Sandbagging is a term used to describe the feigning of incompetence, or lack of familiarity with the situation at hand. But it also can be a strategy used by men to resist diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, three professors wrote in Fast Company.

Resa E. Lewiss, M.D., a professor of emergency medicine and a health designer at Perkins & Will; W. Brad Johnson, a professor of psychology at the U.S. Naval Academy; and David G. Smith, an associate professor in the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School presented this scenario as an example of sandbagging behavior:

"A senior colleague requests help for an upcoming presentation on a topic with which you have expertise: the business case for diversity on leadership teams. In an absent-minded, bumbling manner, he asks you to do a literature search, collect articles, and send him your written synopsis. He acts helpless and overly thankful. He expresses surprise when informed that he has free, open access to the articles himself. He quickly recovers and says, 'I’d really appreciate your take. I have never been mentored on this topic.'”

The authors noted that while "sandbagging comes across as clever when an endearing character like Columbo uses it to catch criminals, it becomes problematic when deployed as a strategy used by men resisting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts."

While they acknowledged that women sandbag, too, “predominantly this manipulation is put into play by people in power attempting to protect their privilege and to undermine equity,” they wrote.

“We sometimes see sandbagging behaviors from leaders, who intentionally seek to deceive, control, or direct a narrative in the wake of a complaint regarding sexism or harassment,” they wrote, faulting the perception of the bumbling male character, whose apparent absentmindedness is excused, although “everything about the conduct is intentional.” They also fault the protection of “the old boys network, which minimizes, excuses, or deflects the perpetrator’s bad behavior by endorsing his moral character: “I’m sure he didn’t mean it; he’s a good guy.”

To detect instances of sandbagging, they cite three indicators: exaggerated and disingenuous expressions of surprise and seemingly heartfelt appreciation; expressions of contrition and commitment to “be better” that never seem to map to meaningful behavior change; and increased expressions of frustration and even anger from co-workers about a leader’s weaponization of strategic incompetence.

Sandbagging is manipulative, they wrote. If an employee is feeling bad for the weak, incompetent, hapless leader whose bias, sexism or harassing comments appear to be a byproduct of his generation or blind spots—and thus feels the need to help him out, cut him some slack or let the comment or behavior slide—that employee is being manipulated.

“The more vulnerable the target of the sandbagging, the more damaging the practice is,” they wrote, providing four ways that men can be held accountable for sandbagging in the workplace:

• Leaders should check their own use of strategic incompetence;
• Employees can set up boundaries to requests for emotional labor and office housework—they should just say no;
• Employees can collaborate with allies to disrupt when they experience sandbagging; and
• Employees can "upstand" when they witness men sandbagging—they can make it clear that they see what the men are doing

“It’s time to remove this strategic and manipulative tool from the leadership playbook,” the authors wrote in conclusion. “Feigning blind spots to control the narrative, acting clueless, and downplaying awareness and competence are the wrong ingredients for curating safe, respectful, and equitable workplaces.”