Every day, leaders must make decisions about hiring, performance, strategy, and investment. And often they need to make them quickly. Time pressure and experience encourage the use of mental shortcuts, which help streamline choices. But these same shortcuts often lead to unconscious biases—subtle patterns that distort fair judgment and create blind spots.

And unchecked bias doesn’t just affect individuals—it corrodes culture. It leads to low morale, higher attrition, poor customer experiences, and reputational damage. Bias embedded in job adverts, appraisals, and promotion criteria can perpetuate inequality across the employee lifecycle.

Recognising and addressing these biases is key to better, fairer leadership. Here are some common biases to be mindful of.

Authority and Gender Bias 

Despite growing awareness, women in leadership continue to face an authority gap. A Financial Times study found that 39% of women are routinely interrupted or talked over in meetings, compared to 20% of men, while 18% of women are mistaken for junior staff, versus 10% of men. These microaggressions erode authority, undermine confidence, and contribute to high turnover among female leaders. It is no easy to close this deep-rooted cultural gap, but leaders must work to create space for women to contribute without being sidelined or second-guessed.

Often, women and minority professionals are elevated to leadership roles during crises where the risk of failure is highest. This phenomenon, known as the "glass cliff," has been widely documented in both corporate and political spheres. These appointments can place already underrepresented leaders under intense scrutiny, and when outcomes falter, reinforce negative stereotypes.

Implicit Racial Bias 

Bias also emerges in perceptions of leadership itself. Studies using Implicit Association Tests have shown a "pro-White" bias when people associate leadership traits. This means that equally qualified candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be overlooked. Combatting this requires structured, blind evaluation processes and decision frameworks that centre on competence and shared goals.

Affinity Bias 

It’s common for hiring managers to prefer candidates who resemble themselves—whether in background, education, or personality. While often unconscious, this affinity bias leads to homogeneous leadership teams and stifles innovation. Diverse hiring panels, consistent criteria, and score-based assessments are effective ways to counteract this tendency and broaden access to leadership opportunities.

Self-Serving Bias 

Another common trap is the self-serving bias: attributing successes to one’s skill and failures to external forces. This mindset can limit accountability and slow growth. Effective leaders must model responsibility by openly acknowledging their role in setbacks, encouraging honest reflection, and fostering a culture of continuous learning.

The Bias Blind Spot and Confirmation Bias 

Many leaders pride themselves on objectivity, believing they’re less biased than their peers—what researchers call the "bias blind spot." Coupled with confirmation bias (seeking out evidence that supports one’s existing views), this can create a dangerous feedback loop. The challenge is to doubt about our own assumptions, asking "how do I know this is true?", and welcome dissenting views.

Control Bias in Video Conferencing 

The shift to virtual work has brought its own form of bias. In remote meetings, the host often controls who speaks and when—leading to a dominance of louder voices. Studies show this power imbalance can unintentionally suppress diverse contributions. Rotating facilitation roles, encouraging written input via chat, and using structured turn-taking can help level the digital playing field.

Other Common Leadership Biases

• Overconfidence Bias: Leaders may overestimate their knowledge or predictive accuracy, leading to unrealistic timelines and poor strategic bets.

• Anchoring Bias: Initial information, like a salary expectation or first impression, can disproportionately shape subsequent decisions.

• Bandwagon Effect: Just because a trend is popular (e.g. agile, AI), doesn’t mean it’s right for your team.

• Halo Effect: Charisma or presentation skills can mask skill gaps. Structured interviews and skill-based assessments keep hiring decisions grounded.

• Sunk Cost Fallacy: Doubling down on a failing project due to past investment wastes resources. Regular reviews and exit criteria help leaders course-correct.

• Groupthink: When everyone agrees too easily, vital perspectives get lost. Foster psychological safety and reward contrarian thinking.

• Availability Bias: Recent or dramatic events distort risk perception. Use data dashboards to balance emotion with evidence.

• Negativity Bias: Failures stick more than successes. Counter this with balanced feedback and regular celebration of wins.

• Stereotyping: Unconscious assumptions around age, gender or background continue to affect decision-making. Transparent, standardised processes are critical.

Beyond these examples, lesser-known biases like the Fundamental Attribution Error (blaming others’ personality but excusing our own errors), Conformity Bias, Recency Bias, and even the Contrast Effect subtly influence workplace decisions. Recognising them sharpens leadership judgement and builds more inclusive systems. DEI thinking is shifting away from stand-alone training towards operational fairness.

Academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Iris Bohnet, advocates embedding bias-reduction tools across systems—from blind recruitment to norm entrepreneurship. AI-based tools like Textio (for job postings) and Pymetrics (for gamified hiring) have improved diversity outcomes, but must be carefully audited to avoid replicating bias.

On a systems level, HR should implement structured interviews, anonymised CVs, and transparent dashboards tracking promotion rates and pay equity. Managers, who can sometimes show even higher bias than junior staff, need training and accountability mechanisms. Clear oversight and inclusive leadership practices can make the difference. And importantly, HR needs to audit outcomes to learn from what worked—and what didn’t.