Skip to content
Leading with Care

Leading with Care Facilitator Guide

Six live virtual sessions that extend the Leading with Care course through discussion, scenario practice, reflection, and application.

⬇ PDF

Live Session 3 · 90 minutes · Virtual

Draft · open items highlighted

Bias and Cultural Responsiveness

How did I arrive at this judgment—and what assumptions are built into the experience I am creating?

Session Overview

Module(s) covered

  • Identifying and Responding to Bias and Stereotypes (Lesson 4)
  • Cultural Responsiveness and Identity in Groups (Lesson 5)

Toolkit resources used

  • Bias and Unlearning Check: Notice Your Reaction → Identify the Story → Check the Evidence → Examine Learned Patterns → Seek Another Perspective → Choose a Fairer Response
  • Cultural Responsiveness Check: Find the Default → Look for Pressure Points → Open the Door Wider → Build in Choice → Bring in Perspective → Say What You Mean → Watch What Happens
  • Pause & Check: When a Judgment Feels Obvious · Pause & Check: When Something Familiar Means Something Different

Session purpose

Help learners practice two related but distinct care-centered leadership responsibilities: examining what may be shaping a judgment, and examining what assumptions may be built into the experience they are creating. Bias and unlearning asks: How did I arrive at this judgment? Cultural responsiveness asks: What assumptions or defaults are built into the experience I am creating?

Facilitator watch-for

Keep bias discussions away from proving whether someone “is biased.” Return to the decision, the evidence, and the standard being applied. During cultural responsiveness work, do not ask learners from a particular identity or cultural group to validate whether a prompt is appropriate or to explain what their group would prefer.

Learning objectives

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

  • 1.Recognize when familiarity, learned expectations, or stereotypes may be influencing a judgment.
  • 2.Separate evidence from labels or automatic interpretations.
  • 3.Use the Bias and Unlearning Check to examine a consequential judgment or decision.
  • 4.Recognize hidden defaults in a prompt, activity, norm, or participation structure.
  • 5.Use the Cultural Responsiveness Check to revise a design without requiring people to disclose, explain, defend, or represent an identity.
  • 6.Distinguish when the most useful starting point is examining the judgment versus examining the design.
  • 7.Practice seeking another perspective without asking one person to speak for an entire group.

Key course concepts

Bias work is not about proving that you are unbiased

The practice is to notice when learned patterns may be influencing how someone is interpreted, corrected, supported, trusted, included, or given an opportunity.

Another possibility is not automatically the truth

Questioning an assumption does not mean replacing it with a kinder guess. Stay with the evidence and what is still unknown.

Cultural responsiveness is not cultural prediction

Examine the defaults built into the design rather than predicting what someone needs based on identity.

Good intentions do not remove the need to examine design

A prompt or norm can be welcoming in intention while still creating unnecessary pressure or treating one way of participating as the default.

Before the Session

Learner pre-work

  • Complete Identifying and Responding to Bias and Stereotypes (Lesson 4), including the Bias and Unlearning Check and Pause & Check: When a Judgment Feels Obvious.
  • Complete Cultural Responsiveness and Identity in Groups (Lesson 5), including the Cultural Responsiveness Check and the Pause & Check reflection.
  • Have both checks available in the Digital Binder.

What learners were asked to bring

  • One de-identified judgment, decision, or scenario they want another perspective on, plus the question they would like a peer to ask them (Lesson 4 ‘Bring to Next Class’).
  • One de-identified prompt, group norm, activity, or scenario to review for hidden assumptions (Lesson 5 ‘Bring to Next Class’).
  • Private reflections and identifying or confidential information stay out.

Facilitator preparation

  • Prepare the Which Tool First? examples.
  • Prepare the Who Looks Ready to Lead? bias scenario.
  • Prepare the Speak Up in the Moment cultural responsiveness scenario.
  • Prepare one fallback fictional prompt or group norm for learners who do not want to use their own example.
  • Set up Zoom breakout rooms: pairs for the Peer Perspective Check; groups of 2–3 for the scenarios and Design Studio.
  • Have the Digital Binder link ready.

Materials / technology

Breakout room setup (virtual)

  • Who Looks Ready to Lead?: groups of 2–3, 12 minutes.
  • Peer Perspective Check: pairs, 9 minutes.
  • Speak Up in the Moment: groups of 2–3, 10 minutes.
  • Design Studio: groups of 2–3, three short review rounds.
  • Paste instructions into chat before opening rooms and broadcast a 2-minute warning.

