Lip service
Lip service as the gap between intention and action
I've been thinking a lot about lip service lately.
It's something we hear about from staff at our client organizations - how the organization pays "lip service" to ideas of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
I'll admit that, up until recently, I had thought more of lip service as saying something when you don't actually mean it.
When I look up "lip service," though, the actual definition from our friends at Merriam Webster is much closer to the pattern we see, which is:
I would say it goes significantly beyond "usually used with pay," though.
What we're seeing is a kind of lip service where the organization or person may actually genuinely mean what they say, or think that they do, but when it comes to taking action, especially actions that come with some sort of cost, they balk.
It's the gap between intention and action that we have long seen, recognized, identified, and named, but only recently have I started to connect that to lip service.
Getting buy-in to start with
Let's back things up for one second.
One of the biggest challenges we hear when it comes to DEI is "getting leadership buy-in." We heard this loudly and clearly from over 100 architects and designers who attended our AIA New York talk on Transcending the Woke Wave: Creating Long-Term Change at Architectural Firms last week.
By the time organizations are reaching out to us about working with us, there tends to be at least enough "leadership buy-in" that they are even considering hiring someone. However, even then, we hear that leadership has a "check the box" attitude, and often they are coming to us because they're backed up against a wall. This might be because of employee complaints, a threatened or actual lawsuit, clear results from an employee survey, or successful grassroots efforts from within the organization.
The "mystery of what to do"
Even when leadership can genuinely acknowledge that there is a problem and that they want to do something about it, what often creates the gap between intention in action is what we have come to call "the mystery of what to do."
Although it may seem obvious to others, although they may have been given detailed recommendations from staff within the organization or other outside consultants (eg, HR or management consultants), they need help understanding why those actions will address the issues that are coming up and benefit the entire organization.
Sometimes, though, leadership gets to the point where they know exactly what to do to create the results they have committed to, and they are just not willing to do it.
The genuine commitment, the admirable ability to listen and create spaces where staff can feel acknowledged and heard, the engagement in radical truth telling, and even a remarkable openness to feedback... it all grinds to a halt when it comes to taking real, meaningful and substantial action.
Why does paralysis happen?
We have been thinking long and hard about this because it doesn't always happen. In fact, to our surprise, we have in some cases seen the opposite of paralysis, and by that, I mean an unexpected acceleration of actions and behavioral shifts that exceed even our own expectations and aspirations for the change we hope to create.
We've seen organizations that have been paralyzed for decades suddenly start to take actions without even needing to consult with us, let alone rely on our recommendations.
Yet, at other times, our recommendations, made time and time again, go unheeded, and we are left feeling the same way many of the staff at those same organizations have described feeling - dismissed, ignored, devalued, and blamed.
The characteristics of white supremacy culture
I've found it helpful to turn, as we so often do, to the Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture by Tema Okun - and as we always have to caveat, no, we are not talking about extremist groups like Nazis, the KKK, or those storming the Capitol just a few weeks ago. No, what this document is talking about is mainstream culture in the US and across much of the globe, the characteristics of which are pervasive and damaging "because they are used as norms and standards without being proactively named or chosen by the group." As the document also says, "because we all live in a white supremacy culture, these characteristics show up in the attitudes and behaviors of all of us – people of color and white people."
These characteristics are not just oppressive to people of color, but to those who face marginalization by others systems of oppression, and ultimately to all of us, although not equally.
So, how does this shed light on the question of lip service?
Well, I see four of the characteristics of white supremacy culture especially dominant in situations where commitment gets stalled when it comes to action:
Power hoarding
In particular:
"those with power feel threatened when anyone suggests changes in how things should be done in the organization, feel suggestions for change are a reflection on their leadership" and
"those with power assume they have the best interests of the organization at heart and assume those wanting change are ill-informed (stupid), emotional, inexperienced."
From the antidotes:
"understand that change is inevitable and challenges to your leadership can be healthy and productive" and
"make sure the organization is focused on the mission"
Fear of open conflict
In particular:
"when someone raises an issue that causes discomfort, the response is to blame the person for raising the issue rather than to look at the issue which is actually causing the problem" and
"equating the raising of difficult issues with being impolite, rude, or out of line"
From the antidotes:
"don't require those who raise hard issues to raise them in 'acceptable' ways, especially if you are using the ways in which issues are raised as an excuse not to address those issues"
Right to comfort
In particular:
"the belief that those with power have a right to emotional and psychological comfort"
"scapegoating those who cause discomfort"
From the antidotes:
"understand that discomfort is at the root of all growth and learning - welcome it as much as you can"
"don't take everything personally"
Defensiveness
In particular:
"criticism of those with power is viewed as threatening and inappropriate (or rude)"
"people respond to new or challenging ideas with defensiveness, making it very difficult to raise these ideas"
From the antidotes:
"understand the link between defensiveness and fear (of losing power, losing face, losing comfort, losing privilege)"
"discuss the ways in which defensiveness or resistance to new ideas gets in the way of the mission"
We could go on
But in the end, I believe at heart is deep socialization into these systems of oppression and a failure to understand that when a member of a community is harmed, the entire community is harmed, and when a member of a community causes harm, the entire community has a responsibility. And ultimately, when those who are deeply impacted by harm in the community have their needs met, the entire community benefits.
As Aboriginal activist Lilla Watson said:
"If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together."
Our liberation is bound together.
And what it takes to not just give lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, but to take actions and get concrete and tangible results, is a willingness to be uncomfortable and to distinguish between feeling like you are in danger and actually being in danger.
Is your life at risk? Your job? Your livelihood? Your family? What do you have to lose if your staff have what they need to do their best work? And what do you have to gain?
Often what folks have to lose are the characteristics of white supremacy culture - characteristics that we have been taught will lead to success, such as our ability to hoard power, avoid conflict, be defensive, and our right to comfort.
But how is this really serving you, and how is this serving your organization and its mission?
If you truly are "one of the good ones", and are committed to equity and inclusion, these are some of the things you will have to give up.
I believe that there is a lot more to gain from being willing to give up these characteristics that dehumanize us all. I have found a lot of joy and healing in this process, but I am also aware that as a woman of color, my socialization into entitlement runs far less deep.
For this reason, we have found that quite often, people of color can, in fact, more quickly and easily integrate and internalize these frameworks than white people can.
However, I truly believe that white people have so much to gain from the effort as well, however uncomfortable and painful it might be along the way.
Organizations that experience the acceleration we talked about earlier realize and embrace the fact that they have far more to gain than to lose from dismantling the characteristics of white supremacy culture, and see concrete and tangible benefits such as increased engagement, dramatically improved performance from individuals and from the organization as a whole (including financially), and the ability to deliver work that has a higher impact in alignment with their mission, and that increases their relevance in their field.
Note: See What kind of leadership does it take to drive equity and inclusion? for a follow-up.
Self-coaching for DEI Advocates and Leaders
Join me for a free weekly email series and check-in on co-creating real and lasting shifts towards diversity, equity, inclusion and antiracism at your company or organization. Sign up here.
Banner photo by Maarten van den Heuvel on Unsplash