The Limitations of Allyship

Could it be that some Allies are struggling with Allyship because their personal self-interests, or their own professional ambitions, get in the way? The idea of self-preservation is not new. It is a behavior or set of behaviors that ensure one's survival. In respect to Allyship, self-preservation can take the form of:

• Being overly concerned about your reputation or image
• Maintaining silence so as not to become "the outsider" during groupthink
• Picking and choosing how, when, or IF you will "show up" on an ally's behalf
• Relying on feedback from one person in the identity group without considering multiple perspectives
• Allowing "niceness" to serve as a buffer to authenticity and accountability
• Assuming that you are exempt from being an Ally because you share one or more dimensions of diversity
• Telling under-represented co-workers that you are an Ally, but not your peers in the majority group
• Competing with your "allies" because you don't want to lose out on a promotion or other workplace opportunities

The Rachel Nichols and Maria Taylor controversy at ESPN served as a post-George Floyd wake-up call for the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion industry. In "leaked" diversity comments, Rachel Nichols, who is White, questions the company's decision to allow a Black colleague (Maria Taylor) to host the NBA finals over her. There are two issues here: one is that the protagonist, Rachel Nichols, is supposed to be an Ally. The other is that ESPN put Nichols in a difficult position, whereby she had to choose between her own professional goals and being an Ally.

I empathize with Nichols but I do not excuse her conversation. Why? Because at the core of Allyship is trust. How can people trust her to be an Ally in public, if she is not an Ally in private? It's one thing to say, ESPN is wrong, period. It's another thing to add that a colleague was selected for a position because of their race. Writing for Forbes, Sheree Atcheson asserts, "Allyship is a lifelong process of building relationships based on trust, consistency, and accountability with marginalized individuals and/or groups of people." Atcheson adds, "To be allies, words and action must be in sync." The very definition of an ally implies that both individuals have something to gain from common interests or their connection. Think about allies in the context of a global peace effort. Countries, who are allies, work together because there are common interests. Suspicion, and the lack of cooperation, can easily cause nations (and individuals) to become adversaries.

In the workplace, the downside to viewing another person as a professional threat is open conflict. If a supervisor/executive leader is not equipped to manage the conflict, it spreads throughout the organization like a virus. Why? Because a few employees will pick sides in the absence of leadership. In the case of ESPN, they punished the people who picked a side without dealing with the real issue: Is Maria Taylor a token? Or is she talented? If she's talented and ESPN wanted to give her a chance, where is there an opportunity to utilize Rachel Nichols during the NBA Playoffs as well?

Let's be honest. Allyship is a huge commitment that can be complex. It is not something that you can wake up and do without proper planning, realistic expectations, and self-awareness (e.g., how will my Allies perceive this action or inaction)? Otherwise, like unconscious bias, when the right trigger hits, one's commitment to Allyship will go out the window. In this instance, a fear of loss, or of the unknown, can trigger a natural self-preservation instinct.

But let's not skim over the fact that a toxic organizational culture cannot support true Allyship. Toxicity starts at the top. While senior leaders like to place Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) squarely in one person's lap, the reality is that it takes a village to get great results. Think about it like this-- in every other business discipline (e.g., accounting, operations, human resources, technology, etc.), senior executives are fired when they don't know the intricacies. Yet, with EDI, we literally give the top leaders a pass. For shareholders, this should matter. Imagine owning a stock that could implode at any moment because the senior executives are too lazy to learn what they need to know; or worse, they don't care. My language may be too strong for those who expect me to be nice today, but I want to scare your leadership team. If I can get through to one person, it will "stop the madness" (in the words of Kevin O'Leary from Shark Tank).

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) is the future. There's no point in becoming embarrassed that your organization is a spectacle if you waited and waited and waited for the bomb to go off. Heck, some senior executives shook the Molotov Cocktail because it took so long to blow up. The fact that the ESPN saga has been going on for almost a year is reprehensible. Even if an employee, Maria Nichols, is accused of timing the "leak" for contract negotiations, ESPN is silent. Yet, they are not alone. The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill has been rocked by several diversity-related scandals and they still denied tenure for a Pulitzer Prize winner. After the implosion, the university changed its mind-- but it was too late. Nikole Hannah-Jones, author of the 1619 Project, chose to accept a role at another institution where her presence (and her work) would not be a perpetual source of conflict. However, it's the administration's silence that concerns staff and students the most.

You can't be an Ally in an organization that forces you to choose between Allyship and your career. This is a serious problem that can only be fixed by the organizational leadership. What can executives do, Leah? I'm so glad you asked! (1) Learn what you don't know. (2) Speak up. Silence allows people's imaginations to run wild! (3) It's never too late to pivot-- both ESPN and UNC Chapel Hill can commit to change with decisive and timely action. (4) Create equal opportunities for different groups so that Allies (regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, disability, etc.) do not have to choose between their job and supporting a colleague. (5) Foster an environment of psychological safety, where acts of vulnerability are rewarded and the organization can identify accountability pain points. (6) Measure for change. If the numbers are trending in the opposite direction, fix it by revisiting #1. (7) Always remember: the organizational culture will eat your "solid" business strategy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A toxic culture is one where the workplace is plagued by unmanaged conflict, drama, dysfunction, and unhappy workers looking for other jobs; this type of culture is not sustainable nor is it poised for economic recovery.

Folks, there are limitations to Allyship. When we acknowledge, uncover, and solve these limitations, we can make more progress. Keep in mind, so long as people are picking sides or the organization's silence speaks volumes, self-preservation will win over inclusion every time.

~~~~~~~~~

Leah Smiley, CDE?, is the President of the Society for Diversity, the #1 professional association for Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI).

For more information about the Society for Diversity and its signature programs, visit: www.societyfordiversity.org.

For details about the Society for Diversity's executive or professional EDI certifications, visit: www.diversitycertification.org.