As this year’s The Traitors UK reached its dramatic climax – full of traitor-on-traitor drama, secret couples, family ties, and last-minute betrayals – the press and the internet (see examples here and here) have been buzzing with an uncomfortable question: why are people of colour disproportionately likely to be banished? And more broadly, when it comes to big decisions, who gets the benefit of the 50/50 calls, and who doesn’t? We explore this topic, and what it might teach us about the workplace.
[Note: To avoid any spoilers we have intentionally not revealed the outcome of Season 4 in this article!]
Justified Suspicion? A Dive Into the Data…
A recent article by the Times has said “data analysis of the first five UK series suggests they may have a point”. Amongst other examples, the piece highlighted that:
- “Although only 32 per cent of all contestants on the show have been non-white, ethnic minority people make up almost half of the early evictions. Out of the first 30 players to be murdered or banished in all five series, 14 of them were people of colour — equal to just under 47 per cent” and
- All winners of The Traitors have been white
But what could explain this disparity? The unique difficulty of The Traitors is that it forces contestants to make judgements about their peers with virtually no information to go on, especially early on in the game. Decisions are made in the fog of uncertainty, driven by instinct, confidence, and who seems to ‘fit’ the group’s idea of trustworthy. “Something feels off…”, a contestant might say, or “my gut is telling me…”.
This requirement for evidence-free decision-making leaves a large gap for subconscious preferences to slip in. Often, those preferences will be innocent (“she reminds me of my mate”). But sometimes they tip into subconscious bias, either against those who are visibly different from the contestant making the judgment, or in favour of those who the contestant feels commonality with (‘affinity bias’). And that is very likely part of why – too often – contestants of colour seem to face sharper suspicion earlier, with fewer second chances, even when the evidence is thin.
Just a TV Show?
Workplace parallels are obvious. Promotion decisions, performance reviews and ‘culture fit’ conversations often can hinge on similarly subjective judgments. Who is seen as ‘confident’ versus ‘aggressive’? Who gets grace, and who gets scrutiny? Who is listened to and who is talked over? Who is ‘not yet ready for promotion’ versus who gets a chance to prove themselves in role?
The evidence-free vacuum of The Traitors is also one of the most dangerous spots employers can find themselves in. It’s when we lack the documentary back-up and reasoned explanation for decisions that employees or Employment Tribunals might infer a discriminatory motive.
How Can Employers Reduce the ‘Roundtable Effect’?
We don’t get a shield at work. Fairness requires structure. Practical steps might include:
- Slow decisions down: bias thrives in snap judgments. Build in pauses, evidence checks and second reviewers
- Use objective criteria: reduce reliance on ‘gut feel’ in recruitment, promotion and performance processes
- Ensure all voices are heard: manage meetings so quieter colleagues or minority voices aren’t talked over and are listened to
- Train decision-makers: not just on what bias is, but how it shows up in real workplace moments and how to address it
- Track outcomes: who gets hired, gets the second chance, the stretch role, the benefit of the doubt?
If you have any questions, please reach out to your usual Littler United Kingdom contact and for training please contact Natasha Adom.