90-Minute Run of Show

TimeActivityPurposeMethodFacilitator notes
0–1010 minReconnect: What Are You Seeing Differently? ↓Retrieve learning and establish the two lenses.Opening prompt by voice, chat, or private reflection; facilitator bridge.Activate both modules without reviewing definitions.
10–2010 minWhich Tool First? ↓Distinguish judgment-focused from design-focused review.Poll or chat for four situations: which tool would you reach for first—and why?Overlap is possible; the task is to identify the best starting point.
20–3818 minScenario: Who Looks Ready to Lead? ↓Apply the Bias and Unlearning Check.Small groups (2–3) work the scenario through the six steps; whole-group debrief.12 minutes in rooms, 6 minutes debrief.
38–5012 minPeer Perspective Check ↓Test evidence and interpretations using learner examples.Pairs: Partner A describes the de-identified judgment they brought; Partner B asks the question Partner A chose; switch.9 minutes in rooms, 3 minutes debrief.
50–533 minBridge: From Judgment to DesignMake the distinction between the two tools explicit.Facilitator framing.Bias and Unlearning: What may be shaping my judgment? Cultural Responsiveness: What does this design assume? Who fits easily into what we created—and who has to adapt to it?
53–563 minBreakModel pacing and predictability.Short break with a visible timer.Say when you’ll restart and what comes next.
56–7216 minScenario: Speak Up in the Moment ↓Apply the Cultural Responsiveness Check.Small groups (2–3) work the norm through the seven parts and rewrite it; whole-group debrief.10 minutes in rooms, 6 minutes debrief.
72–8412 minDesign Studio ↓Review and revise learner-selected prompts or norms.Small groups (2–3) review the prompts or norms learners brought in three rounds: Identify → Revise → Test.Fallback prompt available for groups who do not want to use their own example.
84–884 minDigital Binder: Two Commitments ↓Capture one unlearning and one cultural humility commitment.Private reflection in the binder.Responses remain private unless learners choose to share them.
88–902 minClose + Prepare for Session 4Bridge to Equity vs. Equality.Closing prompt; preview Session 4.Remind learners to download a binder backup.

Facilitation Guide

A guide for each major activity. Suggested language is a starting point—adapt it to your voice and your group.

0–10 min

Reconnect: What Are You Seeing Differently?

Main roomChat

Purpose

Activate both modules without reviewing definitions, and introduce the two lenses for the session.

Set-up

  • Display the opening prompt.

Facilitator language

“Sometimes the question is what may be shaping my judgment. Other times the question is what assumptions we have built into the activity or space. Today we practice knowing where to look first.”

Instructions

  • 1.Pose the opening prompt and allow 1 minute of thinking time.
  • 2.Invite responses by voice or chat.
  • 3.Bridge to the two lenses.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

What is one ordinary leadership decision or group practice that you now look at differently after these two modules?

👂 Listen for

  • Examples about who gets chosen, corrected, or trusted (judgment)
  • Examples about prompts, norms, and routines (design)

👀 Watch for

  • Examples that identify real people—redirect to the decision or practice

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 4 → Lesson Review
  • Lesson 5 → Lesson Review
10–20 min

Which Tool First?

PollMain room

Purpose

Help learners distinguish the job of the two toolkit resources without implying that a situation can involve only one.

Set-up

  • Load four polls: Bias and Unlearning Check / Cultural Responsiveness Check.

Facilitator language

“Overlap is possible. The question is which tool gives you the best starting point.”

“Bias: How am I interpreting or evaluating the person? Cultural responsiveness: What version of participation or experience is the activity treating as normal?”

Instructions

  • 1.Display each situation and run the poll.
  • 2.Ask one or two learners to explain their choice.
  • 3.Share the likely starting point.

📋 Facilitator reference — answers, don’t paste to learners

Facilitator reference: A. A facilitator describes one participant as “confident” and another as “pushy,” even though both challenged the same idea with similar directness. → Bias and Unlearning Check B. A workshop norm says: “Good participants make eye contact, speak up quickly, and openly challenge ideas.” → Cultural Responsiveness Check C. A program leader repeatedly selects people whose communication style feels most familiar for visible leadership roles. → Bias and Unlearning Check D. A discussion prompt requires everyone to explain a personal belief publicly before they can participate. → Cultural Responsiveness Check

Debrief questions

  • Where did you see overlap?
  • What tells you to start with the judgment rather than the design?

👂 Listen for

  • Judgment = how a person is interpreted or evaluated
  • Design = what the activity or norm treats as normal

👀 Watch for

  • Treating the tools as mutually exclusive

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 4 → Build Your Toolkit: Bias and Unlearning Check
  • Lesson 5 → Build Your Toolkit: Cultural Responsiveness Check
20–38 min

Scenario: Who Looks Ready to Lead?

BreakoutMain room

Purpose

Use the Bias and Unlearning Check to examine a decision with real consequences.

