bias may exist in conditions requiring an investigation. The second level of implicit bias may
exist in the investigation process. This consideration doesn’t suggest that all investigations are unreliable. It does suggest that,
where bias in the investigation process remains implicit and not mitigated, closer scrutiny that focuses on two levels of implicit
bias and implicit bias that could be from different sources is warranted.
25

Hiring
Hiring an employee is a multi-layered process involving the use of objective information
and subjective perception. In thought processes that rely on judgment, implicit bias can be a
powerful unseen influence in decision-making (Payne et al., 2018).
Application Review
Making it through the first-round review of applications is stacked against minority
voices, with White applicants receiving approximately 50% more invitations to continue with the
hiring process than Black applicants (Pager et al., 2009). When the leadership of the organization
implements policies that reinforce implicit bias, the success rate is worse. In situations where
human beings were conducting initial evaluations of applicants, where leaders provided business
justifications, human reviewers were inadvertently manipulated, leading to implicit bias having a
greater impact. Brief et al. (2000) conducted a study to investigate the connection between
prejudice and business justification in hiring decisions. As part of the study, 84 White
undergraduate psychology students participated by taking a pre-experiment survey, the Modern
Racism Scale, which asked questions designed to elicit whether participants agreed or disagreed
with a set of beliefs about Blacks (Brief et al., 2000). During the experiment phase, all
participants were asked to rank applicants for an open position. For the non-control group, the
participants were given a memo from the president of a fictitious company justifying a
homogeneous workforce (Brief et al., 2000). The study found that in the non-control group,
participants whose survey predicted a higher likelihood of propensity to discriminate and who
received the directive from an authority figure justifying the business decision acted to
discriminate against Black applicants (Brief et al., 2000). The implications of this study on
investigations are that in situations where investigator independence is compromised by
leadership directives, investigators may be more likely to act on unconscious beliefs.
26

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used by human resources and talent
departments in recruitment in several applications (Albert, 2019). For the purposes of this study,
areas of concern include job description (optimization software writing job descriptions using
language recommendations), targeted job advertising optimization software (targeting relevant
candidates), multi-database candidate sourcing software (scanning through multiple databases to
identify potential candidates), and psychometric testing (candidate assessment; Albert, 2019).
Granted that AI can improve the speed of processing, in many cases making workflow more
efficient, AI is subject to bias because it is programmed by humans (Ghosh, 2017). Amazon, Inc.
was forced to abandon its AI-based recruitment tool because it discriminated against women
(Hamilton, 2018). Engineers discovered that the software accrued its data by using male-
dominated resumes (Hamilton, 2018). The reason the source of the data was problematic was
that AI tools are inferior to humans because AI lacks any judgment; this lack of judgment was
highlighted when Microsoft released an AI-driven bot on Twitter which gathered its data from
Twitter users (Hunt, 2016). Within hours of the release, Microsoft removed it from Twitter as the
bot’s posts expressed racist statements (Hunt, 2016).
The Interview
Once an applicant successfully advances through the initial screening process, implicit
bias acts as a gate to barring employment during interviews. Segrest Purkiss et al. (2006)
conducted a study to examine how ethnic cues, such as a person’s accent and name, may provoke
implicit bias in employment decision-making. As part of the study, 212 students enrolled in a
basic management course at a large university were each were asked to view a video recording of
a person speaking and imagine that the speaker was interviewing for a human resource manager
position. Participants were also given the job description and resume for each speaker. The study
found that when there was an accent and an ethnic name, the candidate was more unlikely to
27

receive a positive hiring decision than when there was no accent but when the applicant had an
ethnic name. What the study identified is that decision-makers are hardwired to reject difference,
and the more different the individual, the stronger the rejection, thereby supporting the principle
of homophily. Conversely, decision-makers are hardwired to seek similarity, and when those
similarities align, the individual most like the decision-maker is in a more favorable position.
The hardwiring to seek similarity has profound implications for investigations where the
meaning of testimonial evidence as applied to policies can be interpreted differently.
Recommendations/References
If the candidate can further advance, consulting references also provides an opportunity
for implicit bias to bar employment. A study of reference letters accompanying the United States
Medical Licensing Exam applications, for matching potential residents to placements, found that
adjectives contributed to bias, such as attributing compassion, enthusiasm, and sensitivity to
female applications or limited amounts of these qualities to male applicants (Axelson et al.,
2010). Similarly, in a study examining recommendation letters for surgery resident applicants,
letters for male applicants had a higher word count than female applicants (Turrentine et al.,
2019). Adjectives, like “exceptional” and use of the applicant’s name, occurred more frequently
in male applications. Positive adjectives like “delightful” and abrasive terms like “hard-
working,” along with physical attributes, words imparting doubt, and words addressing work
ethic were, instead, applied with more frequency to female applicants. Words reflecting
achievement appeared with less frequency for women, while words aligned with stereotypical
feminine qualities, like “caring,” occurred more frequently (Turrentine et al., 2019). Similar
challenges for similar word choice face Black applicants seeking graduate school admission for
speech-language pathology programs based on an examination of 161 letters of recommendation
(Newkirk-Turner & Hudson, 2021). The same problem exists in pharmacy programs (Rice et al.,
28

2021), vascular surgery and obstetrics (Go, 2021), plastic surgery (Bonaroti et al., 2021), and
radiation oncology (Chapman et al., 2020). These studies are important to understand how
language choice for investigators can disguise implicit bias and how recommended strategies of
using tools in aid of writing to facilitate less bias can work for investigators.
Delivery of Services
Once an employee is nestled into a role, implicit bias is present when performing job
functions. Internal investigators, and even external investigators, provide services to all
stakeholders, the reporting party, the responding party, and the organization that is responsible
for the investigation’s outcome. The delivery of these investigation services is an area of inquiry
for this study. Because implicit bias is a universal human phenomenon, every profession is
impacted. FitzGerald and Hurst (2017) conducted a literature review of all studies analyzing
healthcare professionals and implicit bias. The review revealed that healthcare professionals
exhibited implicit biases significant enough that these biases could lead to a negative impact on
diagnosis and treatment decisions (FitzGerald & Hurst, 2017). The same challenges apply to
women involved in the justice system across agency-provided services, such as justice,
healthcare, and social services, including parole and probation departments, law enforcement
units, courts, attorneys that are both court-appointed and private practice defense lawyers,
prisons and jails, social service agencies that assist with housing, and other basic needs services,
such as agencies that assist with providing food (Smith, et al., 2020). The significance of this
research is that in an important area where the outcome is critical, the research shows that
implicit bias could negatively impact outcomes significantly, which may mean life or death in
some cases. Similarly, implicit bias may impact an investigator in the delivery of services to the
individuals depending on the investigation’s outcome.
29

Healthcare is not the only professional field where implicit bias plays a role in the
delivery of services; education is an area thoroughly studied. Gilliam et al. (2016) conducted a
study of 132 early childhood educators. They watched a series of video clips to identify
challenging behavior before it becomes problematic, and what the data showed was that Black
children, with an emphasis on Black boys, were identified as having more challenging behavior
and that teachers were predisposed to look longer at Black children establishing the implicit
racial bias in the classroom (Gilliam et al., 2016). The outcome was significant because, in the
most benign of circumstances, children sitting in a classroom, adults in power were unaware of
how they were treating the children inequitably. This finding is significant because the bias in
classroom management has been an issue studied and taught to teachers for some time (Grant &
Gillette, 2006). Implicit bias and its impact on children are not limited to race but also includes
ethnicity. A study of 41 teachers found that implicit bias impacted teachers’ expectations of
students of different ethnicities and led to an achievement gap between students of different
ethnicities (van den Bergh et al., 2010). This study further supports the way implicit bias impacts
educating diverse classrooms of students. Because of globalization and migration, classrooms
will continue to diversify, as will our communities, which means implicit bias will impact all
critical interpersonal interactions. Even at the college level, professors are 26% more likely to
respond to a student email signed with “Brad” than with the name “Lamar,” a stereotypical Black
name, even though former United States Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, is White
(Milkman et al., 2012; Wikipedia, 2021).
Within the legal profession, implicit bias exists. Implicit bias’s impact on judges is a
limited area of study (Levinson et al., 2017). A study of 239 sitting federal and state judges
found that judges had strong to moderate negative opinions based on implicit stereotypes of
Asian-Americans and Jewish people while having positive opinions based on implicit
30

stereotypes of Whites and Christians (Levinson et al., 2017). Prior to this 2017 study, only one
other empirical study was conducted examining the views of 133 state or local trial judges, using
the Implicit Bias Test (IAT) with a separate priming measure (Rachlinski et al., 2009). The study
found that state court judges, even in the study’s limited sample, hold implicit racial bias
(Rachlinski et al., 2009). Judges are not alone in having implicit bias, as juries also have an
implicit bias (Kirshenbaum & Miller, 2020; Roberts, 2012). Therefore, implicit bias is found in
the delivery of services where judgment is central, like investigations.
Performance Reviews
Eventually, an employee’s performance will be reviewed, and performance review is
another area where implicit bias is a factor. Research supports that subjective, vague, or abstract
evaluation criteria exacerbate discriminatory employment decisions (Fiske et al., 1991; Gill,
2014). Anonymous ratings exacerbate implicit bias (Gill, 2014; Landy & Farr, 1980).
Performance appraisals that are done quickly or done after an extended period, requiring the
reviewer to use their memory, are likely to be affected by implicit bias (Bartlett, 1932; Carnes et
al., 2005; Gill, 2014). Language choice is also important in performance appraisals, as well as
letters of reference. In a study that compared supervisors’ written comments to their numerical
ratings, managers consistently gave lower numerical ratings to employees of color compared to
White employees, which they did not explain in their written summaries (Wilson, 2010). Thus,
this study highlights the importance that using language carefully can have in a performance
assessment’s validity when there are both subjective and objective measurements. Therefore,
research suggests that when writing performance reviews, one place where implicit bias is
demonstrated is the misalignment between numerical and narrative information. Performance
reviews that evaluate performance based on clear, objective, and measurable criteria help to
31

guard against more the risk of subjective evaluations that could lend themselves to implicit bias’s
impact.
The preparation of performance reviews and what conditions make implicit bias more
prominent in evaluating performance has applicability to investigators in their evaluation of
evidence to determine whether the conduct occurred and, if it did occur, whether it violates an
organization’s policies. If performance evaluations are areas of risk, then so are investigations.
Prior Recommended Strategies to Address Implicit Bias
Numerous strategies have been proposed in the literature to address implicit bias. These
strategies, except for one,
23
can be categorized as forms of education: exposure to disrupt
stereotypical assumptions, developing egalitarian goals, identifying with the oppressed group,
conditioning, inducing emotion; one study recommended medication (FitzGerald et al., 2019). A
comprehensive study reviewing the literature’s recommendations evaluated the strategies to
determine which ones were effective (FitzGerald et al., 2019).
Education: Direct Instruction
Direct instruction takes the form of training. In support of the need for such training,
many studies found that, for example, women experience unconscious bias in medical education,
impacting their choice of career, rejecting academic medicine. In a comprehensive review of 52
studies published between 1985 and 2015, eight studies suggested that women rejected careers in
academic medicine because of discrimination and unconscious bias in medical school and
residency (Edmunds et al., 2016). The authors recommended affording all genders an equal
opportunity by introducing unconscious bias and stereotype threat training (Edmunds et al.,
2016). An example of such training can be exposure to counterstereotypical exemplars, such as

23
In one study, medication, (Propranol) was studied as a way to mitigate implicit bias (Terbeck, et al., 2012)
32

learning about famous Black people and infamous White people (Lai et al., 2014). This direct
instruction is paired with evaluative conditioning by pairing White faces with negative words
and pairing Black faces with positive words to reprogram the brain (Lai et al., 2014). Another
example of direct instruction is training individuals to identify the individual details of faces of
different races, rather than mere exposure (Qian et al., 2017).
How much education in the form of direct instruction is necessary has yet to be
determined. In a controlled experimental quantitative study, faculty attended a 2.5-hour
workshop (Carnes et al., 2015). Surveys were collected before and after the experiment obtaining
data on gender bias awareness; motivation, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations to reduce
bias; and gender equity action (Carnes et al., 2015). The experiment was a timed task to measure
implicit and leadership bias (Carnes et al., 2015). By measuring the data before and after the
experiment, the study found that the intervention in the form of intensive training of 2.5 hours
would have a positive impact on reducing implicit bias in the department (Carnes et al., 2015).
Shorter educational activities were not as effective. Another study tested a 20-minute educational
intervention to teach 281 faculty about implicit bias and strategies to overcome it (Girod et al.,
2016). The study found that the intervention had a small but positive impact on implicit bias, but
did not impact explicit bias, underscoring the need to create intensive training for maximum
impact (Girod et al., 2016). Therefore, 20 minutes was too short, and 2.5 hours had a positive,
yet small, impact. The length of the educational experience is not the only factor; the method of
the education is important, as well.
Education: Experiential Methods
While prior literature has attempted to identify different strategies (Fitzgerald et al.,
2019), these strategies are methods of education focusing less on knowledge acquisition in the
form of objective information and instead centering the experience of the oppressed individual in
33

relation to one’s own experience through identifying with the oppressed group (perspective-
taking), conditioning, and exposure (Fitzgerald et al., 2019). Perspective-taking or imagining
oneself in the shoes of the other and how one would feel if one experienced conduct or attitudes
is an example of an experiential method of education that has seen some success in addressing
implicit bias (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). Conditioning, as discussed above, is paired with
direct instruction in counterstereotypical exemplars (Lai et al., 2014). Another example of
conditioning is through imagining being in a state of threat, such as in a post-apocalyptic
scenario, and needing to rely on members of the team who are dissimilar to oneself (Lai et al.,
2014). Exposure is based on the idea that under optimum circumstances, by engaging with
people different from themselves, individuals can appreciate a positive feeling and associate that
feeling with individuals who share the same characteristics (Allport et al., 1954). Similarly,
imagining individuals in a positive way can have an impact in line with direct exposure (Lai et
al., 2015).
Another example of exposure takes the form of shifting group boundaries through
competition. In a dodgeball game where some White participants were paired with an all-Black
team in a competition against an all-White team, the White members of the all-Black team were
able to shift their perspective by remembering the White team as their enemies and the Black
team members coming to their aid to beat the other team (Lai et al., 2014). While research seeks
to better understand and develop strategies to address implicit bias, there is an abundance of
additional work needed, and particularly as it relates to investigators. This study will examine
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact an investigator in conducting
internal investigations.

34

Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’ Framework
The study implemented a modified gap analysis model as its conceptual framework. Gap
analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) is a systematic, analytical method that helps clarify a professional
field’s goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within a professional field. The steps in the gap analysis process are as
follows: first, defining measurable goals; second, determining gaps in performance; third,
hypothesizing possible causes for those gaps; fourth, validating and prioritizing causes; fifth,
developing solutions; and finally, evaluating outcomes. In gap analysis, potential causes for
performance gaps are studied in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on the professional in that field.
Often, individuals assume causes for problems within a professional field without
appropriately understanding those causes. As a result, individuals may omit or misdiagnose
causes for performance gaps. Furthermore, this “jumping to conclusions” often leads to applying
inappropriate solutions or inaction due to perceived complexity in solving the problem. Gap
analysis is designed to avoid creating inappropriate solutions via a thorough study of the
potential causes for performance issues. As the final step, an implementation and evaluation plan
is created.
This study was designed as an exploratory study following the general steps of gap
analysis. The study’s goal was to identify both assets and gaps that impact performance,
specifically, the investigator’s ability to mitigate implicit bias in the investigative process. Once
the stakeholder goal and competency were determined, assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impact stakeholder capacity were generated based on context-
specific as well as general learning and motivation literature. These influences will be presented
next.
35

Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences
This study focused on knowledge-related influences that are pertinent to exploring the
investigator’s ability to mitigate implicit bias in the investigative process. It is important to
examine knowledge and skills in problem-solving because to improve, identifying what needs to
improve is essential (Langley et al., 2009). The identification of the gap areas is essential to
create measurable goals to move toward competency (Langley et al., 2009). While there are
many types of knowledge, this study focused on three types of knowledge comprising Bloom’s
taxonomy of four: declarative, procedural, and explicit (Benjamin1935). Declarative knowledge
is fact-based (Benjamin, 1964). Procedural knowledge is focused on the process of how to do a
task (Benjamin, 1964). Finally, metacognitive knowledge is knowledge acquired by reflective
inquiry through thinking about thinking in order to obtain awareness (Benjamin, 1964).
Declarative Knowledge. Investigators serve the organization by being factfinders when
investigating a report of concern by an employee of the organization. A fact is defined as “an
actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion; a truth, as
distinguished from fiction or error” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2021a, para. 1). The purpose of the
investigation is to determine what happened, if anything, and if what happened is a violation of
organization policy. Facts are often understood in relation to law, or here, policy, a system of
rules. Investigators, to be effective, must know how to distinguish a fact from an opinion. An
opinion is an inference taken from the meaning of a fact or set of facts (Black’s Law Dictionary,
2021b). When an investigator is unable to distinguish fact from their opinions about a set of
facts, there is a risk that implicit bias may impact the meaning of the fact when applied to the
policy. Therefore, investigators need to understand what implicit bias is to form the basis for
36

identifying it when they conduct investigations to discern the difference between a fact and their
opinion.
Procedural Knowledge. For proper fact-finding, an investigator should incorporate
strategies to account for and mitigate implicit bias in investigations. Investigations should be
planned and have a clearly identified scope that is not unduly limiting, identified relevant
policies, and a preliminary path to follow to obtain the data needed to answer: what happened
and whether what happened violated organization policy. Investigators should understand how to
obtain information through a variety of methods, including interviews, in a manner that
acknowledges and mitigates implicit bias. The process of interviewing establishes a relationship
with the interviewee. When interviewing, social science has grappled with the issue of implicit
bias in research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study wought to understand what strategies
might be working against investigators’ ability to account for implicit bias as well as what
strategies investigators can use to mitigate the impact of implicit bias in investigations.
Metacognitive Knowledge. Reflective inquiry is the act of thinking about thinking, or
the understandings gained, to be able to take action (Lyons et al., 2013). For an investigator to
ascertain whether their opinions, implicit or otherwise, are coloring the facts, they must know
how to reflect on what they know, how they know it, and whether there are other influences
impacting that thought process.
Table 3 presents the three knowledge influences that are necessary for an investigator to
mitigate implicit bias.

37

Table 3
Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Knowledge of what implicit bias is. Declarative
Ability to incorporate strategies to account for
implicit bias in investigations.
Procedural
Ability to reflect on their own implicit biases
to be able to mitigate them in the process of
investigating.
Metacognitive

Motivational Influences
This study focused on the motivational influences that are pertinent to exploring the
investigator’s willingness to mitigate implicit bias in the investigative process. Motivation is
defined as choosing to accomplish a goal, having the persistence to not be distracted from
achieving the goal, and the mental effort to achieve the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). At the same
time, motivation is necessary to know how to achieve a goal; motivation fuels the effort needed
to meet the demands to achieve the desired result. While there are many motivational theories,
this study applies self-efficacy to the problem of implicit bias in investigations.
Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy was defined by Bandura (1982), and it is the self-belief that
the person has the ability and skills to cope with the circumstances to accomplish a goal. When
self-efficacy is low, the motivation to undertake the task will prevent the individual from being
willing to try, and if they try, then it will be an impediment to sustaining the effort necessary to
achieve the result (Bandura, 1982). Investigators need to believe that they have the awareness,
ability, and skills to cope with circumstances to conduct investigations free from implicit bias
and in which affected parties have faith will be equitable. Table 4 shows the motivational
influence that can influence an investigator.
38

Table 4
Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Motivation Influence
Self-Efficacy Workplace investigators need to believe that they have the awareness
and ability and skills to cope with circumstances in order to conduct
investigations free from implicit bias and in which affected parties
have faith will be equitable.

