3 ways ‘competency checking’ can impact your workplace

“Competency checking” is a practice that imposes extra scrutiny on Black professionals and people of color, challenging their qualifications, intellect, and ability to advance. There are three primary ways competency checking is deployed in the modern workplace.

The first is the assumption of Black intellectual inferiority and/or a lack of qualifications. This can manifest in low expectations, marginalization, and extreme micromanagement. (More simply: If someone assumes, consciously or unconsciously, that all Black people are intellectually inferior, they may question the person and their qualifications more closely during an interview and, once hired, pay much more attention to their work while looking for any mistakes.) 

The second method of competency checking is the expression, particularly of surprise or unease, with open displays of Black intelligence, which can trigger requests or demands to confirm how it was acquired and whether it’s the result of rote memorization or actual, integrated knowledge. This can manifest as dismissal, quizzing, argument, and tokenization. (If a Black person knows something that their white coworker doesn’t already know, the coworker’s reaction isn’t “I didn’t know that!” but more often “How do you know that?”)

The third method of competency checking is activation, specifically the feeling of fear when confronted with a Black person who holds any authority, especially someone in a leadership position. This can manifest as requests for identification, undefined feelings of unfairness, anger, unease, and what I would describe as an “autoimmune level” rejection of Black leadership.

While competency checking can happen to other people of color and, to some extent, white women, there are specific historical and cultural reasons why Black people seem to bear the brunt of it. This book is an exploration of these methods; when, how, and why they were created and implemented; and how they continue to have an outsize impact on Black people and other people of color at work.

The idea that it is not incompetence that is holding back Black professionals is for many a foreign concept. That’s understandable, given that the narrative surrounding Black people—and the reason the workplace looks the way it does today—is that they don’t value education or that there’s no one in the hiring pipeline because there are so few qualified Black people, or that Black people want special treatment. What’s interesting is that both anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that Black workers are getting a type of “special” treatment, just not the type that many people think.

In 2019, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released research that revealed the impact of race and racism in the workplace. That year was a hot labor market, and the U.S. saw the longest economic expansion in its history, with more than 100 consecutive months of job growth and more than 21 million jobs added.

But the EPI’s analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Local Area Unemployment Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau data uncovered some surprising things: Per their report, “Black workers are twice as likely to be unemployed as white workers overall, even Black workers with a college degree are more likely to be unemployed than similarly educated white workers.” That unemployment “gap,” apparently, is “a pattern that has persisted for more than 40 years. In fact, this 2-to-1 ratio holds in practically every state in the nation where Black workers make up a significant share of the workforce.”

I believe that gap is linked, especially when it comes to new hires and leadership, to competency checking. And it starts with a name. In 2024, The New York Times reported on research from the National Bureau of Economic Research about the impact of a “Black- or white-sounding” name on job applications. In a 2019 study, researchers sent 80,000 fake résumés for 10,000 job openings at 100 companies.

The résumés were modified to imply different racial and gender identities, using names like “Latisha” or “Amy” to indicate a Black or white woman, respectively, and “Lamar” or “Adam” for a Black or white man. According to the resulting data, “on average, candidates believed to be white received contact from employers about 9.5% more frequently compared to those thought to be Black.

This type of research is known as an audit study, and it was the largest of its kind in the United States. Ultimately, it found that “the results demonstrate how entrenched employment discrimination is in parts of the U.S. labor market—and the extent to which Black workers start behind in certain industries.”

It’s not all doom and gloom: Some companies showed little to no bias when it came to screening applicants for entry-level positions. And while there is much to learn from the companies that “got it right,” we must remember that this study pertains solely to entry-level positions that do not require a college degree or extensive work experience. It also does not cover aspects of career progression or advancement opportunities within these companies, which are equally critical to understanding the full scope of how competency checking shows up in the workplace.

From the book Qualified: How Competency Checking and Race Collide at Work by Shari Dunn. Copyright © 2025 by Shari Dunn. Reprinted by permission of HarperCollins Publishers.

View the full article