Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 53a7ec29e00404caba9a221d2820646ecb27f93e684823b0d8bb4e4cd4175b91

# Unconscious Bias Workshop

Participants examine workplace case studies and decision scenarios in small groups to detect unconscious bias, then compile procedural safeguards.

**Time:** 150 minutes. Source specifies a 2.5 hour (150 minutes) total workshop duration. Step timings sum to 150 minutes.
**People:** 4 to 20. Subgroups of 3 to 5 participants. When totals do not divide evenly (such as 17), use groups of 4 and one group of 5, or allow one pair.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Identify points where unconscious assumptions influence workplace decisions and draft practical safeguards to reduce that bias.
**Use it when:** Use during team strategy or culture sessions when a group needs concrete checks against bias in hiring, evaluation, or day-to-day collaboration.
**Skip it when:** Skip when a team is currently managing active, unresolved discrimination disputes, or when leadership expects guaranteed behavioral transformation from a single workshop.

## Materials and tools

- Slide deck or presentation screen
- Flipchart easel and pad (or whiteboards)
- Markers (one per subgroup)
- Scratch paper or index cards (at least 2 sheets per participant)
- Printed case study packets (one set per subgroup)
- Decision walk scenario handouts (one per participant)
- Pens (one per participant)

## Before participants arrive

1. Arrange tables and chairs to support subgroups of 3 to 5 people.
2. Print and set out the case study packets and decision scenario worksheets at each table.
3. Set up a flipchart easel with blank sheets or initialize a shared digital whiteboard for recording commitments.

## Say this to open

Welcome. In this workshop, we look at how automatic mental shortcuts shape workplace decisions. Our goal is not to judge individual character, but to examine where routine assumptions affect hiring, task distribution, and feedback, and then put practical guardrails around those choices.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce and observe quick associations (15 minutes)

Speak the opening script. Call out prompt words one at a time: 'leader', 'technical expert', 'creative talent', and 'risk-taker'. Ask everyone to write the very first mental image or demographic trait that came to mind on scratch paper. Emphasize that these quick notes remain strictly private. Give participants 3 minutes to reflect on how fast automatic categorization operates, without requiring anyone to disclose their specific mental image to the room.

### 2. Define unconscious bias and discuss organizational impact (25 minutes)

Deliver a brief presentation defining unconscious bias as automatic social stereotyping outside conscious awareness. Cite everyday workplace examples such as resume screening disparities and classroom expectations. Transition to pairs for 10 minutes to discuss two prompts: 'Where might automatic assumptions show up in our team routines?' and 'Recall a workplace decision where background assumptions might have shaped the outcome.' Reconvene and collect 3 to 4 volunteer examples from the room.

### 3. Analyze case studies in small groups (30 minutes)

Divide participants into subgroups of 3 to 5. Distribute the three case studies from participant materials, assigning one case per table and duplicating cases across tables if there are more than three groups. Give groups 15 minutes to answer two questions: 'What assumptions or automatic associations are at play?' and 'What practical rule or process change prevents this bias?' Spend the remaining 15 minutes taking brief reports from each table, recording structural fixes on the main flipchart.

### 4. Evaluate decisions through a walk-through exercise (25 minutes)

Distribute the promotion decision scenario. Have participants remain in their groups to role-play a management panel reviewing two internal candidates. Groups trace the evaluation criteria step by step to identify where subjective impressions (such as 'culture fit' or 'presence') enter the scoring. Have each group write down two objective criteria checks that remove ambiguity from the review.

### 5. Develop organizational bias mitigation commitments (20 minutes)

Introduce standard structural mitigations: objective rubrics, structured interviews, rotating project leads, and active bystander interventions. Direct groups to draft three operational adjustments their team can adopt right away. Bring everyone together to compile a unified Master List on the room flipchart, grouping duplicates together.

### 6. Draft personal commitments and debrief (35 minutes)

Ask individuals to take 5 minutes to privately write down one personal assumption they want to interrupt and one specific habit to test during the next month. Offer time for 3 or 4 volunteers to share their action rule if comfortable. Conduct the final debrief using the planned reflection questions and conclude the session.


