31 Flock Around and Find Out » Empathy: Do they understand and share our feelings? Being seen as empathetic can make them more approachable and trustworthy. » Resilience: Do they think on their feet, roll with the punches, and offer solutions? Adaptability, effective problem-solving, and ability to lead change can boost confidence in their abilities. » Network: Who do they know and associate with? Being connected with other credible people can instantly enhance their own credibility. » Charisma: Do they have that magnetic charm that draws people in? Likability often inspires confidence and loyalty. » Altruistism: Do they genuinely care about others and use their influence for the greater good?? A selfless attitude can make us trust their intentions and see them as more credible. I’m not vouching for whether they should determine credibility, but I can tell you that these are the attributes that usually play a significant role in shaping individual and collective perceptions of someone’s credibility. Which brings us back to that difficult uptick in criticism since you’ve committed to being more intentional about fairness (which I also call equity sometimes, and you should too). Here’s the thing: while these attributes may seem familiar and relatively straightforward at first glance, procedural (think processes), distributive (think resources or opportunity), and interactional (think interpersonal relations) issues consistently muddy the works. What Gets in the Way? If the extent to which each nominee or winner is seen to exemplify the attributes of credibility depends on the systems of your industry and the lens of each observer’s own identity, experiences, and biases, is there any wonder why members will have different takes on who is or isn’t qualified? A true meritocracy, where aspects of people’s identity cannot predict their ability to shine (and be seen to shine), would be ideal. It’s safe to say we all want that to be true. Unfortunately, it just isn’t. Many of our long time members and past award winners may not know, or accept, this. As a result, changes that your association has made to move towards greater fairness for everyone might literally feel like a move away from it for folks believe deeply in the historical fairness of your program. It’s quite a pickle. The more we understand this as association leaders, the more we’re examining the criteria that may have historically been used as proxy indicators for evaluating credibility. Our natural default as humans is to categorize and then seek out, build networks with, and favor people who seem similar to us in various ways, from appearance and background to beliefs and behaviors. Unless there are intentional measures to interrupt this pattern, that similarity and familiarity can significantly interfere with our ability to objectively and fairly assess someone else’s credibility. These biases can manifest in both interpersonal interactions and systemic practices. » Affinity Bias: We are naturally drawn to people who look like us, think like us, or share similar experiences. This bias can make us favor these individuals when considering positive attributes. Conversely, we might unconsciously demote people who do not seem like us, even when they are equally or more credible according to objective metrics. This tendency can create echo chambers where only certain people are seen, heard, trusted, and recognized. » Confirmation Bias: Preconceived notions (i.e., stereotypes) about people, including those based on dimensions of identity, also impact who we believe is credible. We tend to give more weight to opinions, information, and evidence that confirm our existing beliefs about different identity groups, whether those beliefs are conscious or subconscious. Conversely, we might overlook, discount, or disregard contradictory evidence of credibility that does not align with our positive or negative stereotypical beliefs. » Beauty Bias: Something as immutable as how someone looks can often dictate if they are deemed credible. Non-conformity to stereotypical and gendered expectations about clothing, makeup, hair texture, and styles can impact perceptions of expertise, executive presence, and credibility. This includes biases against people with (or without) visibly Eurocentric traits, visible disabilities, obesity, and many other aspects of physical appearance such as looking younger, taller, or stronger. Credibility is often oversimplified as an objective, explicit matter of fact. Someone has it, or they don’t. But in truth, it is more complex.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=