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences, in addition to knowledge and motivational influences, can
impact investigator performance. Organizational styles and organizational structures can
influence the knowledge and motivation of investigators (Agbim, 2013; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Schien & Schein, 2017). Within those two broad categories are two organizational influences
that will be the focus of the study. Within organizational style, shared values, norms, beliefs, and
expectations, or culture, can impact investigators, related to the way decisions are made, what
drives those decisions, and the messaging around investigations and how individuals are to be
treated. Within the organizational structure, this study focused on how power and resources are
allocated among the individuals who are part of the investigation process and have an impact on
the investigation process.
Shared Values, Norms, Beliefs, and Expectations. Shared values, norms, beliefs, and
expectations, or culture, relate to the organization’s mission and vision, the way it conducts its
business, and the interpersonal contracts between stakeholders (Alavi et al., 2005; Schein &
Schein, 2017). These values, norms, beliefs, and expectations can form the basis of an
environment that keeps implicit bias in place or addresses it directly to provide an equitable
process to those who have concerns (Brownstein, 2019; Burke, 2018). Organizations must
39

provide, and investigators must insist on an environment where the shared values, norms, beliefs,
and expectations act to disrupt implicit bias during the investigation process to afford employees
equity and a process that represents the values that the organization champions.
Organizational Structure. Organizational structure is the framework of roles, division
of labor, power, and how knowledge is conveyed that is a result of decisions made by those with
authority (Alavi et al., 2005). This structure can impact what knowledge an investigator is
allowed access to, how information is conveyed, how decisions are made, what authority an
investigator has over making findings in investigations, and whether those findings are subject to
approval or review, and how much. Organizations must afford investigators power within the
organizational structure to foster independence of thought and judgment that is separate from the
organization that has an interest in the outcome of the investigation.
Table 5 shows the two organizational influences that can impact an investigator in the
process of investigating.

Table 5
Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Category Organizational Influences.
Organizational Culture: Shared
Values, Norms, Beliefs, and
Expectations.
The workplace investigator must work in an
organizational culture that supports the mitigation of
implicit bias.
Organizational Structure The workplace investigator must possess enough power
and privilege within the organizational structure and
culture to act independently from the influence of the
organization and organizational culture to mitigate
implicit bias.

40

Summary
Chapter Two focused on defining implicit bias and understanding the cultural context of
implicit bias research over time, moving from immutable to a phenomenon that has a scientific
basis and is not indicative of a character trait. A new definition of implicit bias was articulated.
With the understanding that implicit bias is a result of learning and storing information for use
later, the ways in which implicit bias is demonstrated in the work environment were identified,
including hiring, delivery of services, and performance reviews. Strategies to address implicit
bias in workplace environments learned from previous studies were identified, and evaluation
was summarized. Finally, Chapter Two analyzed the key components of the study, adapting
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis process to understand who the stakeholders are, those who
are impacted by investigations, and the professional field’s key knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences on investigators’ ability to mitigate for implicit bias in the investigative
process. These components form the conceptual framework for conducting this study according
to the methodology identified in Chapter Three.

41

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to identify what investigators know about implicit bias and
how it impacts their work, what motivates investigators to do the work that they do, and what
organizational factors may exist to reinforce or mitigate implicit bias in the investigation process.
Chapter Three provides an overview of the methodology used in obtaining data to answer three
research questions. The research questions are identified in Table 2.
Overview of Methodology
This study used a mixed-method explanatory design
24
to answer the research questions
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The reason for the mixed-methods approach was to obtain
corroborated results as well as to engage participants in the study to learn from their lived
experiences (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
The first phase of the study (Phase 1) used a survey instrument to collect general data on
knowledge, training, perceptions, and attitudes from the investigator community through
publicizing the invitation to participate in the study on the Association of Workplace
Investigators (AWI) announcement listserv
25
and by posting the invitation to participate in the

24
The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The approval letter is provided in
Appendix D.
25
After the study was approved by the institutional review board, consistent with prior discussions with AWI, AWI was
contacted for assistance in publicizing the study by sending an announcement email to membership to ensure organization-wide
reach. The organization did not respond consistent with the researcher’s need to collect data and deadlines. Consequently, the
announcement was posted on the AWI Announcement listserv when I submitted it to the list. It was approved for posting by AWI
personnel and sent to members who subscribed to that list (N = unknown). The Announcement listserv is available for all
members to post announcements. It is moderated and requires AWI to approve the posting. One day after AWI approved the
posting, AWI notified me and then issued a statement. “AWI is not affiliated with the Implicit Bias in Workplace Investigations
study being conducted by an AWI member, and neither encourages nor discourages member participation in this study.” The time
between the notification to me and the issuance of the statement was less than 1-hour. In the time that I have been a member,
AWI has not issued a statement about any other announcement that is approved by AWI and posted to the Announcement
listserv. No opportunity was extended to discuss the matter with the AWI Board. I notified AWI it would be necessary to disclose
this information in the study as a factor that could affect participation in the study since the study was underway. AWI did not
respond. Based on the data, there was consistent participation until the announcement was made. After the announcement, there
was a drop off in participation that lasted for over five hours. In the first hour after the announcement was made, there was one
participant; in the remaining four hours there were zero participants. Prior to the AWI statement, the study collected data from 55
participants. Only 18 of the 55 were on day one of distribution. The remaining 37 were on the day of but before AWI released its
announcement. There is no other identifiable explanation for the sharp change in participants.
42

Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE)
26
discussion board. Neither organization
provided support or assistance with the study. Neither organization endorsed the study. I never
sought endorsement of the study, only assistance with an announcement to reach the largest
population of investigators. Additionally, an announcement offering the choice to participate was
posted on a LinkedIn page inviting those who are investigators. The second phase (Phase 2) of
the study collected more specific data from survey participants who were interested in
participating in an interview. The source of the data to answer each research question is
presented in Table 6.

Table 6
Data Sources
Research Questions Survey Interview
RQ1 X X
RQ2 X X

26
SCCE was contacted to support the study by sending an announcement email membership to ensure organization wide reach.
The Executive Director declined.
43

Data Sources
The study was conducted in two sequential phases. Phase 1 collected data through a
survey instrument. Phase 2 collected data through interviews.
Phase One: Survey Instrument
I distributed a survey instrument in Phase 1 of the two sequential phases.
Participants
The population of internal investigators is unknown. The sample, consisting only of
internal investigators, was recruited using voluntary, non-random sampling, where the
participants chose to opt-in to participate in the study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The exact
number of internal investigators is unknown. The sample was identified from a population
derived from a combination of members of the AWI and the SCCE, both professional
organizations to which many investigators belong. Additional members were recruited through
professional networking and word-of-mouth. The accurate total population size for the
distribution of the quantitative instrument was not known
27
and cannot be determined accurately
to calculate the ideal sample size.
Instrumentation
The survey consisted of 35 substantive questions (not including sub-parts) and two study
administration questions, totaling 37 questions. The survey is provided in Appendix A. Two
questions with eight subparts each, equaling 16 statements requiring a response, were derived
from a psychometric measure that determines how likely a person is to be concerned with social
approval and conforming to societal expectations and conventions (Stӧber, 1999, 2001). The
measure protocol is provided in Appendix B. This measure was found to be reliable and valid for

27
This unknown existed because membership populations were unknown, and the LinkedIn post could be shared.
44

workplace scenarios where impression management, or effort, is made to influence another’s
opinion of the individual, is a factor (Stӧber, 1999, 2001). The measure was also highly sensitive
to social desirability provoking job instructions (Stӧber, 1999, 2001). It was selected over the
long-standing Marlowe-Crowne Scale because of that measure’s length (16 questions to
Marlowe-Crowne’s 33) and literature that suggests that the SDS-17 is modern and more
accessible for contemporary workers (Stӧber, 1999, 2001). The scores from the measure may
indicate how likely a participant would be to assert themselves in a disagreement with the
organization over the investigation process or outcome. Whether an investigator is likely to act in
a manner that will make them more socially desirable is important to understanding the
investigator’s motivations. This study focused the inquiry about motivation on self-efficacy and
the need for investigators to feel they have the ability and skills to cope with the circumstances
(Bandura, 1982) to provide an investigation free from implicit bias. Social desirability in this
context is at its core is a survival skill, one of self-preservation (Agarwal, 2020). If the
investigator is implicitly more concerned with appearing valuable to the organization, then they
are susceptible to influence, and which may motivate them to reach different conclusions with
their decisions (Agarwal, 2020). The remaining questions sought information about
demographics, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Demographic questions
added context to the responses and helped to isolate individuals to interview as part of Phase 2.
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
In the study’s quantitative Phase 1, the survey instrument was distributed online through
Qualtrics (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Nesbary, 2000; Sue & Ritter, 2012). Participants were
solicited using an invitation sent to the AWI’s Announcement listserv and by posting in the
Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics message board, as well as posting the invitation on
my LinkedIn page. Data were gathered from participants who self-identified as internal
45

investigators. The survey was open to those invited to participate for 2 weeks. The survey was
expected to take 13.7 minutes to complete. An incentive in the form of a random drawing for one
of two $100 gift cards served as an incentive for survey participation.
Data were analyzed by Qualtrics using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods
(Salkind & Frey, 2019).
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability were supported in several ways. First, the SDS-17 is a reliable
measure. It has been tested and has achieved scores indicating reliability (Stӧber, 1999) and in
correlation with the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (Stӧber, 1999, 2001). The SDS-17 was cited in
3,500 scholarly articles. Reliability and validity were established by piloting among participants
who did not participate in the study.
Phase 2: Qualitative Data: Semi-Structured Interviews
In the qualitative phase of the study, qualitative data were gathered through one-on-one
semi-structured interviews conducted via videoconference (Zoom). Five participants were
selected. To form a manually stratified sample, their selection was based on the following
criteria: volunteer participants, based on geographical location, sex, and race. Each earned a gift
card for the completion of the interview.
The interview protocol was semi-structured, consisting of 11 questions and relevant
prompts that were asked of each interviewee, subject to follow-up questions for detail and/or
clarity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). The purpose of the semi-structured approach
was to obtain data that would be comparable while also allowing for the gathering of data that
provided rich personal experiences and contextual understanding.
Each interview was not longer than between 45 and 60 minutes. Because these interviews
were with professionals skilled in interviewing subjects, the length of the interview was
46

appropriate. The interview was recorded in accordance with California legal requirements, and
permission was obtained (California State Penal Code §632). A secondary backup method of
audio recording was made in the event of a technology failure with Zoom. The data were saved
locally on a drive that is not accessible to the internet and to which only I had access. The
recording was transcribed using Rev, a service known for its transcription accuracy.
Additionally, field notes were taken.
The questions were focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors, as the
core principles of the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) and directly related to
research questions 1 and 2. The questions focused on the participants’ knowledge of implicit
bias, motivation for working as an investigator, and organizational factors that may be working
to keep implicit bias in place within their investigation process. None of the questions directly
addressed implicit bias to avoid priming the participant beyond light priming in the survey
instrument, avoiding to the extent possible potentially skewing the data. Given the topic, implicit
bias, and its sensitive, political, and emotionally charged nature, the approach was to avoid the
participants’ giving answers that allow the participants to “fake good.”
The questions used in the interviews are included in Appendix C.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using thematic coding processes (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018;
Gibbs, 2018; Saldaña, 2016). Themes were derived from the conceptual framework of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008).

47

Validity and Reliability
Triangulation was used comparing variables in the quantitative data and variables in the
quantitative data against qualitative data to maximize the validity and reliability of the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A second method was looking at alternative explanations, rather than
only looking at the data to confirm the hypothesis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This process
evaluated the evidence obtained to identify any disconfirming data to account for confirmation or
selection bias (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Finally, validity threats were further reduced by
using a population of over 100 participants for the quantitative Phase 1 (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2018).
Ethics and Role of Researcher
My responsibility was to inflict no harm on the participants and to follow all federal
regulations and university policies applicable to the research process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This study was approved by the university’s institutional review board (IRB) and qualified for
exempt review because the risk of harm to the human subject was low (Protection of Human
Research Subjects 45 CFR 46 et seq., 2018). A copy of the IRB approval letter is included in
Appendix D. An electronically tracked information sheet for exempt research was included as
part of the survey instrument. The information sheet contained a timer that determined how long
a participant remained on the page to help support that the page was either read or not read
before advancing to the first question, as well as to support the study. The information sheet was
developed by the institution’s IRB and conformed to federal requirements. The information sheet
stated that participation was voluntary and that data were confidential to the extent allowed by
law. It was written in simple language and was formatted to be accessible and simple, displayed
in 12-point Arial font. As indicated, the interview protocol complied with all requirements of the
48

California penal code. Data were stored in a secured drive that was not connected to the internet,
and that was only accessible by me.
I am a workplace investigator with more than 15 years of experience in conducting
investigations, including those arising out of workplace conduct allegations. I am a member
28
of
both AWI and SCCE but does not serve in a leadership role and has never served in a leadership
role for either organization. I did have assumptions about the worldview of investigators, based
perceptions about the impact of certain variables and based on anecdotal experiences. Those
views were treated as hypotheses to be tested rather than fixed positions. I was not seeking data
to confirm a hypothesis but was seeking data to understand the investigators who are different
from me. Similarly, it was my intention to disclose limited information about her professional
identity at the outset of the study, opting to debrief survey participants after data was collected to
avoid influencing the data and breaking a boundary between the participant and me.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations were the influences the researcher cannot control versus the delimitations,
which were choices the researcher makes in designing the study. The study was organized as a
gap analysis based on the position that improving performance and process is a learning problem
to be solved. The study was organized in two phases, quantitative and qualitative. The
quantitative phase was to gather general information about the sample, to obtain some
information that can answer the three research questions, and then to use some of the quantitative
data to purposely select from a volunteer population to develop a qualitative sample that was
diverse and representative. However, I could not control who chose to participate in the study
and whether those who did participate in the study were truthful with their responses. This means

28
I did not pay the dues for either organization, and the dues were paid for by an employer.
49

that the quantity and diversity of the sample were a challenge given several factors.
Delimitations included the number of questions contained in the survey, the types of interview
questions asked, and which participants of the volunteer sample were selected for interviews, as
well as a lack of funding for incentives to solicit all participants who volunteered to participate in
Phase 2 qualitative interviews for one-to-one interviews.
50

Chapter Four: Results
29

The purpose of this study was to explore what investigators know about implicit bias and
to gauge their awareness of how it intersects with the work they do. Because investigators are
from different professional and educational backgrounds, the study sought to understand how
investigator motivations may play a role in implicit bias in investigations. The study also sought
to identify organizational factors that may maintain or disrupt the impact of implicit bias on
investigations. To answer the research questions, the study was a mixed-methods explanatory
study divided into two phases: Phase 1, quantitative survey, and Phase Two, qualitative
interviews (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The questions that guided this study are listed in
Table 2.
Phase 1, the quantitative phase, had four goals. The first goal was to collect data to
develop a description of the sample. The second goal was to collect data to ascertain whether
indications of bias were present. The third goal was to obtain preliminary data about the
motivational and organizational factors that may have an impact on implicit bias in
investigations. The fourth goal was to identify participants for Phase 2, the qualitative interview
phase. Phase 2 of the study had two goals: to obtain data to understand the lived experience of
investigators as it pertained to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors as influences
on the work they do and to obtain data that may help establish internal validity and reliability for
the study. Chapter Four describes the data obtained from the study and discusses themes that
emerged from the data.

29
This study generated considerable data. While the instrument and interview protocol are included in the Appendices, not all the
data collected is discussed in this publication. Only the data that specifically answered the research questions is discussed.
51

Participants
Phase 1: Survey
Phase 1, using a quantitative online survey, provided data that identified and described
the sample. Volunteer non-random sampling was used to recruit 190 participants. Of those
participants, 117 were internal workplace investigators. The remainder of the sample were
external workplace investigators and were excluded from this analysis. This sample focused on
internal workplace investigators that provided services to one organization where they conducted
investigations, as opposed to external investigators who were vendors and provide contracted
services to multiple organizations. Therefore, the sample was composed of 117 internal
workplace investigators.
Based on the demographic data provided, participants (N = 117) were predominantly
male, between 25 and 34 years old, White, and heterosexual. The demographic data are
represented in Tables 7 and 8. Notably, no participants identified as Latinx.
30

Based on U.S. Census Bureau Data (2016),
31
male participants were more represented in
the sample than male persons were represented in the total U.S. population, reflecting a
statistically significant overrepresentation of male investigators in the sample. This finding is
important because the data may indicate an overrepresentation in comparison to the population
of employees investigators serve. A discussion of statistical significance is presented in
Appendix E.
Additional findings were observed in relation to gender. When asked to select all that
apply, almost universally, 98% (115) of participants (N = 117) did not identify as cisgender; no

30
Although excluded from analysis for this study, some external workplace investigators did identify as Latinx.
31
Due to administration data collection and record keeping irregularities between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, this
study uses 2016 government data.
52

participants identified as transgender. This lack of identification suggested a knowledge gap
about gender terminology. Another possibility is that it reflected a disagreement with the terms
cisgender and transgender based on a personal belief. More research is required to identify the
basis for the gap. A further discussion of the cisgender data and its relevance to the knowledge of
implicit bias is found in the section on results.

Table 7
Demographics: Sex and Race
Category Sub-Category Count (N = 117) Percentage (%)
Sex
32
Male 79 68
Female 36 31
Non-binary/third gender 1 1
Transgender 0 0
Cisgender 2 2
I prefer not to say 2 2
Race White 80 68
Black or African American 14 12
American Indian or Alaska
Native
16 14
Asian 4 3
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
2 2
Other: Two or More Races 1 1
Totals 117 100

32
Totals not calculated because participants were asked to select all that may apply.
53

Table 8
Demographics: Age and Sexual Orientation
Category Sub-Category Count
(N = 117)
Percentage (%)
Age 18–24 3 3
25–34 60 51
35–44 29 25
45–54 20 17
55–64 4 3
65–74 1 1
75–84 0 0
Totals
Sexual Orientation Heterosexual/Straight 110 94
LGBTQ+ 2 2
Asexual 1 1
Not Listed [Narrative Box] 0 0
I am uncomfortable disclosing 4 3
Totals 117 100

In addition to a demographic profile, a professional profile emerged from the sample
data. Table 9 presents professional profile data.