Set-up

  • Groups of 2–3.
  • Ask learners to open their Bias and Unlearning Check.
  • Paste the scenario and steps into chat.

Facilitator language

“The goal of checking bias is not to force a different outcome. It is to make sure the outcome is supported by relevant evidence and a fair standard.”

Instructions

  • 1.Read the scenario.
  • 2.Work through the six steps.
  • 3.Agree on a clearer, more consistent standard the facilitator could use.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Scenario: A community program is choosing two participants to help lead the next event. Four people volunteer, and all four have completed the required preparation. Micah: often speaks early, answers quickly, and sounds confident when presenting ideas. Devin: usually takes time before responding, asks clarifying questions, and has submitted several strong written ideas after discussions. The facilitator immediately thinks: “Micah is the obvious choice. Devin probably is not ready to lead yet.” There have been no concerns about Devin’s reliability, preparation, or ability to work with others. 1. Notice Your Reaction: What may have caught the facilitator’s attention first? 2. Identify the Story: What conclusion has the facilitator begun to make? 3. Check the Evidence: What supports it? What does not? What is missing? 4. Examine Learned Patterns: What might the facilitator associate with someone who “looks like a leader”? 5. Seek Another Perspective: What other information would help evaluate readiness? 6. Choose a Fairer Response: How could the facilitator use a clearer and more consistent standard?

Debrief questions

  • What does “ready to lead” actually mean in this program?
  • What evidence supports each volunteer’s readiness?
  • Did the outcome need to change, or did the standard need to become clearer?

👂 Listen for

  • Readiness defined by role criteria rather than style
  • Familiarity named as an influence
  • Written contributions counted as evidence

👀 Watch for

  • Swapping the choice to Devin without examining the standard
  • Turning the discussion into whether the facilitator ‘is biased’

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 4 → Build Your Toolkit: Bias and Unlearning Check
  • Lesson 4 → Lesson Review: Four Pathways Bias Can Enter Ordinary Decisions (decision shortcuts)
38–50 min

Peer Perspective Check

PairsBreakout

Purpose

Use the de-identified examples learners prepared in the eLearning to slow down a judgment and test the evidence.

Set-up

  • Pairs.
  • Ask learners to open Lesson 4 → Bring to Next Class: A Judgment to Test.

Facilitator language

“The peer is not there to decide whether anyone is biased. Their job is to help slow the judgment down and test the evidence.”

Instructions

  • 1.Partner A briefly describes their de-identified judgment or decision.
  • 2.Partner B asks the question Partner A chose in their binder (or one from the list).
  • 3.Partner A identifies what they may want to reconsider.
  • 4.Switch roles.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Peer questions: • What evidence is strongest? • What information is missing? • Would the standard change if a different person did this? • What other interpretation could fit?

Debrief questions

  • What did your partner’s question help you notice?

👂 Listen for

  • Shifts from label to evidence
  • Consistent standards

👀 Watch for

  • Peers judging the person rather than testing the evidence
  • Identifying details

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 4 → Bring to Next Class: A Judgment to Test (the peer question learners chose)
56–72 min

Scenario: Speak Up in the Moment

BreakoutMain room

Purpose

Practice redesigning a group norm without losing its purpose.

Set-up

  • Groups of 2–3.
  • Ask learners to open their Cultural Responsiveness Check.
  • Paste the scenario and the seven parts into chat.

Facilitator language

“Cultural responsiveness keeps the purpose while questioning the default.”

Instructions

  • 1.Read the scenario.
  • 2.Work through the seven parts.
  • 3.Rewrite the norm so choices and expectations are explicit.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Scenario: A youth leadership program wants participants to feel comfortable disagreeing and contributing their ideas. The facilitator introduces this norm: “Strong teams are direct. If you disagree, say it right away. Do not hold back or wait until later. Everyone should speak at least once during every discussion.” In the first few sessions, the same participants speak quickly and confidently. Others participate less live but sometimes approach the facilitator afterward with thoughtful concerns or different viewpoints. The facilitator considers telling them: “You need to speak up in the moment if you want your opinion to count.” 1. Find the Default: What communication style is treated as the strongest or expected form of participation? 2. Look for Pressure Points: Who may have to adapt simply to be considered engaged? 3. Open the Door Wider: How can the program preserve the goal of surfacing real disagreement? 4. Build in Choice: What could vary, and what still needs to remain true? 5. Bring in Perspective: What feedback could help the facilitator understand how the norm is functioning? 6. Say What You Mean: Rewrite the norm. 7. Watch What Happens: What would show whether the revision helped?

Debrief questions

  • What is the purpose of the norm?
  • How does your rewrite keep real disagreement in the decision?
  • What would you watch for?

