Do you trust your leaders to be allies?

A friend of mine shared an interesting article recently on LinkedIn, written by Shelley Zalis in Forbes, and it created a lot of conversation.

Shelley presented an interesting take on why she believed that we should be replacing the term “male allies” with “leadership allies”. As someone who spends their time training people on the topic of allyship and why I believe it’s important, this article was clearly one that immediately piqued my interest. ?Although I do have to be honest and say I approached it with a degree of curiosity and perhaps one eyebrow raised…

The article posed an interesting question about whether requiring men specifically to take action as allies was something that could be ultimately more harmful that beneficial, as it evoked “archaic stereotypes, reminiscent of the fairy tale where a prince must save the damsel in distress”, and I completely understood where she was coming from on this.

We see it a lot on all allyship spaces. The performative approach to allyship that allows those with the power in situations to behave as saviours, instead of accomplices to change. The author proposed that the terminology should be "tweaked" to prevent this, changing from "males allies" to "leadership allies". Allowing for everyone in a position of leadership to be an ally to anyone else.

All good in principle, however this for me this was where my feelings on the topic begin to diverge. Because I don’t think the issue sits with the titular language of allyship. I believe it sits firmly with understanding it’s intention and application.

There are various dictionary definitions of the term ally, and a brief summary sees us looking at allyship through the lens of “someone who aligns themselves with and supports a cause, an individual, or a group of people”. ?Sounds pretty straight forward, right?

Except, for me, simply applying a dictionary definition of what an ally is demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problem that is being addressed, and how a problem was created in the first place. When we look at allyship though the lens of creating equality, and specifically the equitable outcomes that will bring about equality, we need to be more specific than simply wanting to “use one’s influence to create positive change”. We need to understand the role that power and privilege play in the relationship between the person or group who is marginalised, excluded, or oppressed, and the person who wishes to act as their ally.

So, if we remove the role that gender plays in this dynamic, we are not creating specificity in relation to the privilege that certain men have in leadership spaces. Which in turn makes it all too easy to create solutions that won’t address the root cause of the problem.

I don’t believe there are (many) men in leadership roles now who will actively go out of their way to prevent women from accessing opportunities (although we know there are certainly some). However, I do believe there is a level of education lacking when it comes to the systems that exist in leadership development which favour men and prevent women and people of minority genders from accessing the same opportunities. Systems which also favour the women who play by the oppressive rules of the game too I will add. So, unless we can talk about these, and the role that gender historically plays in this, we’re applying an individualistic “be a good leader” solution to a systemic and centuries old problem.

To put that more bluntly, I believe that if we ignore the role that gender played in creating the problem by using the term “leadership allies”, all we will achieve is making those with the most power and privilege in leadership spaces feel more comfortable, and allow them to continue to perpetuate the myth of meritocracy. And let’s not forget that patriarchy harms men too (men’s mental health anyone?!) so it really is bad all round.

Additionally, I will also add that if we choose to spend our time word-smithing the naming conventions of allies, instead of actually doing the personal work on ourselves to understand where our own power and privilege are present, our inclusion efforts are going to be all the more likely to fail. Leaving the achievement of equality as a continued distant dream.

And, while I’m making the bold statements, let’s also go all in and say that it’s not just for male allies to do the work of learning, unlearning, and relearning. The same is true for people racialised as white, straight and cis-gender people, people living without a disability or neurodiverse condition etc… You get the idea. We all need to be specific.

You cannot truly be an ally if you do not understand where your own power and privilege exist in the context of the person you are allying with. Otherwise, we might as well just say “human allies” and allow the status quo to continue as it is.

Okay Katie, if you’re so smart, what’s your take on a solution then?!

Good question.

For me, instead of making the conversations around allyship more palatable and less specific, I believe we need to equip all leaders with the tools to handle the discomfort of their own complicity to the problem. Where do we benefit where others do not? What actions can we take to remove barriers that will create that level playing field of equality that we all so greatly crave?

It’s not simply for a man to support a woman (although senior level mentoring and sponsorship has its place for sure – and that is regardless of gender). Allyship is men being active in raising their voices and using their positions to dismantle the unfair systems that exist in the first place.

Now, where I agree with Shelley Zalis is in the offering of special women’s leadership training as a “fix the woman” approach (my quote not hers), instead of analysing what is failing women within existing leadership programs to begin with. Because again, specificity and root cause analysis are key.

To wrap this up and allow me to pop back down from my soap box, I guess I’ll end with the idea that, surely, we don’t need to dumb down our language to make the most senior people in our industries feel better about doing the right thing?

My personal expectation of people that have achieved a certain level of seniority or authority is that they can be trusted to handle the state of play in society as it stands, as well as their role within it, and be responsible for their personal level of commitment to making change.?

I think our leaders can handle this conversation.

Although, I guess the real question is... Will they?