54

Table 9
Professional Profile: Education, Experience, Training, Certification
Category Sub-Category Count
(N = 117)
Percentage (%)
Education
Achieved
33

High School graduate 5 4
Some College 28 24
2 year degree 10 9
4 year degree 35 30
Master’s degree 21 18
Professional doctorate (J.D., MD, etc.) 14 12
Doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D., Psy.D.) 4 3
Totals
Years of
Experience
0–1 5 4
2–5 65 56
6–9 27 23
10–15 15 13
+15 5 4
Totals 117 100
Training in Last
Three Years
34

Interviewing Skills 36 12
Writing Skills 38 13
Law and Policy 63 21
Disability Law or Policy 27 9
Diversity and Inclusion 45 15
Cultural Differences 27 9
Communication Skills 42 14
Credibility Assessment 22 7
I did not take training 1 0
Totals
Are you
certified?
Yes 33 28
No 84 72
Totals 117 100

33
Totals not calculated because participants were asked to select all that may apply.
34
Totals not calculated because participants were asked to select all that may apply.
55

Of the participants (N = 117), 30% (35) identified a 4-year degree as the highest level of
education achieved. The next largest group of participants, 24% (28), reported the highest level
of education was some college. In this sample, participants possessing a professional doctorate
(J.D., MD, etc.) equaled 12% (14). This finding was surprising because of the specialized
knowledge derived from the legal field needed for evidence collection and credibility
determination, as well as related legal subjects such as protected-class discrimination contrary to
Title VII and related state laws. More research is needed to understand organizational decisions
around investigation structures.
Most participants, 56% (65), possessed between 2 and 5 years of experience, while 0 to 1
year and more than 15 years were the smallest portions of the sample at 4% (5) each. Based on
this sample, investigations are mostly being conducted by investigators who have less than 10
years of experience. The age and experience profile, with generational implications, may have an
impact on investigator judgment. More research is needed in this area to discern what impact
attitudes that correlate to age, education, and experience may have on investigations. There were
correlations between demographics and data demonstrating implicit bias. These findings are
discussed in the section on the results pertaining to the first research question.
Ninety-nine percent (116) of participants (N = 117) took training during the last 3 years.
Of the participants who did take training, 24% (72) took some form of diversity training, whether
it be diversity and inclusion or cultural differences training. That subject matter received the
most responses for training out of all the categories.
Most participants (N = 117), 72% (84), are not certified by any organization. The largest
number of participants, 36% (42), report certification taking too much time, 22% (26) believe it
is too expensive, 21% (25) cannot enroll because the classes are full, 18% (21) did not know it
56

was available, 12% (14) stated their employer will not cover the cost, and 6% (7) do not see the
value.
Most participants (N = 117), 82% (96), make findings on policy violations. Based on this
sample, investigators are not primarily factfinders, gathering information for others to evaluate.
They are gathering, evaluating, and applying the information to policies and making
determinations about whether an employee engaged in misconduct.
Phase 2: Qualitative Data: Semi-Structured Interviews
In Phase 2, the qualitative interview phase, five volunteers from Phase 1 agreed to
participate in an interview conducted over videoconferencing software, Zoom. Each received a
gift card as an incentive. The interview was semi-structured and covered the same topics
contained in 11 questions, plus additional probes. The volunteers were invited by reviewing the
demographic information provided in response to the survey, and every effort was made to invite
participants that represented as diverse a pool as was available. As discussed in Chapter Three,
one of this study’s limitations was the necessary reliance on a voluntary sample; this limitation
was not only true for Phase 1 but also Phase 2. A total of 82 participants indicated as part of the
survey that they wanted to be considered for an interview. Fifteen participants were invited. Five
participants self-selected to participate in Phase 2, volunteering to be interviewed. One
participant withdrew prior to the interview for an unknown reason. A total of four investigators
participated in Phase 2 interviews.
Results: Research Question 1
Pertaining to Research Question 1, the study sought data to understand an investigator’s
knowledge of implicit bias and motivation as a factor in investigations. At the outset, it is
important to state that it is extremely difficult to assess implicit bias. Implicit bias is a politically
charged and highly emotional topic that is difficult to evaluate and address. Researchers have
57

debated instruments and their effectiveness (Jost, 2019). Therefore, while this is an explanatory
study, some experimentation was necessary to identify data that could lead to reasonable
inferences about an investigator’s knowledge of implicit bias because the data could not be
ascertained directly.
For this study, it was presumed that if a participant demonstrated implicit bias in
responding to survey questions, the participant demonstrated a gap in knowledge of implicit bias
and how it impacted investigations. If interviewed participants identified universal normative
concepts, without recognizing the normative quality of these universal concepts, it was inferred
that a knowledge gap was present in relation to implicit bias and its impact on investigations.
Data collection concerning motivation was obtained through less complex methods and, in
comparison, simplified analysis. Table 10 presents the three themes that emerged from the
interview and survey data related to Research Question 1, and they are discussed further in the
following sections.

Table 10
Research Question 1: Themes Related to Knowledge of Implicit Bias and Motivation of
Investigators
Research Question 1
What is a workplace investigator’s knowledge of implicit bias as an issue in workplace
investigations, and what motivates internal workplace investigators?
Assumed Influences: Knowledge
Assumed Influence Theme
Knowledge of what implicit bias is. Real-world exercises challenged investigators
Ability to incorporate strategies to account for
implicit bias in investigations.
Reliance on normative concepts impedes
equity
Assumed Influence: Motivation
The belief they possess authority and skills to
conduct competent investigations that will
be free from implicit bias and in which
affected parties have faith will be equitable.
Investigators lean toward social desirability
58

Knowledge Theme 1: Real-World Exercises Challenged Investigators
The study needed to, at a baseline, ascertain whether the sample demonstrated any degree
of implicit bias around issues common to investigators to answer the first research question as it
pertained to the knowledge of implicit bias. As discussed in Chapter Three, identifying implicit
bias has focused on psychometric measures. One such measure is the IAT, or Implicit
Association Test (Project Implicit, 2020). Many studies use the IAT
35
, and it has generated
significant controversy over what variable the psychometric test is evaluating (Jost, 2019).
Instead, this study used an experimental approach, operating on the understanding that a
fundamental skill required of an investigator is to be observant and detail-oriented (Bloch, 2008).
This study chose to approach the inquiry much like a context-specific pre-test in the educational
context to ascertain the level of skill absent a context-specific, reliable, and valid psychometric
measure.
First, the participants (N = 117) were lightly primed. Rather than using deception, this
study articulated the title of the study on the first page of the survey. It was listed as Study Title:
Implicit Bias in Workplace Investigations. The title is the first piece of information about the
study, and it is located under the capitalized words in bold font, INFORMATION SHEET FOR
EXEMPT RESEARCH. The information sheet for exempt research is provided in Appendix F.
The survey also used an embedded timer function not visible to the participant. For each
participant, the software recorded the total time the first page, the Information Sheet for Exempt
Research, was displayed on the participant’s device. The median time the page was displayed
was 33 seconds, or less than one minute (s = 171), resulting in a 95% confidence level that the
time the participants spent on the page was between 75 to 135 seconds (i.e., over one minute).

35
According to Google Scholar, approximately 385,000 studies use the IAT as of June 2021.
59

While the detection of time alone does not establish that the participant read and understood the
words on the page, a reasonable inference can be drawn. Evidence to support the inference that
individuals did consider the subject of the study exists. During the study, I received an email
from a participant inquiring about the research questions because the title of the study did not
appear to the participant to align with the questions asked in the survey.
Next, after being lightly primed with the study title to identify the study’s subject matter,
the participants were asked to give their opinions on four declarative statements on topics related
to the kinds of topics found in investigations. The statements were not prefaced by any
instructive text. After the statement, a list of responses was provided. As stated, the responses
contained one neutral option. The statements were preceded by and contained no context. No fact
pattern was provided. The statement does not ask the participant to apply their personal
experiences.
These four statements were used to assess the participants’ ability to demonstrate
knowledge of implicit bias. The experiment tested whether the participant could, consistent with
field expectations, remain impartial by selecting the non-neutral answer, having been provided
no instructions to consider personal experience and no facts to apply to the statement in
responding to the statement. This approach had the advantage of using real-world concepts and
applied skills to assess implicit bias. Tables 11 through 14 present the results. The data are
categorized by degree of neutrality, whether the response was not neutral or neutral.

60

Table 11
Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Retaliation
Statement Response Count
n = 116
36

Percentage %
Retaliation allegations are
usually not provable.

Degree of Neutrality
Neutral 37 32
Non-Neutral 79 68
Totals 116 100

Note. Response Choices: Definitely yes, Probably yes, Neither yes nor, Probably not, Definitely
not.

Table 12
Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Non-Protected-Class Misconduct
Statement Response Count
N = 117
Percentage
%
Employees who allege non-protected-class-based
bullying, harassment, intimidation, or abuse
usually contribute to the situation they are
reporting in some way.
Degree of Neutrality
Neutral 48 41
Non-Neutral 69 59
Totals 117 100

Note. Response Choices: Definitely yes, Probably yes, Neither yes nor, Probably not, Definitely
not.

36
The sample is 116. One participant did not answer the question.
61

Table 13
Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Age/Race Allegations
Statement Response Count
N = 117
Percentage
%
Race and/or age allegations are
usually unsupported by evidence.
Degree of Neutrality
Neutral 41 35
Non-Neutral 76 65
Totals 117 100

Note. Response Choices: Definitely yes, Probably yes, Neither yes nor, Probably not, Definitely
not.

Table 14
Knowledge of Implicit Bias, Case-Type: Sex-Based Allegations
Statement Response Count Percentage
Allegations about sex-based policy
violations are usually true.
Degree of Neutrality
Neutral 46 39
Non-Neutral 71 61
Totals 117 100

Note. Response Choices: Definitely yes, Probably yes, Neither yes nor, Probably not, Definitely
not.

62

For all four statements (case types), the data suggested most participants demonstrated a
lack of knowledge of implicit bias. Of the response choices, neither yes nor no was the only
neutral response. All the other responses were considered a generalization based on experience
or beliefs and indicative of an implicit bias about the case type contained in the statement.
While it is possible participants may have misunderstood the question, investigators
should have a keen eye for detail and should not be reading into more than what is observed
(Bloch, 2008). Implicit bias, as defined in this study in Chapter Two, is a changeable behavior
rooted in neuroscience, based on pattern detection and probability determination, where the
human brain, without malice, quickly, automatically, and unconsciously apply a trait to an
individual based on the generalized beliefs about a group of people because of a shared similarity
because of experiences and beliefs. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that, when responding,
investigators were accessing generalized experiences and beliefs to assess the statement and
provide an opinion. Also important, the experiment was in context and not a psychometric test.
The participants considered subjects that they work with every day.
In evaluating the data, the study adopted the approach that investigators use by evaluating
the totality of the circumstances. Based on the title of the study and the declarative statements
without an instruction to consider personal experience, an investigator trained in understanding
implicit bias and in identifying implicit bias should have been able to select the neutral choice.
Implicit bias is not a new concept, and most participants, 39% (45) and 23% (27), took diversity
and inclusion or cultural differences training. Therefore, this finding presumed at least some
formal education in implicit bias.
When faced with an allegation, these data suggest that without knowledge and vigilance,
the report of concern could be prejudged, not be investigated, and screened out. If the report of
concern was not screened out for investigation, implicit bias might act as an obstruction to
63

creativity in developing questions or identifying documentary evidence. The interpretation of the
evidence applied to an authority, like a policy or law, could be impacted, as well.
Important findings from the data are highlighted. Most participants, 61% (71), were
likely to believe sex-based allegations to be true. This finding may be the result of the public and
persistent campaigns of #metoo, #believewomen, Title IX efforts that began with the Obama
Administration beginning in 2011 (DOE, 2011), and the multiple public scandals involving
public and private organizations (Glamour, 2019; Los Angeles Times, 2018). More research is
needed to identify the source of this bias.
Moreover, there was a statistical correlation between demographic data and bias. For
example, of the participants who identified a biased belief that retaliation was not provable, 58%
(40) were between the age of 25 and 34 (35% of the total sample population), and the largest age
bracket conducting investigations. As to age and race allegations, there was a statistical
correlation between the same age bracket and a belief that age or race allegations were probably
not provable. Of the participants who demonstrated a biased belief that age or race allegations
were not provable, participants between the age of 25 and 34 represented 60% (34) of
participants who held that view (30% of the total participant sample, N = 117). There was no
statistical correlation between this age bracket and non-protected-class misconduct or sex-based
allegations. However, there was a correlation between sex-based allegations and sex. Of those
who believed that sex allegations were more likely to be true, 70% (39) were male, as opposed to
29% who identified as female. Therefore, participants who believed that sex-based allegations
were true were mostly male and not female. When compared to the sample population (N = 117)
of males, 33% believed that sex allegations were likely true compared to 14% of the females.
Therefore, based on this sample, males were more likely to believe sex-based allegations than
64

females, suggesting that men believe women. A discussion of statistical correlation can be found
in Appendix E.
Another real-world exercise that challenged participants’ ability to demonstrate neutrality
involved identifying emotions experienced during the participant’s career. Participants were
asked to reflect on any investigations they had personally handled, and then they were to identify
any feelings they had experienced, choosing all that applied. Participants were given 12 choices,
which were balanced so as not to influence the choices in a particular direction, positive or
negative. There was one neutral choice: indifferent. Merriam-Webster defines “indifferent” as
marked by impartiality and unbiased (Merriam-Webster, 2021). This question is contrasted
against the four declarative statements about retaliation, non-protected-class misconduct, and
age/race and sex-based allegations, which asked participants to rate their level of agreement with
the statement but without (a) instruction or (b) giving the participant a context. The goal of the
question seeking information about emotions was not to quantify whether the participants had
positive or negative feelings. The purpose of the question was to understand what portion of the
sample identified as being neutral and in the context of considering their prior investigations.
Of the participants (N = 117), 12% (14) identified as indifferent. It was the emotion least
identified by participants. Eighty-eight percent (64) did not identify as having felt indifferent or
neutral. This finding is important because the EEOC specifies neutrality or impartiality as a
requirement of investigations (EEOC, 2021), as does AWI
37
(2013) and SCCE
38
(MacSuibhne &
Bloch, 2021). Moreover, some reports can contain language that is a version of “after a neutral

37
The word “impartial” appears 10 times in AWI’s (2013) guiding principles. The words “impartial” or “neutral” do not appear
in the SCCE (n.d.) code of ethics. But, these words are used in the SCCE (2021) compliance manual.
38
The word “impartial” appears twice and the word “neutral” appears eight times, of those occurrences, “impartial and neutral”
appear together twice in SCCE’s The Complete Compliance and Ethics Manual 2021 Chapter on Investigation and Response
(MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021).
65

and impartial investigation.” Neutrality, as applied to investigations, means not taking a position
one way or another. One may be aware of one’s feelings about a specific kind of case or a
specific case or a specific person, but those feelings, if the investigator is being neutral,
according to the field expectation, will not guide the investigator’s actions.
Implicit bias is a problem in investigations for two reasons: (a) the investigator does not
know about the bias and (b) the bias guides the investigator’s actions. Based on this sample
(N = 117) representative of individuals of varying demographics, educational and professional
backgrounds, and geographical location, between 88% to 59% of the sample, depending on task,
did not demonstrate neutrality. In one kind of task, investigators used their personal experience
or beliefs to guide their choice of answer, and in another kind of task, investigators did not
identify the emotion of neutral by selecting the word indifferent.
Investigators will have bias, and this is normal and acceptable. What is important is
knowledge of the bias and taking action to mitigate for the bias. Arguably, if an investigator
knows they have bias and mitigate for it, then, if they continue as the investigator, as opposed to
conflicting themselves out of the case, they transition into being neutral. Notwithstanding,
knowledge of a conscious bias did not have a bearing on the analysis of the data. The data
suggests that most investigators, at some point, never felt indifferent, or neutral. Whether the
individual investigator participating in the study knew they had a bias or whether the bias was
implicit, the investigators in the study did not demonstrate through applied knowledge that they
were neutral, with light priming. The data suggests that neutrality, as to this sample, is not a field
norm.

66

Knowledge Theme 2: Reliance on Normative Concepts Impedes Equity
The second theme related to knowledge of implicit bias to emerge from the data was
participants’ reliance on equality and normative terms
39
to achieve “the right result.” Through
qualitative interviewing, participants shared their experiences in their roles which helped identify
this theme.
Participants were asked to define what it meant to achieve the “right result.” The purpose
of this question was to determine what each valued in terms of what the “right” outcome for an
investigation was and to identify which normative concepts the participant used in responding to
the question. For the purposes of this study, a normative term is a term that enshrines the
dominant culture’s perspective and values. This study also examined whether the participant
used unclear descriptive
40
terms that could impact investigations because of implicit bias. For
example, the term sufficient is vague, and if unconscious bias were present, a lack of specificity
as to what sufficient means could impact a party who was a member of a protected-class one
way, and in a similar investigation, could impact a similarly situated party, but who is not a
member of a protected-class another way. It is important to note that whether a term is normative
or descriptive can be a matter of interpretation in some cases. The information learned from the
qualitative interviews is discussed.
All four participants used normative and unclear descriptive words in describing what it
meant to arrive at the “right result.” Participant 1, a White female in California, believed that to
arrive at the right result was to protect the person who was being harmed and to help the
company “if there was somebody who was truly doing the harassing.” It meant “turn[ing] over
enough rocks” and “ask[ing] enough additional questions to “get to the truth.” Participant 1 cited

39
Normative concepts appear in bold.
40
Descriptive terms are underlined.
67

truth as the right result and to arrive at that result. The descriptive word “enough” was used
twice. Truth is a word, like neutral or impartial, that is a social construction. What is true is
subjective and connected to what we perceive, our senses, our experiences, and our beliefs, all of
which are subject to the impact of implicit bias. “Enough” is a subjective term. What may be
enough evidence in one case may not be enough evidence in another, and this word is subject to
the impact of implicit bias. There is no objective standard for enough, just as there is no
objective standard for truth. As discussed in Chapter Two, fact is defined in relation to opinion,
and truth is a matter of opinion. Opinion is susceptible to implicit bias.
Participant 2, a White female with a Juris Doctor (law degree) in Oklahoma, described
what it meant to arrive at the right result in terms of what they do not do and what they need for
the result to be “right:”
We have to land. We have to land. We have to make sure we have the information
necessary to come to a conclusion. It’s very rare that we will come to an inconclusive
conclusion. [..] We have to do a thorough investigation […] as long as we are analyzing
the facts appropriately, and as long as we are making the most informed decision based
on the information that we have, and we have sought out the information that we need to
make an informed decision, then that’s getting it right to me.
Participant 2 notably identified arriving at a conclusion on whether the conduct occurred or did
not occur as opposed to the evidence was inclusive as most of the time being the right result.
This goal is admirable in that it is inferred that the participant will continue to look for evidence
until a conclusion, either way, is identified. However, the participant also uses normative and
descriptive words to define the right result. Appropriate and informed are both words that
contain cultural values. For example, to analyze facts appropriately assumes that there is a
universal meaning for a given fact, when facts are subject to interpretation depending on a
68

person’s positionality or the various identity spaces they occupy. As an example, a female
investigator may view a touch on the shoulder to be severe,
41
whereas a male investigator might
not have the same perspective because of their respective experiences and beliefs. In this way,
implicit bias can impact the interpretation of a fact making the word appropriately meaningless
and simultaneously value-driven, thus subject to the dominant culture’s interpretation. Moreover,
informed depends on cultural norms and may not be as obvious, but it is not any less subject to
the dominant culture’s interpretation. Some information is viewed as more valuable in culture
than other information is viewed. For example, a higher value is placed on physical evidence
versus impact testimony. Impact testimony helps to provide context to establish how one feels,
versus physical evidence is used to prove or disprove a fact. Impact testimony often contains
emotions, which are valued by some cultures and not others. Lived experience is innately part of
impact testimony, and sex, race, age, and sexual orientation inform lived experience. As
demonstrated in the discussion of Theme 1, sex, race, and age are subject to the impact of
implicit bias.
Participant 3, a White Male in Indiana, described arriving at the right result as “one in
which our rational conclusion, supported by the facts is made and that people feel, all the people
feel respected, they feel fairness. And that in the end, it points to organizational justice.” All
four terms, “rational,” “respected,” “fairness,” and “organizational justice,” are normative
concepts containing cultural value judgments. How does one decide a conclusion is rational and
based on what benchmark? Who decides whether a person is respected? Who is “our”? Fairness
and justice are based on normative dominant (White, male) culture. Therefore, these concepts are
all implicitly biased.

