Publicly, most executives at large companies support efforts to increase employee diversity and inclusion. However, the reality I see from the work I do as a diversity and inclusion consultant is quite different: a surprising number of managers, from the lowest to the highest levels, are much less enthusiastic on this subject. in private. “As soon as these issues are raised, I have the feeling that my presence is in the way,” one individual told me, while another told me that they felt like they were part of the problem. A third, expressing a widely shared but generally unspoken sentiment, also told me: “It seems like everyone is after white males. »
According to a leadership study that focuses on white men, diversity and inclusion, the biggest obstacle facing any policy of this type – according to 70% of white employees surveyed – is not knowing They are truly “desired”. This feeling may seem unjustified in the eyes of those responsible for implementing these policies and who strive to involve leaders, but rather than brushing it aside, it would be more interesting to try to understand this which motivates him, because that is the only way to make these leaders allies and not enemies.
Why some leaders feel defensive
Everyone reacts very differently to comments about discrimination. For individuals who have been marginalized, just giving voice to their experiences can have a galvanizing effect. Others will feel empathy while still others, especially those who have never been exposed to them, may misinterpret them. Why that ? Being part of a “privileged identity” means that we have never needed, or almost never, to realize that we are an “identity”. In the United States, individuals who suffer from injustices linked to gender, skin color, religion, disabilities or even sexual orientation are constantly reduced to their differences, while white, heterosexual men, in full possession of all their physical and mental means can live without ever having to think about all these questions. For privileged leaders, seemingly harmless comments heard at work can lead them to become aware of their race, their gender, or even their sexuality. However, if they feel that their defining characteristic is being criticized, it can cause them to become defensive.
Let’s take a few examples. Hearing a woman say “the other day at work, a man whistled at me”, an individual could, consciously or not, be stung as a representative of the “white man” category. Or if someone says “white fragility makes already difficult conversations about race more difficult,” a representative of that group might take offense at being called fragile! Or, when a homosexual admits to his colleagues that the fact that they cannot imagine that he could be anything other than heterosexual hurts him, they may wonder if they should feel guilty for being heterosexual. .
Sociologist Robin DiAngelo calls these defensive reactions to race-based criticism “white fragility” and argues that it stems from a lack of “racial resistance” due to white people’s little exposure to these issues. In other words, since these individuals have not had the opportunity to reflect on these subjects in a protective space, they will be all the more likely to be destabilized.
It is clear that all of us, especially us diversity and inclusion practitioners, need to provide psychologically safe spaces for white and privileged people to examine and discuss these topics. Otherwise, instead of supporting us, these leaders will remain on the defensive. In my experience, two exercises can help move us in the right direction: framing the question of identity in terms of awareness and focusing on equity.
Asking the question of identity in terms of strengths and weaknesses
Often, diversity & inclusion experts consider that the question of identities is only relevant to those who are marginalized. For them, it is above all about highlighting individuals of color, women, sexual minorities, immigrants, Jews, etc. to counter the ostracism of which they are victims in a society organized around white heterosexual men who do not need to be taken care of. However, designing actions in favor of diversity and integration on the basis of this reasoning can only make White people feel that they do not belong there, which is totally counterproductive in companies. where these privileged few hold the power.
What we can do instead is reframe this reasoning in terms of lessons: the strengths and weaknesses of identity. Take, for example, this statement: “White people partially, but fully, understand the role that race plays in society.” Such statements name an identity (the white man), associate values with it (partially and powerfully), and place them in a context that encourages future discussions (what is the role of races in society). The conversation can also easily be broadened by asking questions like: “How do other racial groups understand the role that race plays in society?” How is their experience different? For what ? »
I recently used this exercise during a one-off speech to a group of leaders from all over the United States, as part of a course on fair and inclusive leadership that one of my colleagues teaches at the University of Berkeley School of Management. I asked the students: “You all know very well what the impact of gender is in your respective companies.” In the room, the women nodded, but the men looked skeptical. One commented: “I know very well how my business works. What to do to get promoted, how problems are resolved and decisions are made. But my wife taught me that things worked differently for her. She’s the gender expert, not me. » I rephrased the first part of his statement: “What you mean is that your wife knows very well how your business works for women and you know how it works for men.” »
Focus on equality
Equality, or “fairness,” is one of the pillars of our culture: everyone should be able to succeed and be rewarded for what they accomplish. When I work with white managers, I often tell them, “I know you care about equal opportunity at your company. Your position as a heterosexual white man allows you to understand very well what it’s like in this organization for people like you. But your responsibility as a leader is also to understand what it’s like for other people and make sure everyone is experiencing things well. » These three sentences help in several ways. First of all, they put the finger on the identity of a heterosexual white man without judging or condemning. Then, they promote this identity by linking it to expertise, without however obscuring the fact that it has its limits (an individual from this group will not know, from the outset, how a bisexual indigenous woman will perceive the company). And finally, they explicitly associate humility and curiosity – necessary for the success of a diversity and integration program – with the qualities that a good leader must possess.
In the 1970s, American psychologist Elliott Aronson (he is ranked among the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century) and his students developed and popularized a teaching technique called “the Jigsaw classroom” which consisted of giving each student within a group part of the solution to a problem, only the collaboration of all allowing it to be resolved. This shared learning, where everyone holds valuable knowledge while needing others to respond to the challenge posed, is a good analogy of how we can associate privileged leaders with the company’s diversity and integration efforts. Only by seeing each person’s unique experiences as pieces of a complex puzzle will we be able to defuse the defensiveness of some of us and find a way to create, together, a fairer world.
THE EDITORIAL SUGGESTS YOU TO ALSO READ:
Creating a shared future in a fractured world through diversity
Three ways to promote diversity… to boost innovation
Diversity and myopia
