Editor’s Note: Harvard Business School’s Institute for Business in Global Society (BiGS) recently invited Professor Katherine B. Coffman to speak as part of a seminar series exploring how behavioral science can help organizations build more equitable workplaces. Coffman, who teaches negotiations, organization, and markets at HBS, studies how gender stereotypes and other social forces shape outcomes in professional settings. I sat down with Coffman to explore what her research reveals about confidence, inclusion, and the structures that influence who gets ahead. This interview has been edited for length, clarity, and style.
-Barbara DeLollis, Head of Communications
Your research explores how past experiences shape our perceptions of risk. How can business leaders use these insights to improve leadership and hiring practices?
My research, along with work by others, has uncovered how people form expectations about future events based on their past experiences — even when those past experiences may seem unrelated. For example, in early 2020, we studied how people formed beliefs about COVID-19. We found that those who had experienced a serious health issue in the past — either personally or through a family member — were more likely to believe that COVID posed a severe threat. Their past exposure to health adversity made it easier for them to imagine negative outcomes.
This insight has implications beyond public health. It suggests that when making decisions, whether about hiring or assessing risks, people aren’t relying purely on objective data. Their past experiences color their perceptions, sometimes in unexpected ways. Leaders should recognize that their own backgrounds shape how they interpret information, which means seeking diverse perspectives can lead to better decision-making.
What does this mean for managers making hiring and promotion decisions?
Managers should be aware that their perceptions of candidates are shaped not only by direct experience with that individual but also by past interactions with others in similar roles. A great example of this comes from a study by former Harvard student Francesca Miserocchi, now an assistant professor in the economics department at Tilburg University, who looked at how teachers make recommendations for their students. A teacher’s perception of whether a female student should pursue a technical track , for instance, isn’t just based on that student’s performance — it’s also influenced by the teacher’s imperfect memory of other students. And, she finds that when relying on memory, people disproportionately recall experiences that confirm their stereotypes.
The same dynamic can play out in hiring and promotion. When assessing candidates, managers may unconsciously rely on prior interactions with similar individuals. That can lead to biases, whether overestimating or underestimating someone’s potential.
Your research also highlights how stereotypes affect how people judge their own abilities. How does this play out in the workplace?
Most people are aware that stereotypes influence how we judge others. But what’s maybe less well-appreciated is how those same stereotypes shape our beliefs about ourselves. If there’s a stereotype suggesting that men are better at math, for instance, it’s not just that people may underestimate women’s ability in math. A woman may similarly underestimate her own ability in math — even when she’s highly competent.
This matters because confidence influences career decisions. “Should I apply for this job? Should I speak up in this meeting? Should I put my name forward for a promotion?” When people underestimate their abilities, they’re less likely to take those actions, which affects their career trajectories.
You’ve studied the well-known statistic that men apply for jobs when they meet 60% of the qualifications, while women wait until they meet 100%. What did your research find?
That statistic resonates with so many people I talk to, in part because I think it’s capturing something people see, this dynamic playing out around them. In controlled experiments, we see that even when men and women have the same qualifications, women are less likely to apply for promotions. This can be particularly true when it’s hard to know what exactly it means to be qualified for the position.
When job criteria are vague, people have to guess whether they qualify. That ambiguity leaves space for stereotypes to creep in, affecting how people assess their own readiness.
Some companies rely on bias training to address these issues. What does your research say about its effectiveness?
The evidence on bias training is mixed. Simply raising awareness of bias doesn’t necessarily change behavior. Many employees may sit through bias training, acknowledge and maybe even appreciate the information, but then go back to their normal decision-making processes in their day-to-day work.
More effective interventions focus on structural changes. Instead of just trying to change individual attitudes, companies should redesign processes in ways that can minimize the impact of individual biases. For example, in hiring, rather than hoping managers overcome their biases, organizations can implement structured interview questions, use blind resume screening, or establish clear, objective evaluation criteria. This will leave less “wiggle room” for biases to influence decisions.
You’ve studied how organizations can structure talent development to be more inclusive. Can you share an example?
One great case is Progress Software, which operates globally and grows through acquisitions. With frequent onboarding of new employees working in different offices across the world, they realized that it was quite hard for a lot of employees to understand how to advance. And, this seemed to be particularly true for women, who were somewhat less likely to have career-related conversations with their managers.
To address this, the company implemented a simple but powerful change: requiring managers to have quarterly career conversations with every employee, normalizing discussions about advancement. They also mapped out clear promotion pathways, making expectations transparent. By reducing ambiguity and ensuring equal access to information and feedback, they improved both employee development and retention.
What’s one misconception business leaders have about bias and decision-making?
While I think managers are more and more aware of the ways that bias may lead to discrimination in their organizations, I think sometimes they fail to appreciate how those biases can impact “supply-side” decisions among their employees: who is putting themselves forward for opportunities? Who is speaking up with their ideas? If talented employees hesitate to apply for promotions or voice their opinions, organizations need to address that gap.
One of the most effective ways to do this is by reducing ambiguity. When people know exactly what it takes to qualify for a promotion, and when applying is a routine expectation rather than an act of self-advocacy, it can level the playing field.
Any final advice for CEOs and chief human resources officers?
Lead with data. Conversations about bias and inclusion can feel uncomfortable or abstract, but grounding them in rigorous research makes them easier to navigate. And ultimately, inclusion isn’t about feel-good initiatives — it’s about ensuring organizations don’t miss out on top talent and the best ideas.