One technique I’ve used to soften the process is to ask everyone in the room to make two lists: the top five things that they would do again and the top five things that they wouldn’t do again. People find it easier to be candid if they balance the negative with the positive, and a good facilitator can make it easier for that balance to be struck.

The third solution is to translate in-group jargon into plain English to avoid confusing or alienating outsiders who need to understand it.

This doesn’t mean we have to live with the bad effects of bias. But it does mean that trying to mitigate its effects can be as important as trying to eliminate it altogether.

As to method, Mary Murphy and her colleagues have developed a deft and usable approach they call a “cues audit.” In settings like corporate divisions, academic departments, non-profit organizations, boards, classrooms, small businesses, and churches, do three things.

First, educate. Explain how features of settings— the proportion of different identities in the setting; the pictures on the wall; the references people use in their speech; the style differences in people’s clothing; the language people use to designate different identities— can cause churn in some people while going unnoticed by others.

• Help should be less about getting outcomes and more about supplying the knowledge and know-how needed by people in the setting to achieve those outcomes.