Integration of Opposing Forces

 Elegant thinking involves an intense focus on the most significant, most impactful, most insightful elements within complexity. Metaphorically, separating the chaff from the grain, cutting through the static, putting first things first. What nuance may be lost is more than made up for by the power of focus. 

On the other hand, contextual thinking involves a deep unearthing of the interconnected whole. Metaphorically, seeing the forest for the trees, seeing the effect of a butterfly's wings. What straight-forwardness may be lost is more than made up for by the power of the analysis. 

Both ways of thinking can fall prey to an either/or approach, which is dangerous. Either you focus on the most important things, or you are lost in the details. Either you understand the depth of connection, or you oversimplify the situation. 

A different approach is to see these ways of thinking as opposing forces that can be simultaneously integrated. Metaphorically, I think of a mountain pose in yoga. For the non-yogis out there, mountain pose could also be called "just standing there with arms at your side." In mountain pose, the yogi maintains an upward uplifting energy while simultaneously maintaining a downward grounding energy, embodied through simultaneously contracting and releasing certain muscles. At its best, it is not an either/or pose, but an integration of opposing forces, an exercise in both/and. Or, think of the integration of opposing gravitational forces between the earth and sun. There is simultaneously an inward and an outward force, keeping the earth in the sun's orbit and keeping me from flying into the sun when I walk outside. 

 The elegant contextual point being: integrate opposing forces, hold practice and theory in tension, hold vision and emergence in tension, hold structure and spontaneity in tension, hold decisive thinking and contemplative thinking in tension, move forward in mindful action. 

The Pandemic, Part II

Living within a pandemic the past six months provides much to think and write about. Maybe some day I will have the time to do so, after the pandemic subsides, whenever that may come to pass. This too shall pass. Nothing lasts forever. 

For now, it is sufficient to say that the pandemic has many malicious symptoms: physical suffering, financial free fall, mental anguish, complete upending of "normal"...all disproportionately impacting the most marginalized in our society. 

At the moment, I have emerged relatively unscathed. I am not physically ill, I have a job, I have sick leave, I have health care, I have a safe place to live, I have savings to get me through, I have supportive people, I have technology, I can work flexibly from the safety of my home, I have all the power and privileges afforded to me. 

My struggle, which has felt very intense and challenging nonetheless, is the stress and strain of parenting young children through a pandemic, trying to balance professional work and domestic responsibilities while teaching kindergarten online and enduring the tirades of a three year old. I have lost it far too many times, suffered feelings of incompetence and guilt, lost sleep, worried about the future, worried about the now, felt anxious, felt depressed, felt stressed, felt like there was no end in sight, felt jealous of all the people who do not have kids, felt bad for wishing I did not have kids, felt depressed, felt sad, felt stressed, lost it again. All in all, a very humbling experience as a parent. If I thought I was a good parent before the pandemic, then the challenges of the pandemic have brutally revealed all the opportunities I have to do better. 

It has not been all bad. Sometimes I have done okay. The children seem to be doing fine. They are alive and usually happy. I think they are going to come out of this alright. 

Through it all I have leaned on my yoga/meditation practice to get me through. One technique that I have found helpful goes a little something like this: 

--

I notice something negative welling up inside of me (or spewing out of me)

I pause and breathe. 

I intentionally release any momentary thinking and feeling that is unhelpful. 

• In any given moment, unhelpful thinking and feeling may include: projecting my anger or frustration onto others, sweating the small stuff, ruminating over the unchangeable past, imagining all sorts of terrifying futures, struggling to assert control over things completely beyond my control, judging how things "should" be or "should" have been, holding myself and others to accountable to impossible standards, falling prey to knee-jerk reactive responses, racing headlong to the next thing while trying to do the current thing, et cetera et cetera et cetera. 

I intentionally return to enduring thinking and feel that reflects how I want to be in the world. 