41
Sexual Harassment must be severe and/or pervasive to unlawful.
69

Finally, Participant 4, a Black Male in Maryland, described arriving at the right result as,
a balanced investigation that has been free and fair to all the parties. That they had a
meaningful opportunity to be heard. That the findings are based on the facts, void of
emotion. And reach a conclusion about whether the policy has been violated.
Both free and fair and opportunity to be heard are normative concepts that contain value
judgments. Balanced and meaningful are also vague, with no clear objective benchmarks.
Opportunity to be heard is particularly important considering both Participant 1 and Participant 3
emphasized limiting the scope of investigations and not allowing parties to expand the topics of
conversation beyond a clearly defined boundary of what the investigation will cover. These
limitations are subject to the creation and enforcement by the investigator the limitation can
impact what the investigator hears, impacting the parties’ feelings about whether they were
equitably treated and whether the investigation was done adequately.
All four responses are important to understand in the context of quantitative data from the
Phase 1 survey. Participants were presented with a declarative statement, much like the
statements discussed in Theme 1. The statement was, “most investigations ultimately are decided
based on credibility, as there is usually no physical/documentary evidence that will have a
deciding impact on the outcome.” Sixty-fice percent (76) of the sample selected the non-neutral
response, whereas 35% (41) selected the only neutral response of “Neither yes nor no.” Of the
qualitative interview participants (n = 4), 75% (3) chose the non-neutral response. Only one
participant chose the neutral response. This finding is important because credibility is a
normative concept. Credibility is often confused with truthfulness. However, credibility is not
exclusive to witness testimony and exclusive of documentary evidence. Credibility is focused on,
among other things, corroboration, which can be accomplished with documentary evidence.
Therefore, the participants who selected the non-neutral response may have aligned the word
70

credibility with truth and not corroboration, which, unlike truthfulness, can manifest in objective
ways.
The same reliance on normative concepts was identified when asked to explain what
motivates the participants to be investigators. Participants (n = 4) were asked, “What motivates
you?” The data are presented in Table 15.

Table 15
Answers to What Motivates You?
Participant Answer
Participant 1 Being in HR and complaints come in, whether it be harassment, sexual
harassment, workplace violence, discrimination, a lot of people say they’re
afraid to go and talk to HR because HR is there to protect the company. And
I disagree with them out loud about that. I say, “No, I’m sorry you think that
way. My motivation is to protect the truth.”
Participant 2 I’m very motivated to help the organization as a whole and to look at the
analytics, see where we have opportunities to look at, maybe not just this
single investigation but more at an enterprise level, what we can do to move
the enterprise along to be a more fair and transparent workplace.
Participant 3 The idea of organizational justice and the idea that you it’s important to
mitigate risks through internal investigations, but it’s also important to, as a
way of reflecting core values. We have to be able to look at allegations of
wrongdoing and square those away, get to the truth and square it up. And
that means, again, being fair to a respondent, being fair to the reporter, and
being fair to the witnesses to promote that sense of organizational justice
and fairness.
Participant 4
Making a difference. It’s very important for me to see tangible outcomes for
the work that I do. I need to know personally that my work has value, and
that it’s making a positive difference in people’s lives. So that’s very
important. It is also important and motivates me to do a job that I would do
and have done at various levels of compensation. It’s something that I care
about, and I will do regardless of where I am, I think. And it’s something I
seem to have a skill set for. But I guess the motivation is actually doing
something that makes a difference in people’s lives.

71

Based on the participants’ responses, the key normative concepts that motivate them are
truth, fairness, organizational justice, transparency, and value. Each of these concepts contains
value judgments and is thus subject to implicit bias. Participant 4 was the closest to articulating a
framework that motivates him that is measurable: making a positive difference in people’s lives
and seeing tangible outcomes. In this way, Participant 4 is motivated both extrinsically and
intrinsically. Conversely, Participants 1, 2, and 3 are motivated by normative concepts that are
subject to value judgment based on the dominant normative culture.
Motivation Theme: Investigators Lean Toward Social Desirability
The study also examined the motivational influence stating that investigators must
believe they possess authority and skills to conduct competent investigations that will be free
from implicit bias and in which affected parties have faith will be equitable. The theme that
emerged from the data is that investigators lean toward social desirability. Social desirability is a
bias or tendency of a person to act in a manner to be seen as valuable (APA Dictionary of
Psychology, 2021). This term is distinguished from impression management, which is the
behavior or conduct used to control how one is perceived to encourage a positive perception
(APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2021). Social desirability is linked to motivation, or self-
efficacy. For the purposes of this study, the term social desirability is the bias or tendency of an
investigator to act in a manner in the course of their duties to be seen as valuable to an authority
within their organization. Applying Bandura’s (1982) theory of self-efficacy, self-efficacy
includes the ability of an investigator to cope with the circumstances of their employment based
on their skills and execute their duties. Therefore, an investigator exhibits self-efficacy when
they can exercise independent judgment and are not swayed by those in authority, implicitly or
explicitly, to make a decision that is inconsistent with their obligation to the parties of an
investigation which is to make accurate findings based on the evidence. Based on quantitative
72

survey data obtained in the Phase 1 survey, social desirability can be a factor in investigator
motivations.
This study used a psychometric measure, the SDS-17, to assess social desirability
(Stӧber, 1999, 2001). The measure has a high degree of reliability for assessing social
desirability as it pertains to the workplace domain (Stӧber, 2001). The measure was presented in
the survey as two questions, each with eight subparts. The subparts were statements, and the
participant was asked to select from two answers, true or false. True meant that the statement
was most like them, while false was least like them. The measure included a scoring rubric
(Stӧber, 1999). There is a “correct” answer for each statement. Each correct answer earned one
point. The lowest score for the measure is zero, while the highest score for the measure is 16. A
score of zero means that the individual is not concerned with social desirability, whereas a score
of 16 means that the individual is concerned with social desirability. A score of eight means that
an individual is neither concerned nor unconcerned with social desirability.
In this administration, the sample size was 116 participants (n = 116). The median score
was 10 (sd = 2.1). There is a 95% confidence level that the average score is between 8.76 and
9.52. Table 16 presents the data for the social desirability score. Data are divided into five
categories.
42

42
These categories were created by dividing the scale by four, after accounting for the score of eight, which is neither seeking nor
not seeking social desirability.
73

Table 16
Social Desirability Score
Degree of Social Desirability Count
n = 116
Percent
%
Highly Concerned 12 10
Concerned 66 57
Neither Concerned/Not Concerned 16 14
Not Concerned 18 16
Highly Unconcerned 4 3
Totals 116 100

Of participants in this sample, most, 67% (78), demonstrated some level of concern with
appearing socially desirable by the organization in performing their job duties. These data
suggest, based on the definition of social desirability and self-efficacy theory, that an investigator
may be unable to cope with the competing desire to be seen as valuable and the obligation to
“follow the evidence” and be neutral, which may result in a bad outcome for the organization.
The lack of neutrality is created by allowing the investigator’s desire to be seen positively by
those in authority to guide the investigator’s actions.
These data are supported by qualitative interview data from participants. The participants
in the Phase 2 interviews scored low on the measure,
43
indicating a lack of concern with social
desirability. Those lower scores are supported by data obtained from participant interviews
showing consistency between the score and actions and beliefs.

43
This data supports the theme by correlation. Because the scores and qualitative data align, the inference is made that the data
doesn’t only support the findings with respect to these four investigators but will also support the findings as to the other
participants in the study.
74

Qualitative interview data from participants provided support and context for the scores.
Participant 1, a human resources director, with a social desirability score (weighted for a
standard of deviation and mean of items) of 5, described declining to share information with the
CEO and other leadership about reports of concern that are reported to HR, despite the CEO and
others wanting the information. The information was not disclosed due to incidents where the
CEO had disclosed information to many senior employees, putting the company at risk.
Declining to share information when requested is grounds for insubordination in the state of
California, as the information remains internal and is not governed under any codified
confidentiality protections (Obligations of Employee Cal LAB Article 3 § 2856, 1937).
Therefore, this type of conduct is consistent with the low social desirability score; the consistent
data suggest that Participant 1 possesses self-efficacy because of their ability to manage the
circumstances of their employment and their duties to the parties to an investigation, and,
therefore, has the authority to conduct investigations free from the implicit bias that would cause
them to make decisions that are more advantageous to themselves personally.
Participant 2, a manager of employee relations with a social desirability score (weighted
for a standard of deviation and mean of items) of 4, described an investigation where a leader
engaged in misconduct along with a non-leadership employee; the culture demonstrated a lack of
racial sensitivity. A finding and sanction of termination were proposed, and general counsel
disagreed. Disagreeing with general counsel, Participant 2 addressed the matter with senior
leaders and advocated for the separation of both the employee and the leader involved in the
investigation. Choosing to disagree with general counsel and argue a position to the senior
leaders of the organization is an assertive act that had reputational risk. Therefore, this type of
conduct is consistent with the social desirability score. The consistent data suggest that
Participant 2 possesses self-efficacy because of their ability to manage the circumstances of their
75

employment and their duties to the parties to an investigation, and therefore has the authority to
conduct investigations free from the implicit bias that would cause them to make decisions that
are more advantageous to themselves personally.
Participant 3, a director of investigations with a social desirability score weighted for a
standard of deviation of 6, shared that they frequently communicate with the organization about
how the organization could perform better, providing negative feedback to facilitate
improvement. In an organization that has a mission statement and marketing strategy focused on
ethics, confronting the organization with information to suggest that it has not acted consistent
with this principle can have reputational risk. Therefore, this conduct is consistent with the social
desirability score. The consistent data suggest that Participant 3 possesses self-efficacy because
of their ability to manage the circumstances of their employment and their duties to the parties to
an investigation, and therefore has the authority to conduct investigations free from the implicit
bias that would cause them to make decisions that are more advantageous to themselves
personally.
Participant 4, a director of equal opportunity investigations with a social desirability
score (weighted for a standard of deviation and mean of items) of 4, described “always pushing
things to make sure that issues are addressed.” The word “pushing” implies resistance.
Therefore, pushing against resistance is consistent with the social desirability score. The
consistent data suggest that Participant 4 possesses self-efficacy because of their ability to
manage the circumstances of their employment and their duties to the parties to an investigation,
and therefore has the authority to conduct investigations free from the implicit bias that would
cause them to make decisions that are more advantageous to themselves.
Consequently, the scores for the survey sample suggest that investigators possess a gap in
self-efficacy and may be inclined to act in ways that may be socially desirable. This inclination
76

may impact an investigator’s ability to be neutral, implicitly valuing the opinions of those in
authority over the duty to conduct a competent investigation. While the qualitative interviews did
not obtain data from participants who scored in a range to indicate a desire for social desirability,
the participants did score in a range to indicate a lack of concern for social desirability, and those
scores were consistent with the lived experience obtained from those interviews, establishing
reliability and validity. .
Results: Research Question 2
Regarding Research Question 2, this study sought to identify organizational factors that
reinforce or mitigate implicit bias in investigations. It relied on both quantitative survey data and
qualitative interview data to answer the second research question concerning what organizational
factors reinforce or mitigate implicit bias in workplace investigations. The assumed influences
were that investigators must work in an organizational culture that supports mitigation of implicit
bias and that they must possess enough power and privilege within the organizational structure to
mitigate implicit bias. After analyzing the data, two themes were identified: organizational
culture supports opportunity for change and independence is often not valued. Table 17 identifies
the research question, assumed organizational influences, and the themes that emerged from the
data.

77

Table 17
Research Question Two: Themes Related to Organizational Factors’ Impact on Implicit Bias
What organizational factors reinforce or mitigate implicit bias in workplace investigations?
Organizational Influences
Influence Theme
The workplace investigator must work in an
organizational culture that supports
mitigation of implicit bias.
Organizational culture supports opportunity
for change.
The workplace investigator must possess
enough power and privilege within the
organizational structure and culture to act
independently from influence of the
organization and organizational culture to
mitigate implicit bias.
Independence is often not valued.

Organizational Theme 1: Culture Supports the Opportunity for Change
Organizational culture is defined by Schien (2017) in part as “the accumulated shared
learning of that group … [that] is a system of beliefs, values, and behavioral norms that come to
be taken for granted as basic assumptions and eventually drop out of awareness” (p. 6?). Culture
can be both a negative and positive factor (Boleman & Deal, 2017). It is important to note that
strong organizational culture is not intended to denote a particular kind of culture. Organizational
cultures can come in many forms such as competitive culture, entrepreneurial culture,
bureaucratic culture, and consensual culture (Deshpandé & Farley, 1999). Through consensus,
the members of the organization establish norms, including what skills and knowledge are
needed to cope with the circumstances it faces (Schein & Schein, 2017). However, to establish
an inclusive organizational culture, a key element is required: psychological safety (Clark, 2020).
Clark (2020) defines psychological safety as “a condition in which you feel (1) included, (2) safe
to learn, (3) safe to contribute, and (4) safe to challenge the status quo – all without fear of being
78

embarrassed, marginalized or punished in some way” (p. xiv). Psychological safety means that
there is a shared mutual trust between the stakeholders.
A strong inclusive organizational culture is important for several reasons. Mutual trust is
required for an organization to innovate and, therefore, survive (Lam et al., 2021). Through
mutual trust, members of the organization are more inclined to share information, and the sharing
of information supports innovation (Imron et al., 2021). Organizational stability relies on
employee satisfaction, and satisfaction has an impact on performance; performance impacts the
operations of every part of an organization (Jigjiddorj et al., 2021). Low satisfaction can lead to
poor performance, which results in negative outcomes for organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Muliaty et al., 2017; Yiing & Ahmad, 2009). Low job satisfaction can negatively impact
employee health (Peltokorpi & Ramaswami, 2021). Therefore, employees who feel that their
organizational culture is positive experience less health-related impact and are more productive,
leading to stability, innovation, adaptability, and a greater likelihood that it will be enduring.
The data were analyzed based on the organizational influence stating that investigators
must work in an organizational culture that supports mitigation of implicit bias. The theme to
emerge from the data was that overall, the organizational culture of investigators’ organizations
supports the opportunity for change.
Despite evidence supporting that there is interference in investigations, discussed in
Theme 2, participants reported that they liked where they worked, and they had confidence in
their organization. These two findings would not be possible if there were a lack of
psychological safety (Clark, 2020).
In Phase 1, the quantitative survey phase, participants (N = 117) were asked questions
about their opinions of their organization. These questions and the data are presented in Table
18.
79

Table 18
Questions about Organizational Culture
Question Sub-category Count
N = 117
Percentage
%
I like the culture of the organization
where I do my work
Yes 112 96
No 5 4
Totals 117 100
I have confidence in the organization or
organizations where I do my work.
Yes 110 94
No 7 6
Totals 117 100

Most participants (N = 117), 96% (112), like the culture of the organization where they
do their work, and most participants (N = 117), 94% (110), also have confidence in their
organization. This indicates that the participants possess a high level of psychological safety,
there is low organizational betrayal, and there is the capacity to engage in change initiatives
(Clark, 2020; Fredrickson, 2001). When employees feel positive about their organization, they
are better able to withstand change because they possess the agility and resiliency the process
requires (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004)
In Phase 2, three of the four participants reported that the culture was positive. From
these participants’ perspectives, the mission statements align with the way the organization
conducts investigations. For two participants, the organization’s established core values helped
guide the actions of everyone: the investigators, the parties, and other stakeholders. Doing what
is right, respecting others, and performing with excellence were the guiding principles. These
three participants felt comfortable addressing concerns and solving problems within the
organization, suggesting there was a feeling of psychological safety.

80

Organizational Theme 2: Independence is Often Not Valued
The second theme to emerge from the data related to the organizational influence stating
that investigators must possess enough power and privilege within the organizational structure
and culture to act independently from the influence of the organization and organizational culture
to mitigate implicit bias is that independence is often not valued.
In Phase 1, the quantitative survey phase, participants (N = 117) were asked their opinion
about interference by the organization in their work. The data is presented in Table 19.

Table 19
Organizational Interference
Question Sub-category Count
N = 117
Percentage
%
At least once in my career of conducting
investigations, my employer or organization to
which I provide investigative services has been
more involved in the investigation than I would
have liked.
Yes 111 95
No 6 5
Totals 117 100

81

Of the 117 participants, 95% (111) reported interference at least one time in their
professional careers. Investigators are neutral because the organization for which they work
instructs them to be so. When the organization interferes with the autonomy of the investigator to
gather information, find facts, and apply those facts to policy (where applicable), the investigator
ceases to occupy a neutral space. These data help to support data from the survey that suggested
a lack of neutrality.
Summary
Research question one sought to understand investigators’ knowledge of implicit bias and
what motivates investigators, while research question two sought to understand what
organizational factors reinforce and mitigate implicit bias in investigations. Using data, as
applied to gap analysis areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization factors (Clark & Estes,
2008) in connection with related assumed influences, five themes emerged. These themes were
that real-world exercises challenged investigators; reliance on normative concepts impede equity;
investigators learn toward social desirability; organizational culture supports opportunity for
change; and independence is often not valued. Of note, the findings suggested that investigators
were challenged by real-world contexts, and most of them demonstrated bias in multiple
investigation areas, protected class, not protected class, and retaliation matters, when a neutral
option was available. When given the option to use their experience, the data suggest that
investigators did not identify with feeling indifferent, or neutral, when reflecting on past
investigations. Additionally, data from the social desirability measure suggested that
investigators leaned toward wanting to be seen as valuable, and they reported, almost
unanimously, that they have experienced interference in the course of conducting investigations.
Informed by the findings supported by the data, five themes guide three recommendations for
addressing the problem of implicit bias in investigations and are discussed in Chapter Five.
82

Chapter Five: Recommendations
Implicit bias is a changeable behavior rooted in neuroscience, based on pattern detection
and probability determination; the human brain, without malice, quickly, automatically, and
unconsciously applies a trait to an individual based on generalized beliefs due to a shared
similarity to a person, idea, or object, due to experiences and beliefs (Clark, 2013; Hinton, 2017;
Kahneman, 2011; Konovalov & Krajbich, 2018; Pouget et al., 2013; Tuarez et al., 2019). As a
result of implicit bias being a human trait, it is found in workplaces in the hiring process, in
performance reviews, in the delivery of services, and in workplace investigations. Internal
workplace investigators conduct investigations to help employees and organizations resolve
concerns by investigating alleged misconduct. Investigating misconduct requires defining the
proper scope of the investigation, identifying and interviewing witnesses to obtain testimonial
evidence, identifying and obtaining physical/documentary evidence, analyzing both the
testimonial and physical/documentary evidence to determine what it means, or fact-finding, and,
in many cases, applying the evidence to organization policy to determine whether what happened
violated that policy. Those determinations can form the basis for disciplinary action, including
termination of employment.
Overview
The purpose of this study was to understand investigator knowledge of implicit bias,
investigator motivation for doing the work, and the organizational factors that reinforce and
mitigate implicit bias in workplace investigations. A mixed-methods explanatory research design
using quantitative and qualitative methods was used. The data obtained from the study were
analyzed against assumed influences applying Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework
to identify gaps in three key areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Five
themes emerged from the analysis of the data. In response to these five themes, Research
83

Question 3 is answered using the findings from Chapter Four, based on data from the survey and
interviews by proposing three recommendations that, if implemented, may help to mitigate bias
in workplace investigations. A summary of the study, including the research questions, assumed
influences, themes, and recommendations, is presented in Table 20. After analyzing the data to
discern themes, attention is now turned to recommending specific strategies, if implemented, that
can help address the problem of implicit bias in workplace investigations.

Table 20
Study Summary
RQ Assumed Influence Theme (Finding) Recommendation
What is a
workplace
investigator’s
knowledge of
implicit bias as an
issue in
workplace
investigations,
and what
motivates internal
workplace
investigators?
Knowledge of what
implicit bias is.

