When the dialogue feels too tough, here's what you can do better.

In the wake of the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, David McAtee, and Rayshard Brooks at the hands of police, many organizations have been answering the call to take more concerted action about anti-Black racism. Major companies have issued statements acknowledging the uniquely anti-Black violence that has happened in close succession over the past couple months. Varied approaches, including but not limited to, inviting speakers, leading town halls, hosting panels, holding vigils, donating money to organizations fighting racial injustice, sponsoring anti-Black racism workshops, dialogues about race in the workplace and more have been offered to employee populations to build on the momentum of this moment.

Compared to the past when many organizations were silent on these issues, recent evidence of more robust responses are heartening. We can acknowledge this even when some are feeling like it is too little too late. What we have also seen are organizations like Pinterest getting called out for issuing statements that were not viewed as sincere when held alongside the accounts of former employees of color who reported experiencing racism and sexism first hand. And LinkedIn hosted a town hall that was described as a “dumpster fire” due to tone deaf anonymous comments that trivialized the genuine and real pain experienced by the community not just in this moment, but also historically. Fortunately, we do have examples of organizations that have stepped up the challenge of these perilous and promising times. One such organization is Upwork, a global freelancing platform. Upwork’s Head of DEI Erin Thomas, PhD and CEO Hayden Brown shared some of their best practices to cultivate an anti-racist culture through sharing and learning. We can all learn from their example and there are likely more examples that will reach the public conversation in the coming weeks.

For organizations that have experienced setbacks, I encourage them to keep trying after they’ve held retrospective conversations to identify and learn from what went awry in their initial efforts. Mistakes will happen, especially in organizations that are just dipping their toes into the anti-racism pool, and with great partners and more practice, these events will get easier and build over time, enabling organizations to tackle more complex and enduring issues. Of all the options for activities organizations can choose from, what I’d like to discuss in particular are conversations about race in the workplace.

Many organizations have opted to pursue dialogues as a response option and there’s a lot of information describing what organizations can do to foster a “healthy” dialogue on race in the workplace. Some organizations, like the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, have hosted mandatory dialogues with great success while others have done it as a single event. I have found great success with conversations, having facilitated many in a variety of locations, and would encourage organizations to pursue it under the right conditions. To better understand ideal conditions, we must discuss what could go wrong in dialogues and some of the root causes.

Red flags to start

Preference for vague terms like “healthy,” “bold,” “respectful,” and “deep.”

Although these terms sound alluring on the surface, that’s precisely the problem. They are surface level terms without any common meaning. With lenses of race, gender, and other markers of social identity, we may all have different interpretations of what these words mean in practice. 

When there’s too much inequality in the organization.

Racism isn’t hard to confront simply because it’s complex, it’s particularly hard to confront because it is personal and, in far too many organizations, it operates in plain sight. In Being Black in Corporate America, researchers at the Center for Talent Innovation describe what they have called “The Perception Gap” whereby white and Black employees don’t just have different attitudes about a topic, but also divergent perspectives on how people are experiencing the workplace. For many Black employees, the racial inequities in organizations are readily and painfully apparent.

A low tolerance for diversity of feelings in the workplace.

Workplaces are tricky and language often includes lots of doublespeak. For example, many employees have been socialized not to bring their full selves to work, to keep their heads down, and get their work done. Then during select times of the year or particularly during crises, like this one, organizations seemingly all of a sudden want to call on people to be authentic when that hasn’t been observed, demonstrated, or sustained before moments like these. That kind of “about face” needs to be acknowledged.

Erin Thomas offers really great commentary about how leaders, in particular, can bolster more emotional courage in incremental ways to ready themselves for these challenging dialogues and further demonstrations of allyship.

A poor track record of being responsive to issues related to the topics they want to discuss around race and racism.

When organizations have not adequately addressed complaints of discrimination, that energy carries into dialogue spaces because it is unresolved. Employees are not just drawing from what’s in the news, they are also drawing from their past experiences and perceptions. Left unheard, these could potentially emerge in varying ways ranging from resignation to outrage.

Red flags during the dialogue

Harshness without context.

Rinku Sen, former executive director of Race Forward, often says, “be soft on people and harsh on systems.” What that means is that people deserve grace and compassion but oppressive systems need to be handled aggressively. Leaders can complicate that mantra because they are humans who represent and hold up systems.

Leaving silence open to interpretation.

Silence can be a sign of resistance, active listening, or disengagement. Whatever it is, it must be contextualized. Additionally, white participants in cross-racial dialogues tend to be silent to save face or avoid causing offense which inadvertently may cause offense because effective dialogues require mutuality, reciprocity, and engagement. Robin DiAngelo, PhD, offers helpful tips on silence breakers.

Good faith without psychological safety.

Amy Edmondson’s concept of psychological safety really captures why it’s important for organizations to foster a culture that encourages risk taking, collaboration, and speaking candidly about issues of great importance.

Given the perception gap between white and Black employees, organizations need to reckon with the reality that they may not have established trust in handling racial issues and that trust needs to be built up from a growth mindset approach.

Hostility

Hostility can come through questions, diatribes, attacks, and harassment. To be clear, no one should allow violent hostility that jeopardizes the safety of employees.