• In any given moment, reflective thinking and feeling may include: listening to strong emotions but not being ruled by them, getting my head out of the clouds and being present to the person or task right before me, ceasing fixation on how things "should" be and operating within how things are while focusing on how things could be, noticing choices and responses that are within my control, holding empathy and compassion for myself and others, focusing on progress instead of shortcomings, seeing the best in myself and others, balancing "doing" with "being", choosing curiosity over judgment in face of difference, recognizing small steps I can take right here right now to lift up what is bright in the world, being gentle and graceful, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

--

For me, this very simple in-the-moment technique takes all of 10 seconds. Usually I release just one thing and return to just one other, and that is sufficient to hit a big reset button somewhere inside my brain. Usually, a visceral feeling of calm washes over me, kind of like the feeling of stepping out into the warm sunshine on a cool autumn day. It does not solve any of the challenges that I face, nor does it wish them away. Rather, it is like a half-time pep talk for my soul. "This is hard. How do you want to be? How do you want to feel? Then get out there and show up." 

The Pandemic

Beyond a lot of contingency planning, I've been giving thought to leadership and management practices for the current moment: the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping across the world (and the higher education landscape) at light-speed. 

1. As we prepare for potential campus closures as a mitigation strategy, I've been thinking a lot about how to maintain social cohesion, esprit de corps of the team in the absence of daily in person contact. Even for an introvert such as myself, I can see hidden dangers if we lose the mundane hallway hellos, smiles of coworkers, physical presence, et cetera. One idea is to really be intentional about informal check-ins through chat or text or whatever. I am going out of my way to do this more frequently while telecommuting.

2. Even for a very strategic cerebral type such as myself, I am concerned about emotional care getting lost in all the heady logistics, emergency prep, and contingency planning. This is a simple article on the emotional aspects of COVID-19. I think any of us playing any sort of leadership role in all of this must fully integrate emotional intelligence with strategic intelligence. Panic, paranoia, anxiety and stress in response to perceived current and future states may be even more damaging than the physical ailments itself. How do we play a leadership role? How do we inspire confidence and hope in a resolution? 

I think everyone should read Mental Health and Coping During COVID-19. Below is a key excerpt:

Things you can do to support yourself:

• Avoid excessive exposure to media coverage of COVID-19.
• Take care of your body. Take deep breaths, stretch or meditate. Try to eat healthy, well-balanced meals, exercise regularly, get plenty of sleep and avoid alcohol and drugs.
• Make time to unwind and remind yourself that strong feelings will fade. Take breaks from watching, reading, or listening to news stories. It can be upsetting to hear about the crisis and see images repeatedly. Try to do some other activities you enjoy to return to your normal life.
• Connect with others. Share your concerns and how you are feeling with a friend or family member. Maintain healthy relationships.
• Maintain a sense of hope and positive thinking.

3. That last thought I will share is not losing sight of the forest for the trees. Yes, it is appropriate that a COVID-19 response gains the lion's share of our attention right now. But is our availability bias leading us to pay insufficient attention to other important things? How can we strategically allocate our "institutional attention" so that we are not submarined by all of our other institutional challenges after we come out the far side of COVID-19? What would that look like in terms of an organizational response? While some of us may be completely buried by COVID-19 response, the COVID-19 response may mean that others cannot do the lion's share of what we would normally be doing. What is the audible? 

Wizards as Leaders

Facilitating superior performance and outcomes through a strong team effort requires contingent and highly adaptive leadership processes. To this point, the significant amount of research focused on effective leadership comes no where near a definitive conclusion on a singular model, despite the steady stream of leadership hacks on display at the airport bookstore.  

In this formulation as a contingent and adaptive process, effective leadership relies on a number of key capacities successfully enacted by the team leader(s). 

• The ability to "read" a situation and the team in order to determine what exactly is needed from leadership in order to produce the desired outcomes. 

• The ability to perform a variety of leadership roles as needed within the situation. In some contexts, a strong and decisive voice is needed. In others, building a coalition is needed. In others, resolution of intergroup conflict is needed. In short, there is no shortage of possible roles a leader may need to play. Successful leadership requires a robust quiver, and/or an ability to learn quickly. 

• The ability to extrapolate, showcase, and leverage the diversity of strengths, ideas, and perspectives from across the team.