Real-world exercises
challenged
investigators

Reliance on normative
concepts impede
realization of equity
Effective Training
Program Based on
Best Practices
Self-Efficacy
Investigators lean
toward social
desirability.
Center Equity
What
organizational
factors reinforce
or mitigate
implicit bias in
workplace
investigations?
Organizational
Culture: Shared
Values, Norms,
Beliefs, and
Expectations
Organizational culture
supports the
opportunity for
change.

Establish Authority
and Process for
Redress

Organizational
Structure

Independence should
be valued.

84

Recommendation One: Effective Training Program Based on New Model
This recommendation proposes a model for implicit bias training focusing on growth as
applied in practice. It is a hybrid model applying concepts from three separate models in two
different domains. These three models are Bridges’ transitional model (Bridges & Mitchell,
2000), Burke and Litwin’s (1992) performance change model, and the development of mastery
model (Sprague & Stuart, 2000). Bridges’ transitional model is an organizational change model
that addresses resistance to change and focuses on the individual’s response to change. Burke
and Litwin’s performance change model is an organizational change model that describes change
process at the organizational level, centering stakeholders. Finally, the development of mastery
model (Sprague & Stuart, 2000) is a pedagogical model that describes a way to conceptualize
learning on a continuum that is particularly applicable to implicit bias.
Understanding and applying knowledge about implicit bias in thought process is a life-
long endeavor, and growth occurs on a continuum. The literature reflects that it is not only time
that is a factor, but content and quality. This model was developed based on data from the study
that suggested knowledge of what implicit bias is, where it is found in investigations, and
applying that knowledge to real-world scenarios was a gap area to be addressed. To respond to
that challenge, a training model tailored to address how implicit bias presents in an investigation
process with specific emphasis on relevancy to job tasks was developed. Therefore, to help
address the problem of implicit bias in workplace investigations, a training model is proposed
that focuses on growth developed on a continuum based on applying knowledge to practice.
Figure 2 describes the model.

Figure 2
Implicit Bias Mitigation Training for Growth Model

85
86

Learning about implicit bias and how to mitigate it in investigations is not a one-and-
done training but a professional commitment to learning, which occurs on a continuum.
Mitigating implicit bias begins with letting go so that new information and methods can be
adopted (Bridges & Mitchell, 2000). The first step in the model is confronting implicit bias using
evidence-based strategies. Evidence-based strategies can include a pre-test. Pre-testing is
considered a best practice in effective training (Ambrose et al., 2010). The pre-test should not be
unlike the declarative statements that investigators responded to in this study. The timing of the
pre-test should occur before the investigators have knowledge of the topic of the training to limit
the effect of priming (Bargh & Chatrand, 2014). The pre-test should not seek a definition or the
declarative understanding of implicit bias, as declarative knowledge alone is not helpful in
establishing evidence of a gap. Most investigators, based on the data, have a 4-year degree, and
they are also experienced in professional fields where the denotative meaning of the concept is
likely understood. Instead, how the knowledge is applied demonstrates the gap.
A pre-test serves the purpose of providing evidence useful to the first step, confrontation,
which can mitigate cognitive overload (Ambrose et al., 2010) and to help move from
unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence (Sprague & Stuart, 2000). Cognitive
overload occurs when the information being received overwhelms what can be processed
(Ambrose et al., 2010). Further, as stated, discussing bias, implicit and explicit, is a difficult task.
Part of that difficulty is in how words are defined. Therefore, the pre-test alone is not sufficient
to enter a process of letting go (Bridges & Mitchell, 2000).
Confronting implicit bias and letting go of old ways of unconscious thinking and habits is
aided by understanding the definition of implicit bias as defined in the study. By rooting the
definition in neuroscience, acknowledging implicit bias as a normal function of human brain
87

function, and explaining how it works, this information removes implicit bias from believing that
one is being accused of malicious behavior and instead, into the space of training the mind to
think more precisely, much like an Olympic athlete knows how to run but trains to run efficiently
to maximize output and speed. Here, the goal is to teach the investigator not to think faster, but
think slower (Kahneman, 2011).
The foundation of evidence-based strategy in concert with understanding a new definition
of implicit bias that reinforces lack of malice helps to manage cognitive overload. The pre-test
provides data that can then be understood through the new definition. The investigator possesses
implicit bias, but it is not a deficit. Instead, it is a normal function or brain processing, and it can
be developed to mitigate the implicit bias, which is normal in human nature. Because implicit
bias is a fixed component of our cognitive processing (Agarwal, 2020), it cannot be solved or
irradicated, only managed. Together, evidence-based strategies and a new definition, the latter
simultaneously explaining and reframing what and why of implicit bias, refocuses thinking away
from the misconception that implicit bias is equal to discrimination, which could be felt as an
attack on the investigator’s character and overwhelm the investigator’s motivation to learn (Clark
& Estes, 2008). This risk of an attack is especially true for a profession that is centered around, if
supported by evidence, determining responsibility for misconduct.
Once investigators, through evidence-based practice, are confronted with implicit bias,
and new information that does not align with malicious intent, but instead, as a trait that is part of
the normal human condition that needs to be redeveloped, investigators can shift to skill
acquisition (Mitchell & Bridges, 2000). Skill acquisition should involve helping investigators
move from unconscious incompetence, not knowing what they do not know, to achieve
conscious competence, identifying what they do not know by recognizing where implicit bias
88

can hide in the investigation process (Sprague & Stuart, 2000). The data in this study suggest that
implicit bias can be found in how investigators think about the type of cases they investigate,
prejudging case types, in thinking about credibility and how credibility is determined, and
therefore, in the acquisition of evidence, and in deciding what a successful outcome or the right
result is without prejudging cases or using dominant culture’s normative value system.
After acquiring skills in identifying and recognizing where implicit bias can hide in the
investigation process, as part of training, investigators should have ample opportunity to practice
in context, applying this new skill to the functions of the role to assist in transferring knowledge
from short-term memory to long-term memory (Ambrose et al., 2010). The training should
encompass two types of learning: identifying and applying. Through practice exercises looking
at documents, watching interview demonstrations live or on video, and engaging in role playing
with peer and trainer feedback, investigators can gain awareness of where implicit bias creeps
into the work that they do. After being able to identify implicit bias in a role-specific context, the
investigator can apply that knowledge by developing job aids to create a scaffolding for applying
learning in their workplace (Clark & Estes, 2008). Examples of job aids are presented in Table
21.

89

Table 21
Examples of Job Aids

A toolkit with criteria to apply when deciding to open an investigation, including questions to
consider that help identify the presence of implicit bias
A toolkit and template for developing an investigation plan free from implicit bias, including
how to define the scope, identifying witnesses, and documentary/physical evidence
A draft of questions and framework for phrasing questions to be used in interviews that can be
modified depending on the needs of the case.
From the role play exercises, investigators can develop tip sheets from feedback received from
colleagues to spot implicit bias. An example might be presenting a fact pattern and status of a
case to the group, if small, or in small groups if it is a large training and receiving feedback
from other investigators on areas that suggested implicit bias that related to content as well as
presentation skills.
A template for writing reports and toolkit for reviewing reports to identify the presence of
implicit bias.
A style guide including words and phrases that are free from implicit bias, i.e., gender neutral
words, normative concepts/terms, limiting of descriptive words that can imbue bias through
value judgments, i.e. adjective/adverbs. Application of words and phrases consistently
regardless of protected class.

A tool kit in this context is a document that helps the investigator focus on the problem of
implicit bias through guided thinking depending on the context. An example of a kind of tool kit
is provided in Appendix G as part of Recommendation Two. Whether a toolkit, a template, a
style guide, a tip sheet, or a different kind of job aide, these products of the practice exercises
developed during training not only help to transfer knowledge from short-term memory to long-
term memory, but they also develop scaffolding that can be immediately used in the workplace
to help aid the investigator in the reinforcement of learning (Ambrose et al., 2010). For toolkits
to have maximum applicability, “toolkits in a box” are discouraged, as one-size-fits-all solutions
are counter-intuitive to evidence-based strategies and equity. A discussion of equity is found in
the section on Recommendation 2.
90

After learning to identify implicit bias and developing job aids to help and reinforce
learning, the next step in the process is taking this newly acquired awareness and knowledge,
with the help of job aids, and implementing these practices in the workplace. Ideally, training
will not be on an individual basis but will be delivered to teams of people so that the team is
adopting the strategies developed and the learning can be reinforced and supported by the group
members. Training delivered to individual investigators may be only effective in the short term.
Training an individual and not a team may be less likely to be sustained for investigation
programs that have defined and specific processes that personnel are required to adopt. To have
the highest probability of being effective, the investigators’ supervisors should be trained with
the investigators. Accountability is an important element of change (Hentschke & Wohlstetter,
2004). If the change process is implemented, but there is no accountability, the change process is
likely to be short-lived, as change for most organizations is short-lived (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004).
Feedback serves multiple functions, but as to the training model, it is designed to
facilitate continued learning and foster change through increased knowledge; it also ascertains
growth and facilitates data to identify gap areas. Feedback sources should come from
stakeholders who have different vantage points and perspectives.
44
Burke and Litwin (1992)
identify feedback as an essential element of any change model, including this training model, the
purpose of which is to facilitate change in how the investigator mitigates implicit bias in
investigations. No one training could provide all the knowledge that an investigator needs to
navigate implicit bias in workplace investigations. Affording participants to an investigation

44
The model, Figure 2, reflects this feature using the multi-sided decagon.
91

agency the chance to provide real-time feedback about observations of implicit bias, as well as
soliciting feedback after the conclusion of the investigation, gives the investigator new
information to consider, which leads to more opportunities to practice and develop job aid tools
to reinforce learning. When feedback is received, the investigator returns to the stage of
identification and recognition; as an example, it may be, a new bias or a new way bias appears in
the investigation relationship.
Throughout the learning continuum from confrontation through growth, investigators
should engage in metacognitive thinking or reflective inquiry or practice (Lyons et al., 2013).
Reflective practice is thinking about one’s own thoughts in the context of new knowledge. As
they acquire new knowledge applied in practice, implement these new skills, and receive
feedback, they are continually engaged in the process of considering why they think what they
think.
The learning process exists on a continuum. The critical moment is confrontation with
evidence derived from evidence-based strategies. However, the driving characteristic of this
model is the acquisition of knowledge in the context of the workplace and role-specific
challenges and the application of new knowledge and skills in the workplace tailored to the role.
Unlike the mastery development model (Sprague & Stuart, 2000), true mastery can never be
achieved in the context of implicit bias. A reasonable, realistic and successful outcome and goal
is growth, the ability to identify implicit bias, make the bias and where it manifests conscious
knowledge, and then engage in the process of mitigation, realizing to the extent possible,
unconscious competence. Quantifiable skill-focused metrics for competency are unrealistic for
this challenge, and the focus on growth is better assessed through feedback.

92

Recommendation 2: Center Equity
The goal of most investigation programs is equality, as demonstrated by the data and
reliance on fairness understood in context. Equality is commonly understood as treating all
people the same way (Caldwell et al., 2007), while equity recognizes that certain members of a
community have not been the recipient of privilege, and changes need to be made to provide
them the benefits realized by the ruling class of people (Caldwell et al., 2007). Centering equity
can be understood as changing the structure, systems, process, and procedure, as well as policies
to shift from affording those with privilege more power than those who do not possess privilege.
It is a process by which the dominant culture’s values are reshaped to respect, consider, and
include the values of minority voices. Because inequity is distributed plentifully, there is no one
set of solutions. This recommendation provides two actions that can be taken to center equity.
These actions are to analyze domains of influence on investigations using a toolkit to make
improvements and to choose to disavow neutrality.
Develop and Use a Toolkit to Make Improvements
Inequity is a complicated issue that is infused into the structure of an organization’s
disparate treatment of people, especially when one does not consider intersectionality or all the
spaces a person occupies simultaneously, and the invisibility of non-majority voices is a result of
traditions, practices, habits, and choices (Sturm, 2002). It is not easily resolved by declaring
certain conduct to be a violation of a policy because policies, themselves, can be imbued with
inequity.
Because of the nature of equity, which focuses on individual needs, there is no one-size-
fits-all method to center equity. Instead, as part of this recommendation, a sample toolkit is
suggested to begin thinking about how to center equity in investigation programs. This sample
93

toolkit is presented in Appendix G. While this study is focused on internal workplace
investigations, some of the components of this tool kit consider, to a limited degree, the
organizational factors that have an impact on investigations. The reason these components are
included is that they help define a culture of an organization, and the culture of an organization
defines how a person will interact with the investigation process. As an example, a culture of
silence discourages employees from reporting workplace concerns (Morrison & Millikin, 2000;
Clark, 2020). As another example, the organization’s culture finds its genesis in the
organization’s mission statement, which explains what the organization does and how it does it
(Buckingham & Coffman, 2014 ). All actions, including investigations, should support the
mission statement (Lipton, 1996; MacDonald, 2007; Peters & Waterman, 1982).
The toolkit is organized into three sections, domains of influence, effect on equity, and
considerations. Domains are components that influence an investigation. Mechanisms are how
the domain influences an investigation. Effect on equity describes, left unmitigated, the effect of
the domain on members of the non-dominant culture. Considerations are sample questions that
can guide thinking about improvements that can be made and that will ultimately influence
investigations by centering equity. To that end only one category under each domain and only
three considerations are identified for each category. Under language, specific vehicles for
language are identified to show the detail contained in a toolkit. The example is a beginning, and
a toolkit should be tailored to the organization and used as part of an organizational change
process.
Disavow Neutrality
Neutrality in investigations, despite what is known about implicit bias, is unquestioned as
achievable (Lattal, 2016). Based on the literature and the data from the study sample (N = 117),
94

neutrality appears to be a fiction and unsustainable. This recommendation considers shifting
away from socially constructed neutrality and toward a culture of accountability and
transparency.
The data suggested that, based on this sample, most investigators did not demonstrate
applied knowledge of implicit bias and neutrality. Rather than relying on neutrality, a cultural
fiction, investigators may consider building rapport with parties by acknowledging implicit bias
and ceding privilege by affording parties the power to tell the investigator when they perceive
the investigator is exhibiting a bias.
An example of where this principle might be possible is during the admonishment
process. Investigators often deliver a set of admonishments, ground rules for the conversation. A
ground rule is “I am a neutral and impartial factfinder.” This admonishment relies on neutrality
to establish authority and validity. Rather than rely on neutrality, an admonishment that serves
two functions, rapport building and humility, and thus, credibility, can shift how the witness
engages with the investigator and the process. An admonishment that equalizes power and
emphasizes respect, through real-time solicitation of feedback, can help to create an environment
of cooperation and result in better information that will establish validity. An example of an
admonishment might be thus:
I am a factfinder. It is important that you feel comfortable sharing information with me
because it is the information shared with me that will help establish facts. We all have a
degree of bias and, during our conversation, if you hear me say something that makes you
uncomfortable or that makes you think that I am making assumptions that are inaccurate,
would you please agree to interrupt me and make me aware? I am asking you to interrupt
95

me and tell me because it can help me ask different questions and not make incorrect
inferences.
By exchanging one admonishment for the other, the power structure changes to one where the
investigator is providing a service and the party participating in the service can hold the
investigator accountable in the moment, affording the investigator the opportunity to behave and
think differently (Hentschke &Wohstetter, 2004).
It is acknowledged that this approach is counter-intuitive to current practice where
admitting bias would be perceived as a legal risk. However, not mitigating for bias is equally
risky but has been accepted as the normative approach. There is empirical support for
relinquishing some authority and affording the parties agency in the process, such that the
process is not being done to them but that they are participants in that process. In a study
involving pay dissatisfaction, when the participants were given agency in the process of deciding
whether to pay their co-workers more, the participants had less dissatisfaction (Choshen-Hillel et
al., 2018). The reason for the increase in satisfaction was a reduced perception of unfairness
(Choshen-Hillel et al., 2018). This perceived fairness was the result of trust. Research has long
established that trust has a direct impact on fairness and acceptance of decisions (Bies & Shapiro,
1988; De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Folger, 1977; Greenberg et al., 1983; Schroeder & Fulton,
2017). If parties to an investigation are given some authority in the process, they may experience
less helplessness; especially in a process where the practical reality of refusing to cooperate in
the process can lead to loss of employment (Bloch, 2008; MacSuibhne & Bloch, 2021).
This list of recommendations to center equity is not exhaustive, but it provides two
concrete steps that can be taken. These two recommendations are (a) using a toolkit to evaluate
the influences impacting investigations to drive change toward centering equity and mitigating
96

implicit bias and (b) disavowing neutrality by being transparent about implicit bias and shifting
some power to the participants of an investigation process. By interrogating the systems of
power and privilege within an organization to make it more inclusive and less driven by the
dominant culture, stakeholders who felt less included may feel more satisfaction and
commitment to their organization. In addition, by disrupting the power structure to cede some
power to the participants, the investigator develops awareness of where implicit bias could be
impacting their thought process, and simultaneously, the shift of power changes the investigation
from an action being done to a participant to a process in which they have some authority which
helps to build trust and a perceived validity in the outcome.
Recommendation 3: Establish Authority and Process for Redress
Investigators exist in a vulnerable space, too. Power and privilege are relative (Minikin,
2021). While investigators possess power and privilege in relation to the parties and witnesses of
an investigation, within an organization, there is a hierarchical or matrix structure that conveys
power and privilege as well. Nonetheless, independence is necessary to mitigate for implicit bias.
However, investigators face pressure from direct supervisors, general counsel, organization
executives, to name only a few sources. Moreover, why an investigator may be told, advised,
persuaded, or suggested to take a particular course of action may not be readily apparent and
may be the result of implicit bias guiding the actions of a person with more power. An added
complication is the general expectation that employees do what they are told or face the
possibility of disciplinary action for insubordination.
45
The data pertaining to motivation and
interference was analyzed, and the theme that emerged from the data was that independence may

45
In California, this principle is codified in the Labor Code (Cal. LAB Article 3 § 2856)
97

not be valued. Therefore, recommendation three focuses on improving the investigation process
for the investigator to help support recommendation two, centering equity, opening space to
mitigate implicit bias in investigations.
Independence in decision-making is important to counter-act implicit bias. A
knowledgeable and motivated investigator, without independence, may be able to mitigate their
own implicit bias, but mitigation of another person’s is more challenging.
46
Investigations serve
many purposes. They help resolve conflict on the individual level, they help reveal root causes
that can lead to repeat problems, and they help the organization avoid liability by enforcing their
policies to keep their promise to provide a safe and healthy work environment for employees.
However, when interference occurs, a conflict between the investigation’s goals and the
organization’s desires as conceived of by an individual with more institutional power and
privilege, and thus more to lose, can be blurred, such as the conflict between holding an
employee accountable and avoiding a scandal or losing a high-producing employee arises. In
these instances, the oldest implicit bias, survival (of the authority figure presented as survival of
the organization), can be powerful.
The quantitative data supported two findings related to independence. The first is that
investigators lean toward wanting to appear valuable to the organization. The second finding was
that most investigators experience interference from their organizations. The quantitative data
were supported by participant interviews. In one instance, a participant described rejecting
general counsel’s advice and bringing the matter to the organization’s executives. In another
instance, an investigator described facing pressure to release investigation information to the

46
Legal practitioners may want to consider that the underlying conduct could be motivated by implicit bias, the conduct of the
investigator could be motivated by implicit bias, and the investigator could be subordinate to personnel are motivated by implicit
bias. The source of the implicit bias can be different in all three circumstances.
98