👂 Listen for

  • The purpose: important disagreement and perspective should not disappear from the decision—the goal was not for everyone to speak immediately
  • More than one route to raise disagreement, with those routes counting

👀 Watch for

  • Rewrites that drop disagreement altogether
  • Claims about what a cultural group prefers

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 5 → Build Your Toolkit: Cultural Responsiveness Check (see the completed example)
72–84 min

Design Studio

Breakout

Purpose

Apply the Cultural Responsiveness Check to a prompt, norm, activity, example, discussion question, or participation expectation.

Set-up

  • Groups of 2–3; each group chooses one learner’s prompt or norm (Lesson 5 ‘Bring to Next Class’).
  • Offer the fallback prompt if no one wants to use their own example.

Facilitator language

“Review the practice, not another person’s identity. Use statements like “This prompt assumes…” or “Participation currently requires…” rather than claims about what a cultural group would find difficult.”

Instructions

  • 1.Round 1 — Identify: What default is built into this? Where could unnecessary pressure appear?
  • 2.Round 2 — Revise: How can we preserve the purpose while widening the invitation? What choice needs to be explicit?
  • 3.Round 3 — Test: Who could still have to work around the revised design? What would you watch for when you use it?

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Fallback prompt: “Choose one person in your life who has always supported you. Tell your group who that person is and describe what they taught you about leadership.” Rounds: 1. Identify → 2. Revise → 3. Test

👂 Listen for

  • “This prompt assumes…”
  • Explicit choice in the revised wording

👀 Watch for

  • Asking a learner to speak for a group
  • Revisions that lose the purpose

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 5 → Bring to Next Class: A Prompt or Norm to Review
  • Lesson 5 → Build Your Toolkit: Cultural Responsiveness Check
84–88 min

Digital Binder: Two Commitments

Individual

Purpose

Capture commitments from today’s practice in the binder fields learners already have.

Set-up

  • Share the Lesson 4 and Lesson 5 binder links in chat.

Facilitator language

“Your responses stay private unless you choose to share them.”

Instructions

  • 1.Lesson 4 → Pause & Check: When a Judgment Feels Obvious → My Unlearning Commitment and Complete the Reflection.
  • 2.Lesson 5 → Pause & Check: When Something Familiar Means Something Different → My Cultural Humility Commitment.
  • 3.Optionally revise one part of your Bias and Unlearning Check or Cultural Responsiveness Check based on today.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Lesson 4: leadingwithcare.vercel.app/sections/bias-stereotypes/binder#l4-judgment-obvious One belief or expectation I want to keep examining is ___. When I notice myself assuming ___, I will check ___ and respond based on ___. Lesson 5: leadingwithcare.vercel.app/sections/cultural-responsiveness/binder#l5-familiar-different When I encounter something unfamiliar, I will pause before assuming ___. I will remain curious by ___.

👀 Watch for

  • Learners whose binder isn’t saving—point them to Back Up & Restore or a note-taking alternative

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 4 → Pause & Check: When a Judgment Feels Obvious (My Unlearning Commitment)
  • Lesson 5 → Pause & Check: When Something Familiar Means Something Different (My Cultural Humility Commitment)

Close

Reflection

  • In your Digital Binder (Lesson 5 → Your Notes): What is one question you want to carry into your next leadership decision or activity design?

What to carry forward

  • Use the Bias and Unlearning Check before one consequential decision.
  • Revise one prompt, norm, or example you use regularly.

Next module / pre-work

  • Complete Equity vs. Equality: Supporting Access and Participation (Lesson 6), including the Equity and Access Decision Guide.
  • Bring one de-identified requirement, activity, deadline, participation structure, or access challenge to examine (Lesson 6 ‘Bring to Next Class’).
  • Session 4 focus: What should remain consistent—and what may need to change so the shared expectation is genuinely reachable?
  • Download a binder backup: leadingwithcare.vercel.app/backup

If learners remember only one distinction

Bias asks what may be shaping the judgment. Cultural responsiveness asks what assumptions may be built into the design.

Facilitator Reflection After the Session

  • Judgment: Did I make assumptions about why someone participated the way they did?
  • Evidence: Did I apply the same standard consistently?
  • Familiarity: Whose communication or participation style felt easiest for me to recognize and respond to?
  • Design: Did any prompts, examples, or participation structures contain a hidden default?
  • Spotlighting: Did I invite anyone to speak as though they represented a group or identity?
  • Choice: Were alternative ways of participating clear, or did learners have to guess?
  • Impact: What actually happened in the session—not just what I intended?
  • Adjustment: What is one thing I will change before Session 4?

Learner binder: leadingwithcare.vercel.app

← Session 2Session 4: Equity vs. Equality: Supporting Access and Participation →