Radical Acceptance of Client Biases: When Meeting People Where They Are Serves Strategy
Bonus Insight #2 from 25 podcast conversations with leaders who leave the world better than they found it
Doris Chela Muigei does executive recruiting. Part of her job involves understanding why clients reject candidates.
She learned something counterintuitive: radical acceptance of clients' biases helped her serve them better than fighting those biases did.
"I have a lot of acceptance for clients for where they are at this minute," she told me. "Once you're in my tribe, I'm really accepting of things changing, of circumstances changing, of even your feedback on a candidate."
She asks clients to be genuinely honest about why they don't like someone. And she accepts those reasons—even when they reveal bias.
"The more honest they are and the more that they know I will accept them as they are for their biases, the better I will be able to help them fill those positions."
This isn't endorsing bias. It's strategic pragmatism.
The Instinct To Fight Bias
Most of us, when we encounter bias, want to confront it directly.
A client rejects a qualified candidate for reasons that seem discriminatory. Our instinct is to push back: "That's not a good reason. You should reconsider."
A team member resists a strategic change because of unfounded fears. We want to explain why their concerns aren't valid.
A stakeholder objects to an approach based on assumptions we know are wrong. We launch into why they're mistaken.
This confrontational approach makes sense. Bias is wrong. Unfounded fears shouldn't drive decisions. We should challenge faulty assumptions.
But Doris discovered something: direct confrontation often entrenches people further.
They get defensive. They dig in. The bias doesn't go away—it just goes underground where you can't work with it.
What Radical Acceptance Actually Does
When Doris radically accepts where a client is—including their biases—something shifts.
Because she's not fighting them, they can be honest. They tell her the real reasons they're rejecting candidates, including the uncomfortable ones.
That honesty gives her information she can work with.
If she knows a client has particular triggers or biases, she can:
Screen candidates knowing those biases exist
Present candidates in ways that mitigate the triggers
Build trust over time by delivering results
Eventually, once trust is established, name patterns and gently challenge them
But she can only do that if she knows what she's working with.
When clients feel judged, they hide their real objections. They give professional-sounding reasons that mask the actual bias.
When clients feel accepted, they're honest. And honesty—even uncomfortable honesty—is strategically useful.
The Difference Between Acceptance And Endorsement
This is crucial: radical acceptance doesn't mean endorsing bias.
Doris isn't saying "your bias is fine." She's saying "I accept that this is where you currently are, and I can work with that reality."
There's a difference between:
"Your bias is acceptable" (endorsement)
and
"I accept that you currently have this bias" (acknowledgment of reality)
The first validates the bias as good. The second simply names reality without pretending it's something else.
Strategic work often requires acknowledging reality—including uncomfortable reality about people's current limitations—before you can shift it.
When Radical Acceptance Serves Strategy
This approach doesn't work for everything. Sometimes you need to directly confront harmful behavior, especially when it's creating immediate harm.
But there are situations where radical acceptance serves strategy better:
When you need information. If people won't be honest because they fear judgment, you can't understand the real problem.
When you're building long-term relationships. Trust develops when people feel accepted, not judged. Once you have trust, you can challenge more directly.
When the person has power you don't. If a board member, funder, or partner has bias, your ability to change them through confrontation is limited. But accepting where they are while strategically working around it might be possible.
When resistance is fear-based. Often what looks like bias is actually fear. Accepting the fear creates space to address it. Fighting it makes people defensive.
When you want behavior change, not ideology change. Sometimes you don't need someone to change their beliefs. You just need them to act differently. Acceptance can get you the behavior change even without ideological shift.
How To Practice Radical Acceptance
This is hard. It goes against our instincts to call out wrong thinking.
Here's what it looks like in practice:
When someone says something that reveals bias:
Instead of: "That's not a good reason to reject this candidate."
Try: "I hear that this aspect concerns you. Help me understand what specifically is triggering that concern."
When someone resists change for unfounded reasons:
Instead of: "Those fears aren't realistic."
Try: "I understand this feels risky to you. What would need to be true for you to feel safer with this change?"
When a stakeholder objects based on faulty assumptions:
Instead of: "That's not actually how it works."
Try: "I can see why you'd think that given your experience. Let me share what I'm seeing from a different angle."
Notice the pattern: You're accepting where they are while creating space for new information.
You're not endorsing their view. You're not pretending it's valid. You're just acknowledging that this is their current reality, and working from there.
Why This Feels Wrong
Many people resist this approach because it feels like compromise. Like you're condoning something you shouldn't.
But consider: What's more strategic—making yourself feel righteous by confronting bias directly, or actually creating conditions where behavior might change?
Sometimes the satisfying thing (confrontation) and the strategic thing (acceptance) aren't the same.
This doesn't mean never confronting. There are times when direct confrontation is necessary and right.
But it means being honest about what you're optimizing for:
Your own sense of integrity (confrontation might serve this)
The other person feeling your moral judgment (confrontation definitely serves this)
Actual behavior change over time (acceptance often serves this better)
The Limits Of Acceptance
Doris is clear: radical acceptance has boundaries.
"Sometimes I call them out," she said. She doesn't just accept everything. When bias is harming her ability to serve the client well, she names it.
But she does it from a foundation of acceptance, not judgment. "This is a pattern I'm noticing. Is this serving what you're trying to achieve?"
That's different from "Your bias is wrong."
And crucially: she's selective about who she works with. Radical acceptance doesn't mean working with everyone. She chooses clients she wants in her "tribe."
Once they're in, she accepts where they are. But she's not obligated to accept everyone.
What This Teaches About Change
Doris's approach reveals something important about how change happens:
People change more readily when they don't feel judged.
When someone feels accepted despite their current limitations, they're more open to feedback. More willing to examine their assumptions. More likely to grow.
When someone feels judged, they defend. They justify. They stay stuck because admitting they were wrong feels like admitting they're bad.
Radical acceptance creates psychological safety that makes growth possible.
This applies beyond hiring:
In organizational change: Accept where the organization currently is before trying to shift it.
In stakeholder management: Accept stakeholders' current concerns before trying to address them.
In team dynamics: Accept where team members are in their development before pushing them to be different.
From Fighting To Working With
I'm not advocating for accepting harmful behavior without boundaries. Some things require direct confrontation.
But I am suggesting that strategic leaders need a broader toolkit than just confrontation.
Sometimes the most strategic move is radical acceptance: "I see where you are. I'm not judging it. And from here, let's see what's possible."
Next time you encounter resistance rooted in bias or unfounded fear, try this:
Instead of immediately correcting or confronting, say: "I hear you. Help me understand more about what's driving that concern."
Accept that this is where they currently are. Work with that reality rather than fighting it.
You might find that acceptance creates movement where confrontation created defense.
Because people don't change when they feel attacked.
They change when they feel safe enough to examine their own assumptions.
And radical acceptance—not endorsement, but acknowledgment—creates that safety.
This is bonus insight #2 in an extended series exploring lessons from podcast conversations with leaders who leave the world better than they found it.
Subscribe for insights on strategic pragmatism and meeting people where they are.