CEO and other executives, only to have the information disseminated to others in the
organization, creating risk.
For an investigator to not be subject to the implicit bias of another, the investigator
should be afforded independence and not subject to organizational pressure. Organizations
should establish explicit policies that vest authority in the appropriate personnel
47
involved in an
investigation to establish clear boundaries to support the investigator in making determinations
that are not the product of implicit bias. These policies might consider who receives the report of
concern, who evaluates the reports of concern, by what criteria, who investigates the reports of
concern, and what the limitations are, if any, on the investigator’s authority to identify witnesses
and evidence and make determinations? These policies might also articulate how much
collaboration is expected and between what units, and importantly, the supervisor’s role in
supervising the investigator.
In addition to having explicit policies that vest authority, organizations should have a
policy outlining a procedure that an investigator can follow if there is interference with authority.
That procedure should not follow a normal staff complaint process which may not be sufficiently
nuanced to address the concern and allow the investigator to enforce independence and assist in
the investigator only having to account for and mitigate their own bias in the process; this
process is ultimately a shift of power and control from the organization to the investigator.
Having a procedure that centers equity, is free from bias, is ethical, and has integrity is important
to establishing confidence in leadership and in investigators, who can be left without any

47
Who refers to the role with the organization.
99

recourse but to comply or be found insubordinate, and neither of those forced options serves the
goals of an investigation.
By providing a policy that outlines the authority of an investigator and the boundaries
that exist for the investigator to freely do the work expected, while also providing a process to
redress any concerns about interference, the investigator is better positioned to operate
independently and not have to account for implicit bias in the process, except their own.
Moreover, these frameworks help the investigator both avoid accounting for the implicit bias of
another and address a source of their own implicit bias, the need to survive, or appear valuable to
the organization by leaning in the direction of the organization.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was the first empirical study of implicit bias in investigations using a mixed-
methods design applying Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework. The data obtained
through the study answered important questions concerning investigator knowledge of implicit
bias, investigator motivation for doing the work, and organizational structure, and the mitigating
or reinforcing impact it has on implicit bias in investigations. I recognize that this study was a
beginning, and there is considerable opportunity for more research.
First, this study proposed a detailed and comprehensive model for training investigators
to mitigate implicit bias in investigations. Therefore, one recommendation for future research is
to gather data on the effectiveness of the training model proposed. This model was developed for
this problem of practice but with an eye toward the applicability of training in other industries
and domains.
Second, I was motivated to try to understand whether implicit bias could be impacting
investigations, and the data supports that, as to this sample, it may be. The data presented a stark
100

picture of this sample, one that was not as diverse as the growing workforce population it serves.
Future research could seek to understand why there is a disparity between the workforce
depending on investigation services and the investigators who conduct the investigations. What
these data do not do is examine why employees may view workplace investigations negatively.
Therefore, more research is needed to understand the perspective of the employee now that there
are baseline data about investigators. With the employee stakeholder information, the
opportunity exists to understand whether a lack of diversity plays a role in the perceptions of
employees and the data gathered as part of that research creates an opportunity to refine these
recommendations.
Third, the motivation of investigators was explored in this study. However, an in-depth
qualitative study may reveal more sources of implicit bias. Future research could explore
investigators’ lived experience to identify why an investigator chooses this vocation and how
their worldview informs the role and how their role informs their worldview.
Finally, the data showed an interesting correlation among age, years of experience, and
applied knowledge of implicit bias. The older, more experienced bracket of investigators
appeared to have stronger applied knowledge than the remainder of the sample, establishing a
“sweet spot” for mitigating implicit bias, yet this portion of the sample represented the smallest
number of participants. Therefore, several areas of inquiry are evident, including determining
whether there are fewer investigators in this bracket, as suggested by the sample, as well as what
confluence of factors, including knowledge and organizational factors, help to create this sweet
spot. It would also be important to understand what motivates this smaller population to leave the
profession and what, if anything, would motivate this group of investigators to remain in the
profession.
101

Conclusion
The purpose of this study, applying Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework,
was to understand what investigators knew about implicit bias, what motivates them to do the
work, and what organizational factors reinforce or mitigate implicit bias in investigations. This
study answered these questions and, using data obtained through a mixed-method design made
three recommendations related to the three gap areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors.
The heart of the study’s findings can be summarized in an observation by E.B. White that
began this dissertation, “I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that
doesn’t have a slant. All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no [person] is born
perpendicular” (p. 115). The study data suggested that investigators lacked applied knowledge of
the way they slant and their own leanings. The data also supported that investigators must
contend with interference and that a lack of independence can be an organizational factor in
reinforcing implicit bias in investigations. Therefore, all three of these recommendations serve an
outcome of reducing implicit bias by helping to produce the circumstances that support valid and
reliable investigations that mitigate for implicit bias.
Implicit bias is a source of risk for investigations because it can lead to dissatisfaction
with the process, and those processes and outcomes can be challenged. By challenging the
process, the finality of the result is delayed. Finality in the process and reduction of challenges to
investigations through the legal process, whether through the Article III court system or through
private arbitration, benefits the organization by reducing expense and financial risk realized
through reduced litigation costs, reduced settlements and judgments paid, and reduced public
relations incurred damage that can impact the operations and viability of an organization,
102

jeopardizing jobs. Increased likelihood of finality is achieved when satisfaction with the process
occurs (Folger, 1977; Folger et al., 1983; Bies & Shapiro, 1988; De Cremer & Tyler; 2005;
Schroeder & Fulton, 2015).
The three recommendations proposed work in concert but are focused on different
stakeholders. Recommendations 1 and 2 are designed to address the investigation’s outcome on
the people involved in the investigation. Recommendation 1 addresses improving investigator
knowledge to mediate the impact of implicit bias in the investigation process and product,
helping to produce better outcomes and assist the organization in resolving concerns, reducing
risk. Recommendation two addresses two areas: (a) interrogating systems of power and privilege
to create investigation programs that center equity and reduce the impact of systemic implicit
bias and (b) affording participants agency in the process to increase satisfaction and perceived
validity. Finally, Recommendation 3 is offered to help foster the conditions that allow the
investigator to mitigate for implicit bias from others that interfere in the investigator’s ability to
exclude other sources of implicit bias acting on the process and provides space for the
investigator to focus on identifying and addressing their own implicit bias. All three
recommendations support an organization that possesses intrinsic motivation to offer an
investigations program that has integrity and enjoys the trust of stakeholders.
The problem of implicit bias impacts the organization, employees, and the investigators
who participate in resolving workplace conflict. Faulty investigations lead to litigation, and
inadequate investigations can result in financial loss to the organization and both tangible and
intangible losses to the parties who are compelled to participate in these processes. Therefore, to
afford stakeholders the best opportunity to achieve the benefits of quality investigations that
103

improve workplace cultures and workers’lives , the aforementioned three recommendations, if
implemented, propose concrete efforts to address the problem of implicit bias in investigations.
104

References
Adkins, J. (2016). These people are frightened to death. National Archives.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2016/summer/lavender.html
Agarwal, P. (2020). Sway: Unravelling unconscious bias. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2005). An empirical examination of the influence of
organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 22(3), 191–224. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222220307
Albert, E. T. (2019). AI in talent acquisition: A review of AI-applications used in recruitment
and selection. Strategic HR Review, 18(5), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-04-
2019-0024
Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Basic Books.
Altman, L. K. (1982, May 11). New homosexual disorder worries health officials. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/science/new-homosexual-disorder-worries-
health-officials.html
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M. Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Mayer, R. E.
(2010). How learning works : seven research-based principles for smart teaching (1st
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.).
Asfaw, A. G., Chang, C. C., & Ray, T. K. (2014). Workplace mistreatment and sickness
absenteeism from work: Results from the 2010 National Health Interview survey.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57(2), 202–213.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22273
105

Association of Workplace Investigators. (2021). AWI workplace investigation basics: Virtual
Seminar Series – Module 1 [Pesentation Slides].
Association of Workplace Investigators. (2013). Guiding principles for conducting workplace
investigations (3rd Revision).
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.awi.org/resource/resmgr/files/publications/AWI-Guiding-
Principles-Broch.pdf
Axelson, R. D., Solow, C. M., Ferguson, K. J., & Cohen, M. B. (2010). Assessing implicit
gender bias in medical student performance evaluations. Evaluation & the Health
Professions, 33(3), 365–385.
Backhus, L., Lui, N., Cooke, D., Bush, E., Enumah, Z., & Higgins, R. (2019). Unconscious Bias.
Thoracic Surgery Clinics, 29(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thorsurg.2019.03.004
Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests for disability accommodation:
The role of individual differences and disability attributes. Journal of Management,
39(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310396375
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming
and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research
methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). Cambridge University
Press.
Bartlett, F. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge
University Press., https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511759185
106

Beaver, S. J. (1997). Beyond the exclusivity rule: Employer’s liability for workplace violence.
Marquette Law Review, 81(1), 103.
Benjamin, W. (1935). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Prism Key Press.
Bias (2021). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural
fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 676–685.
Black’s Law Dictionary. (2021a). What is FACT? Retrieved March 16, 2021, from
https://thelawdictionary.org/fact/
Black’s Law Dictionary. (2021b). What is OPINION? Retrieved March 16, 2021, from
https://thelawdictionary.org/opinion/
Bloch, M. (2008). Guide to conducting workplace investigations. Society of Corporate
Compliance and Ethics. https://assets.corporatecompliance.org/Portals/1/Users/169/
29/60329/Workplace_Investigations_Guide.pdf
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Bonaroti, A. R., Chen, W., Bacas, E., Han, N. R., Kiesling, S. F., Wong, L., & Bourne, D. A.
(2021). 20. Implicit bias in letters of recommendation for plastic surgery residency
applicants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Global Open, 9(2S), 11–12.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.GOX.0000734984.58317.ab
Boysen, G. A. (2010). Integrating implicit bias into counselor education. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 49(4), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00099.x
107

Bridges, W., & Mitchell, S. (2000). Leading transition: A new model for change. Leader to
Leader, 16(3), 30–36.
Brief, A., Dietz, J., Cohen, R., Pugh, S., & Vaslow, J. (2000). Just doing business: Modern
racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(1), 72–97.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2867
Brownstein, M. (2019). Implicit bias. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved August
4, 2020, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/#HistFiel
Burke, W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Byer, T. (2017). Yea, nay, and everything in between: Disparities within the academic ombuds
field. (International Ombudsman Association). Negotiation Journal, 33(3), 213–238.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12183
Caldwell, C., Shapiro, J. P., & Gross, S. J. (2007). Ethical leadership in higher education
admission: Equality vs. equity. Journal of College Admission, 195, 14–19.
Carlin, G. (2016). Battle fatigue [Video]. Retrieved August 12, 2020, from
https://youtu.be/psMrA78qygM
Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Manwell, L. B., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., Ford, C. E., ... &
Sheridan, J. (2015). Effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at
one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine: Journal of the
108

Association of American Medical Colleges, 90(2), 221–230.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552
Carnes, M., Geller, S., Fine, E., Sheridan, J., & Handelsman, J. (2005). NIH Director’s Pioneer
Awards: Could the selection process be biased against women? Journal of Women’s
Health, 14(8), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2005.14.684
Carpenter, T., Pogacar, R., Pullig, C., Kouril, M., Aguilar, S., LaBouff, J., Isenberg, N., &
Chakroff, A. (2019). Survey-software implicit association tests: A methodological and
empirical analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2194–2208.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01293-3
Champagne-Langabeer, T., & Hedges, A. L. (2021). Physician gender as a source of implicit
bias affecting clinical decision-making processes: A scoping review. BMC Medical
Education, 21(1), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02601-2
Chapman, B. V., Rooney, M. K., Ludmir, E. B., De La Cruz, D., Salcedo, A., Pinnix, C. C., Das,
P., Jagsi, R., Thomas, C. R., Jr., & Holliday, E. B. (2020). Linguistic biases in letters of
recommendation for radiation oncology residency applicants from 2015 to 2019. Journal
of Cancer Education, 2020, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01907-x
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational
Researcher, 21(6), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X021006013
Choshen-Hillel, S., Shaw, A., & Caruso, E. M. (2018). Disadvantaged but not dissatisfied: How
agency ameliorates negative reactions to unequal pay. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. Applied, 24(4), 578–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000181
Cipolone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al (The United States Supreme Court 1992).
109

Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive
science. Cambridge University Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Clark, T. (2020). 4 stages of psychological safety. Readhowyouwant.
Cobb, S., & Rifkin, J. (1991). Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation. Law
& Social Inquiry, 16(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1991.tb00283.x
Conrey, F., Sherman, J., Gawronski, B., Hugenberg, K., & Groom, C. (2005). Separating
multiple processes in implicit social cognition: The quad model of implicit task
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 469–487.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.469
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. (2018). Research design (5th ed). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd
ed.). SAGE.
Crotty, M., & Crotty, M. F. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective
in the research process. Sage.
Crowne and Marlowe. (1964). The approval motive. John Wiley and Sons.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of
Psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
Danner, C. (2020). Everything we know about the killing of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta police.
Intelligencer. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from
110

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/what-we-know-about-the-killing-of-rayshard-
brooks.html
Davis v. Monroe County BD. of ED. (Supreme Court of the United States 1999).
Deakins, O. (2017). Is your investigator more biased than you think? Part I: How unconscious
bias can disrupt your workplace investigations. Retrieved June 27, 2021, from
https://ogletree.com/insights/is-your-investigator-more-biased-than-you-think-part-i-how-
unconscious-bias-can-disrupt-your-workplace-investigations/
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between
procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in experimental social
psychology, 37, 151–18.
Denning, S. (2011). The leader’s guide to storytelling (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Derry, R. (2020). Ethics and the tobacco industry. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics
and Society (2nd ed., p. 1247). Sage Publications.
Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. (1999). Executive insights: corporate culture and market
orientation: comparing Indian and Japanese firms. Journal of International Marketing,
7(4), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X9900700407
Desirability, S. (2020). In APA Dictionary of Psychology online. Retreived 15 July 2021, from
https://dictionary.apa.org/social-desirability
DuBrin, A. (2011). Impression management in the workplace (1st ed.). Routledge.
Edmunds, L. D., Ovseiko, P. V., Shepperd, S., Greenhalgh, T., Frith, P., Roberts, N. W., Pololi,
L. H., & Buchan, A. M. (2016). Why do women choose or reject careers in academic
medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet, 388(10062), 2948–2958.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01091-0
111

Exon, S. (2008). The effects that mediator styles impose on neutrality and impartiality
requirements of mediation. University of San Francisco Law Review, 42(3).
Faber, J., & Fonseca, L. (2014). How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental Press
Journal of Orthodontics, 19(4), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-
029.ebo
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys (5th ed.). SAGE.
Fiske, S., Bersoff, D., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & et al. (1991). Social science research on trial:
Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The American
Psychologist, 46(10), 1049–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.10.1049
FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic
review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8
FitzGerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D., & Hurst, S. (2019). Interventions designed to reduce
implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real world contexts: A systematic review.
BMC Psychology, 7(1), 29. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-
019-0299-7
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and
improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
35(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.108
Frederickson, H., Smith, K., Larimer, C., & Licari, M. (2016). The public administration theory
primer (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494369
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
112

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1449),
1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Fulton County Medical Examiner. (2020). Medical examiner press report - Rayshard Brooks.
https://www.fultoncountyga.gov/news/2020/06/15/medical-examiner-press-report
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype
expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
Garbarski, D., Schaeffer, N., & Dykema, J. (2014). The effects of response option order and
question order on self-rated health. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of
Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 24(6), 1443–1453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0861-y
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist. (Supreme Court of the United States 1998).
Geidner, C. (2015). Nancy Reagan turned down Rock Hudson’s plea for help nine weeks Before
he died. Buzzfeednews.com. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/nancy-reagan-turned-down-rock-
hudsons-plea-for-help-seven-we#.bnW5Eo1mb
George, A. (2021). The 1968 Kerner Commission got it right, but nobody listened. Smithsonian
Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/1968-kerner-
commission-got-it-right-nobody-listened-180968318/
Gewirtz, D. (2018). Technology that changed us: The 1990s, from WorldWideWeb to Google.
ZDNet. https://www.zdnet.com/article/technology-that-changed-us-the-1990s/
113

Ghezzi, E. L., Funk, J. A., & Houmanfar, R. A. (2021). Restructuring law enforcement agencies
to support prosocial values: A behavior-scientific model for addressing police brutality.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2021, 1–9.
Ghosh, D. (2017). AI is the future of hiring, but it’s far from immune to bias. Quartz.
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing Qualitative Data, 703, 38-56.
Gill, R. D. (2014). Implicit bias in judicial performance evaluations: We must do better than this.
The Justice System Journal, 35(3), 301–324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2013.873290
Gilliam, W., Maupin, A., Reyes, C., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do early educators’
implict biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and
recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions? Yale University Child Study
Center.
Girod, S., Fassiotto, M., Grewal, D., Ku, M. C., Sriram, N., Nosek, B. A., & Valantine, H.
(2016). Reducing implicit gender leadership bias in academic medicine with an
educational intervention. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1143–1150.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001099
Glamour. (2019, may 18). Post-Weinstein, these are the powerful men facing sexual harassment
allegations. https://www.glamour.com/gallery/post-weinstein-these-are-the-powerful-
men-facing-sexual-harassment-allegations
Go, C., Lang, S., Byrne, M., Brucha, D. L., Parviainen, K., & Sachdev, U. (2021). Linguistic
analysis of letters of recommendation for vascular surgery and obstetrics and gynecology
applicants detects differences in attributable strengths based on gender. Journal of
Surgical Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.02.002
114

Grady, C. (2019). The Continued complexities of paying research participants. The American
Journal of Bioethics, 19(9), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643654
Grant, C. A., & Gillette, M. (2006). A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively
preparing teachers who can teach everyone’s children. Journal of Teacher Education,
57(3), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285894
Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in
groups and organizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235–256).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_10
Gulati, G., Cusack, A., Kelly, B. D., Kilcommins, S., & Dunne, C. P. (2020). Experiences of
people with intellectual disabilities encountering law enforcement officials as the
suspects of crime–A narrative systematic review. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 71, Article 101609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101609
Gullo, G. (2020). Equity endeavors through the Justice for Bias Framework: principals
addressing implicit bias in schools. In Exploring principal development and teacher
outcomes (pp. 86–100). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429356247-7
Gullo, G., & Beachum, F. (2020). Framing Implicit Bias Impact Reduction in Social Justice
Leadership. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 3(3).
Gullo, G. L., Capatosto, K., & Staats, C. (2018a). Implicit bias in schools: A practitioner’s guide.
Routledge.
Gullo, G. L., Capatosto, K., & Staats, C. (2018b). Who Did What?: Behavior and
Discipline. Implicit Bias in Schools, 61-78.
Hall, W. J., Chapman, M. V., Lee, K. M., Merino, Y. M., Thomas, T. W., Payne, B. K., Eng, E.,
Day, S. H., & Coyne-Beasley, T. (2015). Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care
115

professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: A systematic review. American
Journal of Public Health, 105(12), e60–e76. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903
Hamilton, I. (2018, October 10). Amazon built an AI tool to hire people but had to shut it down
because it was discriminating against women. Business Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-built-ai-to-hire-people-discriminated-against-
women-2018-10
Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office. (2020). Autopsy report.
https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-
safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_floyd.pdf
Henning, M. A., Zhou, C., Adams, P., Moir, F., Hobson, J., Hallett, C., & Webster, C. S. (2017).
Workplace harassment among staff in higher education: A systematic review. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 18(4), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9499-0
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, (Spring/Summer), 17–19.
Hill, E., Tiefenthäler, A., Triebert, C., Jordan, D., Willis, H., & Stein, R. (2020). How George
Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody. The New York Times. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html
Hinton, P. (2017). Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: Cognition and culture in
“biased” person perception. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.86
Ho, J. (2015). Landmines to avoid in conducting workplace investigations. Employee Relations
Law Journal, 41(1), 55–59.
116