Hostility can also be ascribed to moments when someone is actually drawing attention to deep pain they’ve experienced in the workplace. Capable facilitators will have a plan to address those instances. It’s important to emphasize “address” because it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. We also have to acknowledge that the emotions expressed by Black people, who are in legitimate pain, tend to be coded as hostile. 

Organizations that want to have dialogues yet want to avoid hostility may not want to have a dialogue at all. They can and probably should pursue other modes of engagement and exploration.

Red flags after the dialogue

No debrief.

A small team of stakeholders needs to debrief the dialogue to make meaning of the experience and explore near term and long term action steps. 

No action.

Undoubtedly people who have been marginalized want to see some action taken as a sign that they have been listened to and heard. If this is a one off that’s not meant to be followed up with some meaningful and intentional action, then the dialogue may not be right for you. 

No consideration for relationship repair.

Workplaces are sites of relationships and that means that some of the strategies on relationship maintenance have application for the workplace. When a colleague expresses that they have been injured or unheard, the relationship dynamic has been undermined and needs repair. Organizations must consider how that reparative process will take place and there are tactics that can be done in the near and long term.

Strategies for success

Now that we have a sense of what can go wrong, here are my thoughts on how organizations can leverage dialogues for success.

Get ready for gritty, real, and raw conversation.

• Professional white, middle class organizations don’t allot for a broad display of emotions and as a result, some of what surfaces in cross-racial dialogues can come across as shocking. Depending on the level of shared understandings and assumptions, views on what’s shocking may vary. Acknowledge that.
• Shifting the status quo means reframing how we view emotions in the workplace.

Leaders must develop emotional courage (or present as if they have emotional courage).

• Dialogues can range from 90 minutes to 3 hours. Emotions will come up. People may raise concerns about leaders generally without naming them even as they’re sitting in the dialogue. Leaders should be ready to receive the feedback without defensiveness and not take it too personally. And if you’re really upset about what’s been said or disclosed, take time to address that separately from the dialogue space. 
• Thinking back to “be soft on people and hard on systems,” systems don’t have feelings but people do. Leaders must hold their feelings with humility and in context. As representations of the system, it’s not that your feelings matter less, it’s that your feelings should not pose a barrier to actively listening and taking responsibility for meaningful follow up (e.g., apologies, systems changes, etc.).

Organizations have to determine if they’re ready for a cross-racial dialogue and what might be needed to get them ready.

• Some organizations are toxic, and toxic cultures don’t allow for healthy dialogues no matter how experienced the facilitation team is.
• However, some organizations need some runway to get to dialogues. What that might look like is holding affinity group-specific conversations for designated communities (e.g., employee resource groups or ally groups), and then bringing the group together for a cross-racial dialogue. As someone who has facilitated many dialogues, I can attest that the time and expense of primer conversations are well worth it. 

If you’re going to hold a dialogue, be ready for just about anything.

• The reason I say “just about anything” is because for many companies holding these dialogues is uncharted territory. But just because territory is uncharted does not mean the experience cannot be successful and transformative.
• We can learn a lot from emergency preparedness. The point is not to avoid the emergency altogether, it’s to prepare in the instance that emergencies take place. Similarly, dialogue facilitators and leaders can prepare effectively by being intentional and deliberate in describing what success will look like and preparing for apathy and displays of resistance.

Keep an eye on the bigger picture.

• If you are a leader or someone who belongs to a group with social power (read: privilege), take note of your feelings and reactions but remain focused on the bigger picture. Part of why conversations are so difficult is that people do not want to make those who hold social power uncomfortable due to fears of retaliation or misunderstanding.
• Effective dialogues promote meaningful change and enhance trust. All of which allows us to accomplish the ultimate goal of these dialogues which is combating anti-Black racism. 
• Black people are dying, have been dying, and will die. Discomfort at having a conversation compared to the pain experienced by those who have died and their loved ones reminds us that we all need to be courageous to ensure others don’t die. 

Listen attentively for quick wins.

• Many leaders are reticent to commit to anything without taking time to think. This is a tricky position because what’s likely to surface in a dialogue are unresolved issues that have been swept under the rug (whether real or perceived) or met with repeated inaction. 
• Leaders can identify some quick and easy wins to implement after the dialogue to support trust building and repair after the dialogue.

Be ready to apologize.

• Apologies for harm that has been caused can go a long way towards healing. We must be mindful of assuming that apologies are culpability. Sometimes an apology is simply an acknowledgement that a person is hurting and this is not what you wanted them to experience but it happened and it’s real. 

Dialogues require courage because they demand a lot of participants, as they should. We are humans who exist in social and organizational systems that we did not create yet we are responsible for changing these systems for the better. Fundamentally, these conversations encourage us to grapple with how we relate to each other. And given the United States’ historical and present-day record, the relationships between most communities and Black people are abusive and violent. We must change the tide. With strong facilitation, humility, compassion, thoughtful engagement, and follow up actions, many organizations can enjoy the fruits of dialogue. And not all dialogues will go “well” initially and that’s okay because some seeds will take some time to grow. In that vein, let’s maintain this ongoing dialogue because the conversation isn’t just needed, it’s long overdue.