Blog
The Celebrity Traitors: What employers can learn about unconscious bias
The Celebrity Traitors is back, and once again, the nation is hooked on the twists, betrayals and dramatic roundtable banishments.
But while they’re busy trying to work out who's a Faithful and who's a Traitor, the show raises an important question about human behaviour: how much do assumptions influence who we trust?
This year's series has already sparked a wider conversation about unconscious racial and cultural bias, particularly following the banishment of actress Myha’la, who was wrongly suspected of being a Traitor.
So, what can employers take from the conversation, and how can they help managers make fairer, more consistent decisions?
Myha’la’s banishment: Why employers should look beyond first impressions
Myha’la’s decision to wink at Richard E Grant, who was secretly a Traitor, attracted suspicion. Combined with her apparent reluctance to surrender a shield and her willingness to share theories, the gesture raised doubts among the other players.
Following her exit, viewers questioned whether unconscious racial bias had influenced how she was perceived.
Responding on Instagram, Myha’la acknowledged that her gameplay had contributed to her banishment, while also recognising a wider issue.
As reported by The Independent, she explained:
"I do agree that unconscious racial and cultural bias exists in this game."
She reflected on how people unfamiliar with her background or communication style might interpret her behaviour. She also defended her fellow contestants against accusations of conscious racial bias and rejected a single explanation for her departure.
An edited television programme cannot establish what motivated individual contestants. However, the discussion raises a relevant workplace point: people don't have to intend to discriminate for unconscious assumptions to influence their judgement.
What The Traitors can illustrate about bias and decision-making
Contestants must decide who to trust with very little evidence, often relying on gut instinct, personality and behaviour rather than facts.
That makes the show a useful starting point for exploring bias and related thinking patterns. These are not diagnoses of individual contestants, but parallels that can help employers recognise where workplace decisions may go off track.
1. Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that supports an existing belief while overlooking evidence that challenges it.
On The Traitors, once suspicion takes hold, almost any behaviour can appear to reinforce it. A quiet contestant may seem secretive; an outspoken contestant may seem controlling. Even defending an accusation can be interpreted as suspicious.
In the workplace, a manager who forms a negative impression of an employee may give greater weight to their mistakes than achievements. Over time, this can affect performance assessments, development opportunities and working relationships.
2. Affinity bias
Affinity bias is the tendency to trust and favour people who feel familiar, perhaps because of shared experiences, backgrounds, personalities or interests.
Jerry Hall's trust in Richard E Grant, a friend of 30 years, offers a useful parallel. Their existing relationship helped explain why she initially interpreted his behaviour differently from other contestants. That does not establish unconscious bias, but it illustrates how familiarity can shape trust.
At work, similar preferences can influence who gets recruited, invited into important conversations or considered for progression. Someone who connects easily with a manager may receive opportunities that an equally capable colleague does not.
3. Groupthink
Groupthink can arise when the desire for agreement discourages people from challenging assumptions or considering alternatives.
At a Traitors roundtable, an accusation can quickly gather support. That alone does not prove groupthink, but it illustrates why the quality of the discussion matters as much as the final vote.
In the workplace, similar situations can arise when employees agree with senior colleagues rather than challenge their assumptions or offer a different perspective.
Why unconscious bias matters in the workplace
While a mistaken judgement on The Traitors might mean an early exit from the castle, at work, decisions influenced by assumptions can have more serious consequences.
For example:
Recruitment: A hiring manager favours a candidate with similar interests or a familiar background over someone with stronger evidence of the required skills.
Performance management: A quiet communication style is mistaken for a lack of confidence or ambition, despite strong performance.
Promotions: A capable employee is overlooked because they don't fit a manager's preconceived idea of a leader.
Workplace relationships: Someone who communicates differently from their colleagues is labelled difficult or unfriendly without their behaviour being considered fairly.
Although these assumptions may be unintentional, they can affect employee confidence, career opportunities and workplace relationships.
Unconscious bias is not itself a standalone legal claim. However, decisions influenced by it can amount to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. A lack of deliberate intent does not automatically prevent treatment from being discriminatory.
Three checks for fairer workplace decisions
Recognising potential bias is a starting point. Employers also need processes that help managers put fair decision-making into practice.
1. Are the criteria clear and consistent?
Recruitment, performance and promotion decisions should use relevant criteria applied consistently. Broad judgements such as “not the right fit” need closer examination: what does that mean, and what evidence supports it?
2. Can the decision be explained with evidence?
Managers should be able to explain the reasons for their decisions, with appropriate records to support them. Consider achievements, context and alternative explanations alongside any concerns.
3. Is there room to challenge assumptions?
Before an important decision is finalised, consider whether another perspective would help. Managers need the confidence to question an emerging consensus and seek advice when concerns involve potential discrimination.
Make fair and consistent people decisions with WorkNest
Whether you’re reviewing recruitment processes, managing performance concerns or responding to a discrimination grievance, clear processes and timely advice can help you decide what to do next.
WorkNest’s HR and Employment Law specialists help employers review their approach, support managers and handle sensitive employee matters. We provide practical guidance to help you make informed decisions, resolve issues and manage legal risk.
Talk to us about fair and consistent people decisions.
Share your challenge with us and we’ll help you find the right level of support for your business.