Hollis, L. P. (2015). Bully university? The cost of workplace bullying and employee
disengagement in American Higher Education. SAGE Open, 5. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015589997
Holroyd, J. (2020). Implicit bias and epistemic vice. Vice Epistemology, 126-147.
Holroyd, J., Scaife, R., & Stafford, T. (2017). What is implicit bias? Philosophy Compass,
12(10), e12437. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12437
Hood, C. (1990). J. G. March and J. P. Olsen Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational
Basis of Politics New York, Free Press, 1989 [book review]. Journal of Public Policy,
10(3), 349–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00005869
Hunt, E. (2016, March 24). Tay, Microsoft’s AI chatbot, gets a crash course in racism from
Twitter. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-
microsofts-ai-chatbot-gets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter
Hutchinson, B. (2020). Rappers who witnessed Atlanta police killing of Rayshard Brooks speak
out. ABC News. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/rappers-
witnessed-atlanta-police-killing-rayshard-brooks-speak/story?id=71319376
Imron, M. A., Munawaroh, U. I., Farida, R. D. M., Paramarta, V., Sunarsi, D., Akbar, I. R., . . .
Masriah, I. (2021). Effect of organizational culture on innovation capability employees in
the knowledge sharing perspective: Evidence from digital industries. Annals of the
Romanian Society for Cell Biology, 2021, 4189–4203.
Indifferent. (2021) In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indifferent
117

Innovative Design History. (2020, April 8). The United Colors of Benetton campaign history.
https://innovativedesignhistory.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/the-united-colors-of-benetton-
campaign-history/
International Ombudsman Association. (2019). The organizational ombudsman—Role and
function. https://www.ombudsassociation.org/what-is-an-organizational-ombuds
Jackson, M. (2006). The Enthymematic Hegemony of Whiteness: The Enthymeme as antiracist
rhetorical strategy. Journal of Advanced Composition, 26(3/4), 601–641.
Jacobo, J. (2020). Experts on why police aren’t trained to shoot to wound. ABC News. Retrieved
July 22, 2020, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-trained-shoot-wound-
experts/story?id=40402933
Jigjiddorj, S., Zanabazar, A., Jambal, T., & Semjid, B. (2021). Relationship Between
Organizational Culture, Employee Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. SHS
Web of Conferences, 90, p. 02004). EDP Sciences.
Jones, N. T., & Gray, A. E. (2020). Threat assessment and management: Identifying the ethical
and legal challenges within a law enforcement setting. Journal of Threat Assessment and
Management, 7(1-2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000145
Jost, J. T. (2019). The IAT is dead, long live the IAT: Context-sensitive measures of implicit
attitudes are indispensable to social and political psychology. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 28(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418797309
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kamm, C. (2019). An interactive literature review table on implicit bias.
https://kammsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Kamm-Solutions-Implicit-Bias-
Lit.-Review-Table-.pdf
118

Keltie, A., & Ludlam, J. (2015). Preventing and investigating fraud in the workplace. Baker
McKenzie. Retrieved March 8, 2021, from https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-
/media/files/insight/publications/2015/06/preventing-and-investigating-
fraud/bk_london_fraudinworkplace_jun15.pdf?la=en
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist (1st ed.). One World.
Kirshenbaum, J. M., & Miller, M. K. (2020). Judges’ experiences with mitigating jurors’ implicit
biases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2020 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837029
Konovalov, A., & Krajbich, I. (2018). Neurocomputational dynamics of sequence learning.
Neuron, 98(6), 1282–1293.e1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.013
Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. E. L., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Ho, A. K.,
Teachman, B. A., Wojcik, S. P., Koleva, S. P., Frazier, R. S., Heiphetz, L., Chen, E. E.,
Turner, R. N., Haidt, J., Kesebir, S., Hawkins, C. B., Schaefer, H. S., Rubichi, S., . . .
Nosek, B. A. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation
of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(4), 1765–1785.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036260
Lam, L., Nguyen, P., Le, N., & Tran, K. (2021). The relation among organizational culture,
knowledge management, and innovation capability: Its implication for open innovation.
Journal of Open Innovation, 7(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010066
Lambert, C., Arbuckle, S., & Holden, R. (2016). The Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale
outperforms the BIDR Impression Management Scale for identifying fakers. Journal of
Research in Personality, 61, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.004
119

Landy, F., & Farr, J. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1), 72–107.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.1.72
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P.
(2009). The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational
performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Langthorne, M. (2016). Somebody to love. Weldon Owen.
Lasiuk, G. C., & Hegadoren, K. M. (2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder part I: Historical
development of the concept. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 42(1), 13–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.2006.00045.x
Lattal, A. (2016). The hidden world of unconscious bias and its impact on the “neutral”
workplace investigator. Journal of Law and Policy, 24(2), 55.
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol24/iss2/3/
Law Enforcement Action Partnership. (2021). Sir Robert Peel’s policing principles. Retrieved
June 21, 2021, from https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/peel-policing-
principles/
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Legal fiction. Retrieved July 3, 2021, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_fiction
Lemann, N. (1991). How the seventies changed America. American Heritage. Retrieved August
4, 2020, from https://www.americanheritage.com/how-seventies-changed-america
Levinson, J., Bennett, M., & Hioki, K. (2017). Judging implicit bias: A national empirical study
of judicial stereotypes. Florida Law Review, 69(1), 63.
Lim, K., & Kracov, J. (2019). The lavender scare: How the federal government purged gay
employees. CBS News. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from
120

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lavender-scare-how-the-federal-government-purged-
gay-employees/
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,
and emerging confluences, revisited. s. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–216). Sage.
Lindsey, F. (2008). Jim crow laws. In K. F. Warren (Ed.), Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns,
elections, and electoral behavior (pp. 342–343). SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963886.n178
Los Angeles Times. (2018). The Times’ investigation of George Tyndall, former USC
gynecologist accused of sexually abusing students. Retrieved June 18, 2021, from
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-george-tyndall-sg-storygallery.html
Lyons, N., Halton, C., & Freidus, H. (2013). Reflective inquiry as transformative self-study for
professional education and learning. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 163–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.808057
MacSuibhne, V., & Bloch, M. C. (2021). Creating and organizational investigations program and
conducting effective workplace investigations. Society of Corporate Compliance and
Ethics.
Malott, R., & Shane, J. (2015). Principles of behavior (7th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663104
Marsh, A., Ambady, N., & Kleck, R. (2005). The effects of fear and anger facial expressions on
approach- and avoidance-related behaviors. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 5(1), 119–124.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.119
121

Maskaly, J., Donner, C., & Fridell, L. (2017). Police CEOs and subordinates’ perceptions of
workplace misconduct. Policing, 40(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2016-
0112
May, J. (2020). Bias in science: Natural and social. Synthese. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02937-0
Menifield, C. E., Shin, G., & Strother, L. (2019). Do White law enforcement officers target
minority suspects? Public Administration Review, 79(1), 56–68.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12956
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2012). Temporal distance and discrimination: An
audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23(7), 710–717.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434539
Minikin, K. (2021). Relative privilege and the seduction of normativity. Transactional Analysis
Journal, 51(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2020.1853349
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
Muliaty, M., Basri, M., & Jasruddin, J. (2017). Effects of organizational transformation and
culture on employees performance. Journal of Economic & Management Perspectives,
11(3), 1287–1292.
Myers, C. S. “A contribution to the study of shell shock”. Lancet, 1’, 1915, pp. 316–320
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)52916-X
122

National Institute of Justice. (2020). Overview of Police Use of Force. Retrieved July 22, 2020,
from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-police-use-force
Nesbary, D. (2000). Survey research and the World Wide Web (1st ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Newkirk-Turner, B. L., & Hudson, T. K. (2021). Do no harm: Graduate Admissions letters of
recommendation and unconscious bias. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest
Groups, 2021, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-20-00117
Obligations of Employee. Cal. LAB Article 3 § 2856 (1937)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2856.&l
awCode=LAB
Pager, D., Bonikowski, B., & Western, B. (2009). Discrimination in a Low-wage labor market:
A field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 777–799.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400505
Palmer, C. A. (2006). Encyclopedia of African-American culture and history: The Black
experience in the Americas (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale.
Papillion, K. (2021). Two types of bias. Georgetown University. Retrieved June from
https://nccc.georgetown.edu/bias/module-3/1.php
Parlor, J. C. (2020). The impact of African American attire on threat perception and anxiety
among law enforcement and the general population [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Alliant International University, San Diego, California.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Payne, K., & Lundberg, K. (2014). The affect misattribution procedure: Ten years of evidence on
reliability, validity, and mechanisms. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12),
672–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12148
123

Payne, B., Vuletich, H., & Lundberg, K. (2017). The Bias of Crowds: How Implicit Bias Bridges
Personal and Systemic Prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 233–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1335568
Payne, K., Niemi, L., & Doris, J. M. (2018). How to think about “implicit bias.”. Scientific
American, 2018, 27.
Peltokorpi, V., & Ramaswami, A. (2021). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ physical and
mental health: The effects of job satisfaction and power distance orientation.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(4), 893–919.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1511617
Pierce, C. M. (1978). Entitlement dysfunctions. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 12, 215–219. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048677809159084
Portillo, S., & Humphrey, N. (2018). Institutionalism and assumptions: Institutionalizing race
and gender in public administration scholarship. In E. C. Stazyk & H. G. Frederickson
(Eds.), Handbook of American public administration (pp. 289–303). Edward Elgar
Portillo, S., Bearfield, D., & Humphrey, N. (2020). The myth of bureaucratic neutrality:
Institutionalized inequity in local government hiring. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 40(3), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19828431
Pouget, A., Beck, J. M., Ma, W. J., & Latham, P. E. (2013). Probabilistic brains: Knowns and
unknowns. Nature Neuroscience, 16(9), 1170–1178. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3495
Price, J. H., & Payton, E. (2017). Implicit racial bias and police use of lethal force: Justifiable
homicide or potential discrimination? Journal of African American Studies, 21(4), 674–
683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-017-9383-3
124

Project Implicit. (202). About us. Implicit.harvard.edu.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/aboutus.html
Protection of Human Research Subjects 45 CFR 46 et seq.()
Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2015). The effect of being given
voice on the tendency to stereotype others. [Academy of Management.]. Proceedings -
Academy of Management, 2015(1), 12529.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.12529abstract
Qian, M. K., Quinn, P. C., Heyman, G. D., Pascalis, O., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2017). Perceptual
individuation training (but not mere exposure) reduces implicit racial bias in preschool
children. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 845–859.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000290
Qualtrics (2020). Qualtrics software, Version August 2020 of Qualtrics.
https://www.qualtrics.com
Rachlinski, J., Johnson, S., Wistrich, A., & Guthrie, C. (2009). Does unconscious racial bias
affect trial judges? The Notre Dame Law Review, 84(3), 1195.
Raosoft, Inc. (2004). Sample size calculator, Retrieved August 8, 2020, from
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Rice, M. L., Leung, J. G., Mara, K. C., & Leung, S. B. (2021). Assessment of gender differences
in letters of recommendation for pharmacy residency applicants. American Journal of
Health-System Pharmacy, 78(12), 1118–1125. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxab150
Riksheim, E. C., & Chermak, S. M. (1993). Causes of police behavior revisited. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 21(4), 353–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(93)90019-J
125

Roberts, A. (2012). forming the jury: Detection and disinfection of implicit juror bias.
Connecticut Law Review, 44(3), 827.
Robinson, S., & Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions (1st ed.). SAGE.
Rojas, R., & Fausset, R. (2020, June 17). Former Atlanta officer is charged with murder in
shooting of Rayshard Brooks. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/us/garrett-rolfe-rayshard-brooks-atlanta.html
Roozeboom, W. D. (2021). Wired for Fear: Recognizing and Countering Implicit Bias in the
Brain. Journal of Pastoral Theology, 1-18.
Saldaña, J. M. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Salkind, N. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (4th ed.). Sage
Publications, Inc.
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
Schroeder, S. A., & Fulton, D. C. (2017). Voice, perceived fairness, agency trust, and acceptance
of management decisions among Minnesota anglers. Society & Natural Resources, 30(5),
569–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1238987
Schutt, R. (2018). Investigating the social world (8th ed.). Sage Publishers.
Schwartz, M. B., Chambliss, H. O. N., Brownell, K. D., Blair, S. N., & Billington, C. (2003).
Weight bias among health professionals specializing in obesity. Obesity Research, 11(9),
1033–1039. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2003.142
Segrest Purkiss, S., Perrewé, P., Gillespie, T., Mayes, B., & Ferris, G. (2006). Implicit sources of
bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and
126

Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 152–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.005
Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research : a guide for researchers in education and
the social sciences (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Sherman, L. W. (1980). Causes of police behavior: The current state of quantitative research.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17(1), 69–100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002242788001700106
Smith, S., Wickliffe, J., Rivera-Newberry, I., Redmond, M., Kelly, P. J., & Ramaswamy, M.
(2020). A Systematic Evaluation of Barriers and Facilitators to the Provision of Services
for Justice-Involved Women. Journal of Community Health, 45(6), 1252–1258.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00894-w
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. (2013). Bylaws of Society of Corporate
Compliance and Ethics & Health Care Compliance Association. Retrieved July 21, 2020,
from https://assets.corporatecompliance.org/Portals/1/PDF/AboutSCCE/
SCCE&HCCABylawsRevisions(April%202013).pdf
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. (2020). Candidate handbook. Retrieved July 22,
2020, from https://assets.corporatecompliance.org/Portals/2/PDF/CCEP/ccb-ccep-
handbook.pdf
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. (2020). History of SCCE and HCCA. Retrieved
July 21, 2020, from https://www.corporatecompliance.org/history-scce-and-hcca
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. (2021a). Code of professional ethics for
compliance and ethics professionals. Retrieved July 15, 2021, from
127

https://assets.corporatecompliance.org/Portals/1/PDF/Resources/SCCECodeOfEthics_En
glish.pdf
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. (2021b). The complete compliance and ethics
manual.
Sprague, J., & Stuart. D. (2000). The speaker’s handbook. Cengage Learning
Staats, C. (2016). Understanding implicit bias: What educators should know. American
Educator, 39(4), 29.
Stancombe, J., & White, S. (2005). Cause and responsibility: Towards an interactional
understanding of blaming and “neutrality” in family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy,
27(4), 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.00326.x
Starck, J. G., Riddle, T., Sinclair, S., & Warikoo, N. (2020). Teachers are people too: Examining
the racial bias of teachers compared to other American adults. Educational Researcher,
49(4), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912758
Stern, V. (2015). A Short History of the Rise, Fall and Rise of Subliminal Messaging. Scientific
American. Retrieved 11 August 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-
short-history-of-the-rise-fall-and-rise-of-subliminal-messaging/
Sturm, S. (2002). Lawyers and the practice of workplace equity. Wisconsin Law Review,
2002(2), 277.
Stӧber, J. (1999). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Development and first results on
reliability and validity. Diagnostica, 45(4), 173–177.
Stӧber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant
validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17,
222–232. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222
128

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.
John Wiley & Sons.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., & Holder, A. (2008). Racial microaggressions in the life
experience of Black Americans. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 39(3),
329–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.3.329
Sue, V., & Ritter, L. (2012). Conducting online surveys (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335186
Sukhera, J., & Watling, C. (2018). A framework for integrating implicit bias recognition into
health professions education. Academic Medicine, 93(1), 35–40.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001819
Syma, C. (2019). Invisible disabilities: Perceptions and barriers to reasonable accommodations in
the workplace. Library Management, 40(1/2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-10-
2017-0101
Thurnauer, B. (2018). Internal affairs: A strategy for smaller departments. International
Association of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved March 9, 2021, from
http://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/BP-InternalAffairs.pdf
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) (2015).
Totorica, A. (2017). Revealing invisible disabilities in the workplace. Labor & Employment Law,
45(2). https://doi.org/info:doi/
Trends, G. (2021). Implicit bias. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2008-01-
20%202020-06-30&geo=US&q=implicit%20bias
129

Tuarez, M. A. V., Delgado, R. I. Z., Teran, O. V. T., & Martine, M. E. M. (2019). The brain and
its role on learning process. International Journal of Physical Sciences and Engineering,
3(2), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.29332/ijpse.v3n2.326
Turrentine, F. E., Dreisbach, C. N., St Ivany, A. R., Hanks, J. B., & Schroen, A. T. (2019).
Influence of Gender on Surgical Residency Applicants’ Recommendation Letters.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 228(4), 356–365.e3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.12.020
Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to
organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 529–545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.001
USC Office for the Protection of Research Subjects. (2020). Informed consent. Retrieved August
8, 2020, from https://oprs.usc.edu/irb-review/informed-consent/
U.S. Census Bureau Data. (2016). ACS demographic and hoursing estimates.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Populations%20and%20People&y=2016&tid=AC
SDP1Y2016.DP05&hidePreview=true
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Dear colleague letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights Russlynn Ali. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-
201104.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). Checklists for employers. Retrieved
June 18, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/checklists-employers-1
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). Enforcement guidance: Vicarious
liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors RetrievedMarch 8, 2021, from
130

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-vicarious-liability-unlawful-
harassment-supervisors
United States Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration. (2021).
Safety and health tips/workplace violence. Retrieved 8 March 2021, from
https://www.osha.gov/workplace-violence
University of Southern California Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) Policies and
Procedures. Oprs.usc.edu. (2017). Retrieved 8 August 2020, from
https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2017/04/2017-Policies-and-Procedures-PDF-1JUN2017.pdf
Ushistory.org. (2020). A time of malaise Retrieved August 4, 2020, from
https://www.ushistory.org/us/58.asp
van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The
Implicit Prejudiced Attitudes of Teachers: Relations to Teacher Expectations and the
Ethnic Achievement Gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 497–527.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209353594
van Dijk, R., & Van Dick, R. (2009). Navigating Organizational Change: Change Leaders,
Employee Resistance and Work-based Identities. Journal of Change Management, 9(2),
143–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879087
Vinopal, C., & Rohrich, Z. (2020). What we know about the killing of Rayshard Brooks. PBS
NewsHour. Retrieved 22 July 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-we-
know-about-the-killing-of-rayshard-brooks
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Wacks, R. (2017). Understanding jurisprudence (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
131

Wacks, R. (2020). Understanding jurisprudence: An introduction to legal theory. Oxford
University Press.
Wamsey, L. (2021). Derek Chauvin Found Guilty Of George Floyd’s Murder. Npr.org.
Retrieved 20 June 2021, from https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-
floyd/2021/04/20/987777911/court-says-jury-has-reached-verdict-in-derek-chauvins-
murder-trial
The Washington Post. (2020). Fatal force. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
Weiner, M. (2015). A natural experiment: Inadvertent priming of party identification in a split-
sample survey. Survey Practice, 8(6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2015-0029
Westerberg, D. (2016). Understanding and dealing with implicit bias and discipline in early care
and education. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 32(10), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbl.30155
White, E. B. (2011). In the words of EB White: Quotations from America's most companionable
of writers. Cornell University Press.
Wikipedia. (2021). Lamar Alexander. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_Alexander
Wilson, K. Y. (2010). An analysis of bias in supervisor narrative comments in performance
appraisal. Human Relations, 63(12), 1903–1933.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710369396
Witnesses, U. (2020). Video footage of George Floyd’s encounter with law enforcement. The
New York Times. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from http://nyti.ms/3glhmhh
132

Xiao, N., Quinn, P., Liu, S., Ge, L., Pascalis, O., & Lee, K. (2017). Older but not younger infants
associate own-race faces with happy music and other-race faces with sad music.
Developmental Science, 21(2), e12537. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12537
Xiao, N., Wu, R., Quinn, P., Liu, S., Tummeltshammer, K., Kirkham, N., Ge, L., Pascalis, O., &
Lee, K. (2017). Infants rely more on gaze cues from own-race than other-race adults for
learning under uncertainty. Child Development, 89(3), e229–e244.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12798
Yiing, L. H., & Ahmad, K. Z. B. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the
relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 53–86.
Young, R., Levenson, E., Almasy, S., & Maxouris, C. (2021, June 17). Ex-Atlanta police officer
who killed Rayshard Brooks charged with felony murder. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-shooting-
wednesday/index.html
Znanewitz, J., Braun, L., Hensel, D., Altobelli, C., & Hattke, F. (2018). A critical comparison of
selected implicit measurement methods. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and
Economics, 11(4), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000086

133

Appendix A: Survey
No. Question Response Options RQ#
1 Informed Consent Information
Sheet.
N/A N/A
2 For the purposes of this study,
“workplace investigation” is defined
as: evaluating or assessing a report
of concern made by an employee or
student that, if true, violates any
organization policy or law, whether
administrative or criminal in nature.
It includes allegations of
discrimination, including that which
is prohibited under state or federal
law, as well as any maltreatment or
misconduct as defined by the
organization. It includes
interviewing witnesses, making
findings of fact, and it may include
making findings on policy violations.