## Debrief questions

- Which workplace decision point in our daily process showed the highest vulnerability to automatic assumptions?
- What objective criteria or operational checks will most effectively counteract those assumptions?
- How will our team monitor adherence to the adjustments on our Master List over the next quarter?

**Finished output:** A group-generated Master List of organizational safeguards and private personal action notes recorded by each participant.

## Remote

Deliver the presentation over video conference. Use digital breakout rooms with 3 to 5 people for steps 3, 4, and 5. Replace physical flipcharts with a shared digital document or whiteboard. Subgroup recorders paste their group's identified biases and process fixes directly onto the shared board.

## Hybrid

Keep in-person attendees together at tables and assign remote participants to online breakout rooms. Provide all participants access to a shared digital whiteboard. Assign an online co-facilitator or remote group lead to paste digital subgroup outputs into the main canvas so both rooms view the same Master List.

## Access and participation choices

- All personal association notes and self-reflection commitments remain private to the author.
- Group sharing is conducted by volunteers or appointed table spokespersons, allowing individuals to pass on public speaking without penalty.
- Case studies and scenarios are provided in printed text and spoken aloud to support varied reading preferences.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants become defensive, believing they are being personally accused of prejudice.**

Remind the room that unconscious cognitive shortcuts are universal brain functions. Reframe the work away from personal fault and toward establishing objective team procedures that protect decisions.

**Conversations remain too high-level or theoretical without producing concrete action items.**

Intervene with specific operational prompts: 'What explicit rubric line would we add to our evaluation form?' or 'Who reviews the criteria before candidate interviews begin?'


## Terms used here

- Unconscious Bias: Automatic social stereotypes or mental associations formed outside an individual's conscious awareness.
- Structured Decision-Making: Using fixed, predetermined rubrics and criteria to evaluate options or candidates, minimizing subjective gut feelings.

## Participant material: Case Studies: Workplace Bias Scenarios

Case 1: The Hiring Panel
A department is hiring a project lead. Candidate A attended the same university as the panel chair and shares a hobby with two team members. Candidate B has identical qualifications and strong outcomes from an unconventional career path. The panel comments that Candidate A feels like a 'natural culture fit' while Candidate B 'might struggle to gel with the team.'

Case 2: The Silent Contributor
During team planning meetings, an engineer rarely speaks up without being called on, preferring to review specs after meetings and send written improvements. In a performance review, the manager writes that the employee 'lacks initiative and leadership presence,' despite delivering consistently error-free work.

Case 3: Customer Assumptions
A client support desk receives an escalation from a user with a non-native accent and non-standard phrasing. The responding specialist assumes the user lacks technical comprehension, speaks down to them, and routes the ticket to Tier 1 basic troubleshooting instead of logging the documented software bug.

## Participant material: Decision Scenario: Promotion Review

Scenario: Choosing a Client Lead
Two senior associates are being considered for an open Client Lead position.
- Candidate X: Highly vocal in cross-functional forums, takes bold risks that occasionally fail, described by peers as 'charismatic' and 'a born leader.'
- Candidate Y: Exceptional execution metrics, low turnover on past assignments, delivers consistent results with thorough risk assessments, described by peers as 'reliable' and 'a workhorse.'
Task:
1. Identify where vague or gendered terms like 'charismatic' vs 'reliable' distort objective performance evaluation.
2. Draft three explicit metric-based criteria that must be scored to decide this promotion fairly.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in WorkshopBank as 'Unconscious Bias Workshop', referencing concepts from the book 'Biased' by Jennifer Eberhardt.

Retained the 6-step workshop structure, 2.5-hour total duration, and case analysis approach from WorkshopBank. UWT expanded Step 6 to 35 minutes to ensure all step minutes accurately total 150 minutes, added explicit text for three workplace case studies and the promotion review decision scenario, added materials management for scratch paper reflection, clarified arithmetic rules for subgroup sizes, and set distinct hybrid coordination responsibilities.

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/unconscious-bias-workshop)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/unconscious-bias-workshop-workshopbank/