A supervisor once described my leadership with a particular project as wizardry. To this day, I consider this one of the highest professional compliments that I have received. When a leadership process is contingent and adaptive, it can look and feel like positive results just happen, almost as through some sort of magical intervention. In my view, leadership is less about fulfilling some projected social role as leader, and more so about adept actions and interactions that clear the way for the power of the team to unfold within the particular situation. 

Risk Space for Difficult Conversations

Despite pronounced commitments to diversity and inclusion, difficult conversations across difference are often avoided within organizations (see Schafer, 2016, for an example from the higher education industry). Sometimes, organizations sidestep these difficult conversations because there is neither genuine interest nor priority given to the work of diversity and inclusion. At other times, though, difficult conversations fail to materialize despite the desires of organizational members to engage across difference. In these situations, the potential cost of authentic engagement in difficult conversations is prohibitive for individuals (Banks, 2016). For example, potential mis-steps by individuals holding privileged identities may lead to shaming and loss of trust: “You’re a racist.” For individuals holding marginalized identities, potential consequences are disproportionately severe, and include devaluing, stereotyping, and negative career consequences: “She is another angry black woman.”

One common solution to the challenge of difficult conversations across difference is to create safe space for authentic dialogue between privileged and marginalized groups (see Arao & Clemens, 2013, for further discussion). However, Leonardo and Porter (2010) argued that the notion of safe space propagates privilege:

Either [people of color] must observe the safety of whites and be denied a space that promotes people of color’s growth and development or insist on a space of integrity and put themselves further at risk not only of violence, but also risk being conceived of as illogical or irrational. (p. 140)

Therefore, an equity-minded approach to difficult conversations across difference recognizes tension, discomfort, and risk as unavoidable.

In contrast to the notion of safe space, an organization must create and implement an intentional risk space framework that structures authentic dialogue across difference. Toward this end, an organization development (OD) practitioner facilitates an organizational change process through three phases: first, equity-conscious formation of a dialogue group; second, negotiation of a risk space framework informed by key principle of equity and inclusion; and third, implementation across the wider organization through testing, adapting, modeling and reflecting. As a dialogic OD intervention, the overarching intent of the change process is to disrupt prevailing social reality within the organization and create opportunities for new behaviors to emerge (Bushe & Marshak, 2012).

In the first phase of the change process, the OD practitioner consults closely with organizational leaders and front line influencers in order to form a dialogue group. According to Wilcox and McCray (2005), a dialogue group engages participants across difference in order to resolve complex organizational challenges. To initiate recruitment for the dialogue group, the OD practitioner facilitates organizational leaders and front line influencers through a process to identify and approach prospective participants. Attuned to the realities and histories of the organization, framing and messaging establishes the perspective that participation in the dialogue group is a subjective experience, especially risky and burdensome for individuals holding marginalized identities (Leonardo & Porter, 2010). Organizational leaders and front line influencers invite prospective participants to join the dialogue group through both formal and relational communication channels. The invitation clearly establishes the purpose, procedures and protections for participants. For example, participants choose to opt in to the dialogue group based on genuine interest in the change process; participants can opt out of the change process at any time without consequence. Ultimately, the objective is to recruit eight to twelve participants with an interest in diversity and inclusion work, preferably representing a range of identities and lived experiences.

After participants are recruited, the OD practitioner facilitates equity-conscious teambuilding through awareness training related to diversity and inclusion. At outset, the OD practitioner acknowledges that individuals with lived experiences of marginalization already possess significant “training” on the subject; however, it is not their responsibility to educate individuals holding privileged identities (Leonardo & Porter, 2010). Instead, the dialogue group starts with a common read about the experiences of marginalized groups in America, such as the book Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America (Kendi, 2017). Participants also explore their own intersection of identities within the framework of privileged versus marginalized groups (Obear, 2017). Through guided self-reflection, participants increase their self-awareness, while better understanding the range of possible identities and experiences within the organization and larger society.

In the second phase of the change process, the OD practitioner facilitates the dialogue group through a circle process to negotiate the risk space framework. A circle process empowers participants in the dialogue group to gather perspective, work through biases, clarify values, and uncover systemic processes in order to move toward collective resolution of deep-rooted organizational problems (Wilcox & McCray, 2005). In a series of weekly circles occurring over the course of one month, the dialogue group deliberates over four key diversity and inclusion principle and negotiates how to articulate these principles within the risk space framework. The end goal is to articulate in writing the context and expectations that bound the risk space, as agreed upon by all members of the dialogue group.

The first key principle of diversity and inclusion states that power dynamics make it difficult to establish a mutual purpose for engagement within the risk space. Mutual purpose involves a shared perception between participants that the conversation works toward a common outcome equally reflecting the goals, interests, and values of each participant (Patterson, 2002). However, the desired outcomes of participants holding privileged identities are often at the center of dialogues across difference (Leonardo & Porter, 2010). Stephens (2006) stated, “Individuals of color and their communities often are asked to contribute to opportunities for others to learn, with no reciprocal exchange. Their experiences are harvested, but their presence is only advisory with no opportunity to influence process, decisions, direction or outcomes” (p. 4). This often leads to diversity fatigue as people of color are repeatedly asked to provide cultural competency lessons to people of privilege (Lam, 2018). In response, the dialogue group must negotiate how to equitably center the purpose of dialogue between privileged and marginalized individuals.

The second key principle of diversity and inclusion states that the risk space is an affect-laden environment, strongly contoured by deep emotions such as anxiety, fear, shame, frustration, and denial. Foldy and Buckley (2017) wrote, “True cultural competence would profoundly unsettle the status quo and threaten the organizational standing of powerful people and units—thereby roiling organizational waters and likely creating strong resistance” (p. 267). Therefore, emotional conflict emerges and persists within risk spaces, especially along lines of social identity (Banks, 2016). The ability of participants to respond to emotional conflict can significantly alter the outcomes of dialogue. As Foldy and Buckley (2017) concluded, “Buried emotions can create distance and inhibit change. Surfacing them can foster connection and provide a way for organizations to move forward” (p. 285). Accordingly, the dialogue group must negotiate expectations for working within the wide gamut of emotions stirred by difficult conversations, in particular validating individual emotional responses to lived experiences.

The third key principle of diversity and inclusion states that it is impossible for individuals to approach the risk space without interference from filters, biases, lived experiences, and power dynamics. Due to both cognitive and social processes, individuals are prone to ethnocentric and culturally myopic generalizations that limit egalitarian behaviors across difference (Plummer, 2018). Stereotypes perpetuate destructive beliefs and attitudes about entire groups of individuals (Page-Gould, 2010). Unconscious group norms delineate good behavior from bad (Foldy & Buckley, 2017). Lived experiences vary widely from individual to individual, which can lead to disagreement, blind spots, and resentment about diversity and inclusion efforts (Fong-Olivares, 2018). Therefore, the dialogue group must negotiate an effective approach to increase awareness about unconscious processes predisposing individuals to prejudiced assumptions and behaviors.

The fourth key principle of diversity and inclusion states that deep undercurrents of historical trauma and systemic racism continue to have a profound impact on individuals and groups holding marginalized identities. A small sample of historical trauma and systemic racism in America includes the genocide of Native Americans and the ongoing violation of treaty rights; the constitutional encoding of enslavement until the passage of the 13th Amendment; the imposition of Jim Crow laws; the denial of GI Bill benefits to millions of black veterans of World War Two; and the racial profiling of people of color leading to the deaths of unarmed black men such as Trayvon Martin in 2012 (Racial Equity Tools, n.d.). Although it may not be readily apparent, organizational processes connect directly to these external and seemingly unrelated societal systems and histories (Holvino, 2010). Inequitable distribution of institutional power continues to wide educational and economic gaps between privileged and marginalized groups, despite increasing diversity in communities across America (Wasserman, Gallegos, & Taylor, 2012). The pain and trauma of systemic racism remains a part of an individual’s experience, passed from generation to generation (Stephens, 2006). Therefore, the long history and current political moment of oppression in America is crucial context for authentic dialogue across difference in the organization (Fong-Olivares, 2018). Consequently, the dialogue group must negotiate non-threatening language that surfaces and highlights the events and enduring impacts of systemic racism long endured by marginalized individuals and groups.

After the dialogue group negotiates the context and and expectations of a risk space framework, the organizational change process enters the third phase: implementation across the wider organization. First, the OD practitioner and dialogue group engage in another series of dialogue circles to test how well the framework structures authentic dialogue across difference. The dialogue circles start with relatively uncontroversial topics, such as popular culture preferences. As the dialogue group feels comfortable, topics slowly ratchet up in level of difficulty and controversy, with the circle process adhering to the context and expectations of the risk space framework. After each dialogue circle, the OD practitioner leads the dialogue group through a meta-reflection on the effectiveness of the risk space framework. As needed, the dialogue group negotiates adaptations to the risk space framework, and tests new iterations through additional dialogue circles on difficult topics. As part of the meta-reflection process, the OD practitioner and dialogue group seek consensus on the best iteration to disseminate across the wider organization, and the best time to do so. The risk space framework is not disseminated beyond the dialogue group until consensus is achieved. Until then, testing, adaptations, and negotiations continue within the dialogue group, facilitated by the OD practitioner.

If and when the dialogue group reaches consensus on a risk space framework appropriate for dissemination, the OD practitioner works with organizational leaders to publish and strategically distribute the framework across the organization. The dialogue group, OD practitioner, and organizational leaders host a series of open forums with different departments across the organization in order to introduce the risk space framework, solicit questions and comments, and reflect on their experiences negotiating the framework. As a form of organizational training, the dialogue group hosts a dialogue circle on specifics topic once per month over the next year, modeling the expectations outlined in the risk space framework. Again, the dialogue circles start with relatively uncontroversial topics and slowly ratchet up in level of difficulty. Any organization member interested in observing or participating in the dialogue circle is welcome to attend, with organizational leaders and front line influencers especially encouraged to participate.

After completing monthly dialogue circles within the wider organization for one year, the OD practitioner, dialogue group, organizational leaders, and front line influencers reconvene to evaluate the organizational change process as a whole. The group reflects on lessons learned and any discernible shifts in the communication culture of the organization. Did the change process disrupt prevailing social reality within the organization and create opportunities for new behaviors to emerge? In evaluating this question, the group consciously centers the experiences and perspectives of individuals holding marginalized identities.

In conclusion, an equity-minded approach to difficult conversations across difference recognizes that risk is unavoidable in the process; therefore, an organization must negotiate, test, adapt, disseminate, model, and evaluate an intentional risk space framework that structures authentic dialogue across difference within the organization. There is one significant qualifier to this conclusion, which Leonardo and Porter (2010) bluntly stated: “We do not suggest that dialogue alone can turn the tide without addressing the structural changes that give racism its force. We do not harbor such illusions of grandeur” (p. 152). However, as a dialogic OD intervention, difficult conversations across difference hold the potential to disrupt how individuals, especially those with privilege, relate to and understand the prevailing social realities that shape diversity and inclusion efforts within the organization.

References

Arao, B., & Clemens, C. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135-150). Stylus Publishing.

Banks, K. (2016, January 7). How managers can promote healthy discussions about race. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/01/how-managers-can-promote-healthy-discussions-about-race

Bushe, G., & Marshak, R. (2012). Dialogic organization development. In B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change (2nd ed., pp. 193-212). Wiley.

Foldy, E., & Buckley, T. (2017). Reimagining cultural competence: Bringing buried dynamics into the light. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2) 264-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317707830

Fong-Olivares, Y. (2018, May 17). Addressing racial equity with an organizational change lens. Philanthropy News Digest. https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/commentary-and-opinion/addressing-racial-equity-with-an-organizational-change-lens

Holvino, A. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organization. 17(2) 248-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00400.x

Kendi, I. (2016). Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America. Nations Press.

Leonardo, Z., & Porter, R. K. (2010). Pedagogy of fear: Toward a Fanonian theory of “safety” in race dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(2) 139-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.482898

Lam, M. (2018, September 23). Diversity fatigue is real and it afflicts the very people who are most committed to diversity work. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Diversity-Fatigue-Is-Real/244564

Obear, K. (2017). ...But I’m not racist! Tools for well-meaning whites. The Difference Press.

Page-Gould, E. (2010). The unhealthy racist. In J. Marsh, R. Mendoza-Denton, & J. A. Smith (Eds.), Are we born racist? New insights from neuroscience and positive psychology. Beacon Press.

Patterson, K. (2002). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. McGraw-Hill.

Plummer, D. (2018). Overview of the field of diversity management. In D. Plummer (Ed.), Handbook of Diversity Management: Inclusive Strategies for Driving Organizational Excellence (2nd ed., pp. 1-48). Half Dozen Publications.

Racial Equity Tools. (n.d.) History of race and racism. www.racialequitytool.org/fundamentals/history-of-racism-and-movements

Shafer, L. (2016, October 11). Leading the conversation: How we can (and must) train a new generation of higher ed professionals to start talking about race. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/16/10/leading-conversation.

Stephens, V. (2006, September 1). Moving past the silence: A tool for negotiating reflective conversations about race. https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/stephens1.pdf

Wasserman, I., Gallegos, P., & Taylor, E. (2012). Diversity and inclusion in organizational practice. In B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change (2nd ed., pp. 447-466). Wiley.

Wilcox, D., & McCray, J. (2005). Multicultural organization competence through deliberative dialogue. Organization Development Journal, 23(4) 74-85.

Work-Life-Everything Else Balance

I experienced an epiphany.

Yesterday I woke up at 4:00am to transport a student to the airport. Then I took a 45 minute nap. Then I spent an hour completing readings for my MBA course. Then I woke up my kids, fed the family breakfast, made my coffee, got everyone dressed with teeth brushed, stood at the bus stop with my eldest, dropped off the youngest at daycare, and carpooled to work with my spouse. Then I worked 8 hours. Then I spent an hour getting fresh air and exercise. Then I spent an hour with some fellow MBA students on group work. Then attended my MBA class for 3.5 hours. By now, it was 9:00pm. Then I walked home. Then I ate dinner. Then I went to bed.

On the one hand, I feel extremely productive in my day-to-day life. When I look at all the things I get done in a day, I feel like I am absolutely crushing it.

On the other hand, I feel extremely overwhelmed and completely behind in every single area of my life (family, wellness, work, grad school, extracurriculars).

Both are true. I live my life in the interstitial space between these realities.

What will I choose to see? Because what reality I choose to see makes all the difference in the world.

Building Empathy Across Political Boundaries

“I am glad that it is you and not me doing this meeting,” noted my colleague. “I cannot stand that guy. They are all in lock-step with Trump. They want to gut programs like ours.”

To be honest, I shared some of my colleague’s reservations. I was keenly aware of Congressman Stauber’s legislative agenda and the ways in which his policy proposals diverged from my political preferences. Building a human connection with the Congressman across strong political aversions posed a significant challenge that required a mindful approach. In today’s highly-charged partisan environment, culturally-competent communication across significant boundaries demands self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional.

My journey to meeting with Congressman Stauber started with an internal examination of my identities and experiences. Filtered through my lens as a person of privilege whose professional training focuses on equity and inclusion for marginalized student populations, my stomach clenched as I first read the empathy walk activity description. From my vantage point on the ladder of inference, the empathy walk activity looked like a classic faux pas committed by well-intentioned people of privilege: assuming that “getting to know someone” who is “very different” is an objective and equal experience for both parties involved. As Carl Crawford (2016), Human Rights Officer for the City of Duluth, noted: “For a white person, learning about the experience of people of color is a choice. For me as a black man, learning about the experience of white people is a matter of my own survival.” A well-intentioned academic exercise from the privileged perspective may — at the same time — be a microaggression from the marginalized perspective. Since I am a person of extreme privilege — I currently hold 21 of the 22 privileged identity types identified by Obear (2017) — “very different” almost certainly aligns with marginalized identities and experiences. As I discerned this structural reality and its meanings, I concluded that meeting with an individual with equal or greater privilege was the most culturally-fluent way to carry out the empathy walk activity.

As I explored possible dialogue partners, it proved difficult to find a person of equal or greater privilege with whom I significantly differed. As logic dictates, cultural differences between me and other people of privilege are relatively small and superficial: education, economics, and lived experiences tend to be shared. For example, in my first attempt at the empathy walk activity, I met with a classmate who was forced into an exorcism and subsequently excommunicated from a monastery. At surface, her experiences seemed different than mine. However, as the conversation unfolded, it became apparent that there were few significant cultural boundaries between us. It was a delightful and easy conversation; it provided no challenge in building an empathetic relationship. So, in the spirit of the empathy walk activity, my search for a dialogue partner continued.

The person with greater privilege and power usually dictates the terms of engagement that structure a dialogue. Beyond my control, I was invited — passive voice intended — by a vice-president of my organization to meet with Congressman Stauber. The date, time, and location were set by others. The purpose of the conversation was provided to me. My limited power in this arrangement created a sense of unease. As I anticipated our meeting, my personal biases against the Congressman’s political party produced feelings of dread. In short, an opportunity to complete the empathy walk activity finally presented itself.

As I entered the meeting with Congressman Stauber, I carried my experiences and emotions related to our political differences, mindful of their impact on my perception, but unable to entirely escape their power. When we met, I smiled and shook his hand — because smiling was the savvy thing to do. When we sat down, I jumped right into my rehearsed opener. I had prepared talking points in advance, based on my assumptions around the language and frames that would fit within his political worldview. I smiled some more. Despite my intentions to enter into the dialogue focused on empathetic relationship-building, I retreated to a transactional facade — “impression management” in the business lexicon.

“I am excited to be here,” Congressman Stauber replied. “First let me show you something. Who do you think this is?” He displayed an old black and white picture on his phone. I recognized the photo source: the alumnae hall at the college where I work.

“A relative?” I conjectured.

“Yeah, this is my mom. She graduated from here. When I saw her picture on the wall, it nearly brought me to tears,” he responded.

Shaped by my preconceived notions of political behavior, my initial reaction to the Congressman’s opening exchange was skepticism — I see the political game you are playing, I thought. However, I noticed my knee-jerk response, and chose to internally reframe my approach to the dialogue. I paused, looked at the Congressman, and noticed the genuine expression on his face.

“Tell me more,” I replied.

From that point on, something closer to an empathetic dialogue unfolded. Given the context of our conversation, we still addressed transactional matters related to Federal funding for higher education. However, we also shared stories, listened to one another, and even found common ground around the misuse of statistics in educational policy. I noticed my level of trust slowly growing. My interpersonal energy shifted from a defensive stance to a more inquisitive posture. At times, different phrases that the Congressman used still irked me. However, I avoided the trap of reactive thinking and feeling patterns. Instead, I consciously stepped off the negative train of thought and emotion before it left the station. Eventually, Congressman Stauber’s handler announced that it was time for our meeting to conclude. We shook hands and expressed excitement for a future meeting. To be honest — and to my surprise — I was in fact excited by this prospect. No longer was the Congressman a partisan “boogeyman.” Now he was a fellow human being with whom I could respectfully engage across difference.

In closing, navigating the challenging terrain of authentic dialogue across significant boundaries requires self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional. Partners in the dialogue must be mindful of their default modes, biases, thought patterns, and feeling tones in order to engage in an authentic way. Through such an approach, I developed an empathetic relationship with Congressman Stauber. The dialogue softened my hard edges of distrust and opened up new heartspace to humanize the Congressman. Although political differences remain, such an approach created authentic and respectful communication across a significant boundary.

References

Crawford, C. (2016, January). Personal experience as a person of color in Duluth. Fostering the roots of cross-racial competence. Talk presented at Roots training, Duluth, Minnesota.

Obear, K. (2017). Exploring the dynamics of privilege: Our role and responsibility to create inclusive campus environments [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://drkathyobear.com/ wp-content/uploads/2017/06/handouts-Dominican-2017-send-electronically-.pdf.