I conduct workplace investigations
Yes, No Screening
3 What kind of workplace
investigations do you do?
I am an internal workplace
investigator for a single
organization; I am an internal
workplace investigator and do
workplace investigations for
multiple organizations
R1
4 What kind of organization do you
work for? Please select all that apply.
College/University,
Corporation, Non-Profit, Law
Firm, Consulting Firm, a
business I solely own,
Other:___________________
R1
5 How long have you conducted
workplace investigations?
0–1 years; 2–5 years; 6–9 years;
10–15 years; more than 15
years.
R1
6 I make findings on policy violations Yes, No R1

134

No. Question Response Options RQ#
7 What kind of investigations do you
conduct or manage? Please select all
that apply.
Protected-class allegations (not
criminal, not Title IX); Title
IX; Non-protected-class
allegations (not criminal;
examples include harassing,
abusive, intimidating, and/or
retaliatory conduct); Criminal;
Academic Integrity (academic
dishonesty, research integrity);
Other______________
R1
8 I manage workplace investigations
conducted by others, which account
for 50% or more of my job
responsibilities.
Yes, No
If no, software skips the next
question.
R1
9 How long have you managed
workplace investigations?
0–1 years; 2–5 years; 6–9
years; 10–15 years; more than
15 years.
R1
10 Please select the option that most
closely aligns with your professional
background? Please select all that
apply.
Attorney; Law Enforcement;
Human Resources; Social
Work; Journalist; Other
___________
R1
11 Please rate your feelings of
satisfaction about the work you do
or are asked to do in the following
categories:
Investigation Process, Quality of
Written Policies, Autonomy over
Findings, Feedback Received,
Training, Support from General
Counsel/Leadership, Support from
Supervisor
Extremely satisfied, Somewhat
satisfied, Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, Somewhat
dissatisfied, Extremely
dissatisfied.
R1
12 In the last three years, I have taken
training to further my knowledge of
the following (Please choose all that
may apply):
Interviewing Skills, Writing
Skills, Law and Policy,
Disability Law or Policy,
Diversity and Inclusion,
Cultural Differences,
Communication Skills,
Credibility Assessment, I did
not take training.
R1

135

No. Question Response Options RQ#
13 Financing for the training I attend is
mostly from:
Myself. I pay for my own
training; If I am an internal
workplace investigator, it is
paid for mostly by my
employer; I belong to an
organization for which I pay
dues, and receive free training
included as part of the
membership dues offered
through the organization; I
belong to an organization for
which the dues are paid by my
employer. I receive free
training included as part of the
membership dues offered
through the organization; I only
take training that is free without
need to belong to an
organization; I do not take
training.
R1, R2

136

No. Question Response Options RQ#
14
Below you will find a list of
statements. Please read each
statement carefully and decide if
that statement describes you or not.
If it describes you, check the word
“true”; if not, check the word
“false”.

I sometimes litter.

I always admit my mistakes
openly and face the potential
negative consequences.

In traffic, I am always polite and
considerate of others.

I always accept others ‘opinions,
even when they don’t agree with
my own.

I take out my bad moods on other
now and then.

There has been an occasion when
I took advantage of someone else.
In conversations always listen
attentively and let others finish
their sentences.

I never hesitate to help someone
in case of emergency

True, False
R2
15 My age is:
18–24; 25–34; 35–44; 45–54;
55–64; 65–74; 75–84

Demographics
16 I identify as (please select all that
may apply):
Male, Female, Non-binary/third
gender, Transgender, Cis
Gender, I prefer not say.
Demographics

137

No. Question Response Options RQ#
17 In what Country and, if applicable,
State do you work?

An urban area is defined as: a large
community, densely populated,
most of the community members
work in industrial, administrative, or
professional jobs and there is clear
evidence of class differences.
Outside of the United States
____________; Within the
United State_____________.
It is considered an Urban Area
Demographics
18 I identify as
White, Black or African
American, American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander,
Latinx, Other ___________
Demographics
19 I identify as
Heterosexual/Straight,
LGBTQ+, Asexual, Not listed:
_________, I am uncomfortable
disclosing.
Demographics
20 What is your highest level of
education?
High school graduate, Some
college, 2 year degree, 4 year
degree, Master’s Degree,
Professional Doctorate (J.D.,
M.D., etc.), Doctorate (Ph.D.,
Ed.D., Psy.D.)
Demographics
R1
21 For each kind of investigation,
please indicate your willingness to
conduct these kinds of
investigations, if given a choice.

Sexual Assault
Sexual Harassment
Race Discrimination
Age Discrimination
Retaliation
Bullying (non-protected-class-based
harassment, abuse, intimidation)
Research/Academic Integrity
(Research Falsification, Plagiarism,
etc.)
Violence (not based on sex)
Other: ____________________
Extremely comfortable;
Somewhat uncomfortable,
Somewhat uncomfortable,
Extremely uncomfortable
R1

138

No. Question Response Options RQ#
22 I am certified to conduct workplace
investigations by one or more
organizations?

Software skips next question, if yes.
Yes and the organization(s)
name is/are: ___________; No
R1
23 If you are not certified, why not?
Please select all that apply

I didn’t know it was available; It
is too expensive; It takes too
much time; I can’t register for
the courses because they are
full; I don’t see the value; My
employer won’t cover the cost;
Other: ________________
R1
24 For these questions, as quickly as
you can, read each item and decide
whether it is True or False for you:
It is sometimes hard for me to go on
with my work if I am not
encouraged.

True, False
R1, R2
25 I like the work I do.
Yes, No
R1

139

No. Question Response Options RQ#
26 This is the last question of this type.

Below you will find a list of
statements. Please read each
statement carefully and decide if
that statement describes you or not.
If it describes you, check the word
“true”; if not, check the word
“false”.

When I make a promise, I keep it --
no ifs, ands, or buts.

I occasionally speak badly of others
behind their bac.k

I would never live off at other
people’s expense.

I always stay friendly and courteous
with other people, even when I am
stressed out.

During arguments I always stay
objective and matter-of-fact.

There has been at least one occasion
when I failed to return an item I
borrowed.

I always eat a healthy diet.

Sometimes I only help because I
expect something in return.
True, False
R1, R2
27 Retaliation allegations are usually
not proveable.
Definitely yes; Probably yes;
Neither yes nor No; Probably
not; Definitely not.
R1
28 I like the culture of the organization
where I do my work.
Yes, No
R1, R2
29 Allegations involving sex-based
policy violations are usually true.
Definitely yes; Probably yes;
Neither yes nor No; Probably
not; Definitely not.
R1

140

No. Question Response Options RQ#
30 I have confidence in the
organization or organizations for
whom I do my work.
Yes, No
R1, R2
31 Race and/or age allegations are
usually unsupported by evidence.
Yes, No
R1
32 Reflecting on past investigations I
have personally handled, I most
often felt (please select all that
apply):
Pleased, Frustrated, Proud,
Disgust, Compassion,
Indifferent, Anxiety/Worry,
Confident, Disappointed,
Satisfied, Inadequate, Prepared
R1
33 People who allege non-protected
class based bullying, harassment,
intimidation, or abuse usually
contribute to the situation they are
reporting in some way.
Definitely yes; Probably yes;
Neither yes nor No; Probably
not; Definitely not.
R1
34 At least once in my career of
conducting investigations, my
employer or the organization to
which I provide investigation
services has been more involved in
the investigation than I would have
liked.
Yes, No
R1, R2
35 Most of my investigations
ultimately are decided based on
credibility, as there is usually no
physical/documentary evidence that
will have a deciding impact on the
outcome.
Definitely yes; Probably yes;
Neither yes nor No; Probably
not; Definitely not.
R1
36 Employees who who have had poor
performance evaluations are usually
not experiencing maltreatment.
Definitely yes; Probably yes;
Neither yes nor No; Probably
not; Definitely not.
R1

141

No. Question Response Options RQ#
37 This study is being conducted in two
phases. You are completing the first
phase. The second phase, which is
optional, is an interview with the
Principal Investigator. It will be
conducted remotely over Zoom.
You are not required to participate
in an interview.

If you are selected to participate and
you do complete the interview, you
will receive a VISA or
MASTERCARD gift card valued at
$50.00 (fifty).

The purpose of the interview is to
gain better insight into your
experiences as a workplace
investigator.

Are you willing to participate in an
interview?
Yes, No
N/A
38 To receive any of the gift card
remuneration to which you may be
entitled, it is necessary to provide
your name, email address, and
telephone number.

You will never be identified in any
written summary of findings.

Your identifying information will
remain protected and confidential as
permitted by law.

Every effort will be made to
safeguard your identity out of
respect for your contribution and
willingness to be candid.
Your Name: ___________
Your Email
Address:______________
Your Telephone Number:
______________________
N/A

142

Appendix B: Social Desirability Measure
143

144

145

Appendix C: Interview Questions
# Question Prompt RQ#
1 Tell me about yourself? None RB
48

2 What life experiences brought you to your
current role as an investigator?
Please tell me more about why you
chose to be an internal investigator?

What motivates you as a workplace
investigator?
RQ1
3 What areas do you think you need to learn
more about to do your job better than you
do now?
Open Prompt RQ1
4 What do you wish you could tell the
parties to the cases you investigate that
you don’t feel comfortable telling them?
Please tell me more about why you
would not feel comfortable telling
them what you shared with me?
RQ1
5 If you had sole decision-making authority,
what changes, if any, would you make to
the investigation process at your
organization?
Help me to understand why the first
change is [insert change]?
RQ2
6 How does organizational culture influence
your work?
Please tell me more about […]? R2
7 What do you wish you could tell the
organization for whom you work about
anything related to investigations or your
role that you don’t feel comfortable
voicing to the organization?
Please tell me more about why you
would not feel comfortable telling the
organization what you shared with
me?
RQ2
8 What are the most significant challenges
you grapple with as an investigator,
beyond the truthfulness of witnesses?
Please help me to understand more
about why that is such a significant
challenge?
RQ1
RQ2
9 What does it mean for you to arrive at the
right result?
Open Probe RQ1
10 What do you do to ensure you arrive at
the right result?
Please help me understand how that
helps you arrive at the right result?
RQ1
11 What, if any, are any personal
impediments you face in arriving at the
right result?
Please help me understand more
about why those are impediments? Or
Please help me understand more
about the source of those
impediments?
RQ1
RQ2

48
Rapport Building
146

Appendix D: IRB Approval Letter

147

148

Appendix E: Statistical Significance: Sex
A two-tailed z score test was used to compare two population proportions to two find the
value of p to determine statistical significance. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2016)
49

a 𝑝𝑝 ̅ 1
value of 159,061,631 represents the total male population and the 𝑛𝑛 1
value of 323,127,515
represents the total U.S. population. Further, using data from the study a 𝑝𝑝 ̅ 2
value of 79 represents
the number of male participants and an 𝑛𝑛 2
value of 117 represents the study sample. The value of
𝑧𝑧 is 3.9584. A positive z score means that the raw score is over the mean average. The value of p
is .00008. The result is significant at p < .01.
Using a value of <0.05 to establish statistical significance, the difference between the
proportion of male investigators in this sample compared to the proportion of male persons living
in the United States was statistically significant, suggesting that based on this sample, male
investigators are overrepresented in the sample as compared to the U.S. population.

49
Due to administration data collection and record keeping irregularities between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, this
study uses 2016 government data.
149

Appendix F: Informed Consent Information Sheet50
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Implicit Bias in Workplace Investigations

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Tracy A. Pearson, J.D.

FACULTY ADVISOR: Cathy Sloane Crop, Ph.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to seek to understand more about workplace investigator
knowledge, motivation, and organizational structures that inform the work workplace
investigators do. We hope to learn about strategies that will improve workplace
investigation outcomes from the workplace investigator’s perspective. You are invited as
a possible participant because you conduct workplace investigations.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
The study is comprised of two parts.

If you decide to take part in the study, for the first part of the study you will be asked to
you will be asked to complete a survey that contains 37 questions and which is
anticipated to take no longer than 13.7 minutes.

If you elect to participate in the second part of the study you will be considered for an
approximately one-hour interview over Zoom with the Principal Investigator who will ask
you questions. The interviews are recorded for accuracy purposes. Recording is
required as part of the protocol.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

50
This study was approved through EXEMPT Institutional Review Board Review.
150

If you complete a survey, you will be entered into a random drawing for a $100
Visa/Mastercard gift card. There will be up to two winners. The Visa/Mastercard gift card
will be emailed to the winners of the random drawing within five days of the survey
closing.

If you elect to and are chosen to participate in an interview, within five days of
completing the interview you will receive a $50 Visa/Mastercard gift card by email.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
identifiable information will be used.

Your data will be assigned a random number and any identifying information for the
purposes of receiving a gift card, if you meet the qualifications to receive a gift card, will
be removed from the data.

The data will be kept on a storage device that is not connected to the internet. The data
will be kept indefinitely.

No review or editing of the audio/video recordings or transcripts will be permitted.
Audio/video recordings will be transcribed using transcribers. Upon verification of the
transcript by the Principal Investigator, all audio and video recordings will be erased,
approximately within 30 days of the interview.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Tracy A. Pearson, J.D., at
tracypea@usc.edu or Cathy Krop, Ph.D. at krop@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

151

Appendix G: Toolkit: Center Equity
Domain of
Influence
Where Effect on Equity Considerations
Language Mission Statement
Code of Conduct
Investigation
Policies/Procedures
Not knowing what the
policies and procedures
are makes knowing
whether one is being
treated equitably
impossible. The lack of
transparency creates the
opportunity for implicit
bias to guide actions.
1. Are the policies and
procedures written down
and are they written in
simple, unbiased
language, e.g., employee
vs. he?
2. Are the policies
available and do they
meet standards for
accessibility for
employees with
disabilities or for those
who the dominant
language is not their first
language?
3. Is the terminology that
refers to employees
involved in the case
suggesting judgment,
e.g., victim, alleged
victim vs. reporter?
Appeal Policies/Procedures
Sanctioning
Policies/Procedures

Emails/Letters
Reports of Investigation
Websites
Public Statements
Investigation
Process
1. Are interviews recorded
to assure quality control
and accountability?
2. Are both material parties
to an investigation
provided equal
opportunity to respond
to evidence, including
testimonial evidence?
3. Are all participants
provided notification of
the right to request
disability
accommodations?
4. Does the process include
affirmatively seeking
feedback from each
participant at the
conclusion of the
investigation to facilitate
152

accountability and
encourage
improvement?
Investigation
Personnel
A lack of diversity
among investigative
personnel reduces
diversity of thought and
reinforces dominant
culture values
throughout the
investigation system.
1. Do the investigators
conducting
investigations represent
a cross-section of the
organization’s
population, including
race, sex, age, disability,
et al.?
2. Are the qualifications to
be an investigator
objective, tied to job
responsibilities?
3. Do the investigators
receive at least yearly
training in how implicit
bias can impact
investigations?

Appendix H: Phase 2 Interview Invitations and Participants
I P Random ID Sex Race Age Sexual
Orientation
Experience
(Yrs)
Education Region
X 115562720899 F W 45–54 Heterosexual 2–5 M.D. Southeastern
X 214336703810 F W 25–34 Heterosexual 2–5 S.C. Great Lakes
X 218227610294 M W 35–34 Heterosexual 2–5 S.C. South Central
X 222878886782 M W 25–34 LGBTQ+ 2–5 S.C. Western
X 284879321628 M AI/AN 25–34 Heterosexual 6–9 M.D. Southeastern
X X 315230051986 F W 45–54 Heterosexual 6–9 P.D. South Central
X 328764233086 F W 24–34 Heterosexual 0–1 S.C. MTN
Western
X 406421773252 F AI/AN 35–44 Heterosexual 0–1 S.C. South Central
X X 419227032409 Did not ID W 45–54 Heterosexual 10–15 4-Y Western
X X 497795308683 M W 45–54 Heterosexual + 15 P.D. South Central
X X 584144933149 M B 35–54 Heterosexual 10–15 P.D. Mid-Atlantic
X 719847794622 M W 45–54 Heterosexual 6–9 M.D. Western
X 726750445272 F AI/AN 55–64 LGBTQ+ 2–5 4-Y Western
X X 845251473877 F B 45–54 Heterosexual 2–5 S.C. South Central
X 993310042866 M B 25–35 Heterosexual 2–5 S.C. Western

Abbreviations
I Invited P Participated
F Female LGBTQ+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer
M Male P.D. Professional Degree
ID Identify S.C. Some College
W White 4-Y Four-year Degree
B Black M.D. Master’s Degree
AI/AN American Indian Alaska Native
153
154

Appendix I: Statistical Significance: Sex and Sex-based Allegations
A two-tailed z score test to compare two population proportions to two find the value of p
to determine statistical significance. Using the numbers from the study with a 𝑝𝑝 ̅ 1
value of 39 and
a 𝑝𝑝 ̅ 2
value of 16 and an 𝑛𝑛 value of 56, the value of z is 4.3473. A positive z score means that the
raw score over the mean average. The value of p is <.00001. The result is significant at p <0.05
Using a value of <0.05 to establish statistical significance, the difference between the
proportion of male investigators who believed sex-based allegations were true compared to the
proportion of female investigators who believed sex-based allegations were true is statistically
significant at p <0.05.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Implicit bias: an advancement opportunity limiter for African American women in entertainment

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Increasing workplace civility in higher education: a field study

PDF

Ageism and ingrained stereotypes: a qualitative study of systemic injustices in hiring practices

PDF

Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

An exploration: teacher reflections of implicit bias professional development

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Exploring the influence of implicit bias among police officers and minoritized citizens

PDF

The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study

PDF

Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition

PDF

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

What teachers in a high-performing high school need to effectively manage workplace stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Consultants leverage organizational change for successful adoption of agile methods in government organizations

PDF

Understanding workplace burnout in the nonprofit sector

PDF

Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

Asset Metadata

Creator Pearson, Tracy A. (author)

Core Title "After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 08/05/2021

Defense Date 07/15/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag implicit bias,Investigations,investigator,neutral,OAI-PMH Harvest,workplace

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Bloch, Meric (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email tracy@tracyexplains.com,tracypea@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15710810

Unique identifier UC15710810

Legacy Identifier etd-PearsonTra-10009

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Pearson, Tracy A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu