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.
