–( EIGHT )–

Facilitate Trust and Empathy

Some years ago, I was conducting research for a philanthropic organization that was interested in attracting more donors of color. In one impactful interview, an elderly Black woman in Florida summed up the issue of trust in this way: “Why are you interested in me and my money now. I don’t know you. We have never even broken bread together.” In other words, she did not trust the organization’s motives and pointed out in her own way that she did not have a relationship with them. Trust is a mandatory ingredient for inclusive conversations. Building trust across different dimensions of diversity is complex. It is easier to trust people with whom you have an affinity—who you perceive to be more like you—with whom you have a relationship.

Research shows that we do not have meaningful conversations across difference. A study by the Public Religion Research Institute showed that 75 percent of whites responded that they have meaningful conversations only with whites. By the same token, 65 percent of Blacks and 46 percent of Latinos said that they have meaningful conversations only with those of their own cultural group.¹ If we are not having conversations across difference, it is certainly difficult to build relationships that build trust. Developing meaningful relationships across difference reduces the fear and anxiety, as discussed in Chapter 6, that is often associated with interacting with our “others.” Contributing to the lack of trust for historically subordinated groups is a history of inhumane treatment. Even though some of this treatment is no longer legal, multigenerational memory and damage impedes the ability to create trusting cross-cultural relationships.

Historical Dehumanization and Discrimination Diminishes Trust

In the United States and across the globe people from dominant groups have a history of “othering”—colonizing or, at worst, dehumanizing and engaging in acts of genocide against those from subordinated groups. There are many examples across different cultural groups where such actions persisted (and continue to persist in too many cases) for hundreds of years, which has engendered intergenerational mistrust. Consider slavery and the Jim Crow South. Native American mistrust that comes from the taking of their land and the dismantling of their way of life. One major reason that there is a lack of trust between Christian Americans and Muslim Americans is the 9/11 terrorism attacks. Of course, there are many other historic examples, including the Holocaust, Apartheid in South Africa, violence against the LGBTQ community both in the United States and elsewhere, the forced relocation of Japanese Americans and Japanese immigrants to internment camps during World War II, and inhumane treatment of people with disabilities, just to name a few.

Today, we hear numerous incidents of people calling authorities on Muslim, Latinx, African American, and the LGBTQ community because they feel uncomfortable. If we are afraid of each other, how can we build trust to have inclusive conversations? How do you have inclusive conversations if there has been no intentional efforts at trust-building? A few ideas to consider:

   Understand the historical reasons why there may be a lack of trust.

   Don’t assume that there is trust during initial attempts at inclusive conversations.

   Start slowly as trust is built one interaction at a time.

   Demonstrate humility, authenticity, and empathy.

The Importance of Empathy in Building Trust

A common response to someone else’s situation is “I know how you feel.” Do you really? Is this simply an automatic response? If you really thought about it (engage metacognition and self-awareness), you would realize that you don’t know how the other feels because you have not had that lived experience. Such a knee-jerk response might seem inauthentic to the other person and impede trust building. Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from their perspective—that is, the capacity to place oneself in another’s position, to put yourself in their shoes, as the saying goes. It is feeling with someone. I was asked in a session that I facilitated for the philanthropic arm of a large corporation if empathy was ever really possible if you had not experienced what another person had. Can you really walk in another’s shoes if they are too small or too big for you? This is an important question.

The Winters Group 4E model suggests that empathy is possible only if you have gained exposure across differences, have had meaningful experiences with those who are different, and have engaged in ongoing education. These three Es lead to the fourth E: empathy. Even if you have not experienced what the other person has, you can, in learning more about their experiences, come closer to genuinely understanding what they may be feeling. In We Can’t Talk about That at Work, I proposed the notion of reciprocal empathy—the ability to empathize with each other. We can get to this point of reciprocal empathy if we know what it is like to be the “other”—not necessarily in exact experiences but in relation to our emotional experiences.

For example, we sometimes have participants engage in an exercise called “Imagine How You’d Feel” to connect them to the emotions of being in the “other’s” shoes. We have to do this on both sides of an issue. Can you understand why the person holds the viewpoint they do? Do you have an understanding of their cultural worldview? Have you asked them? What’s at stake for them with this issue? What are they afraid of? What are they hoping for? Asking these questions can support you, if not in finding common ground, at least in finding some way to put yourself in their shoes—a step toward building trust.

Brené Brown, research professor at the University of Houston and renowned expert on empathy, offers that empathy and sympathy are very different.² She says that empathy is a skill that can bring people together and make people feel included, while sympathy creates an uneven power dynamic and can lead to more isolation and disconnection. Empathy builds connections—a required ingredient for trust and thus for inclusive conversations. Sympathy can lead to pity and unhelpful “at least” comments.

Sympathetic comments include:

   Even worse. This may sound like: “It could be much worse” . . . “Other people have gone through worse issues or more challenging situations.”

INTENT: Help someone see that what they’re challenged with isn’t “that bad.”

IMPACT: Invalidates experience, feelings.

   Look on the bright side. This may sound like: “At least you don’t have to …”

INTENT: Help someone focus on the positive, think optimistically.

IMPACT: Undermines feelings or dismisses validity of the challenge or issue.

   Problem solving. This may sound like: “I can do this . . .” or “What do you need me to do?”

INTENT: Make it better, help.

IMPACT: Disconnects from emotion.

Empathetic statements sound more like this:

   Acknowledge the situation. “I am sorry that you are going through this,” or “I see how that would be difficult.”

   Share how you feel. “I don’t know what to say,” or “I can’t imagine the impact on you.”

   Show gratitude that the person trusted you enough to share. “Thank you for sharing with me,” or “I am glad that you trusted me with this.”

   Show genuine interest and be supportive. “Would you like to share more?” or “What I am hearing you say . . . (rephrase for clarity)?” or “What do you need right now?”

Learning to be more empathetic about the experiences of those who are different from you is critical in the trust-building process. Demonstrating that you care in your actions, even if you might not agree, is key for inclusive conversations.

CASE SITUATION
Demonstrating Empathy about the Impact of the Sociopolitical Climate

An African American male employee came to work distraught about a police-involved killing of an unarmed Black man. His supervisor, a white woman, saw that he was upset and asked what was wrong. He shared that he was angry and frustrated by yet another incident like this. His supervisor did not respond at all. She said nothing and walked away. A few months later, the Black male employee left the company. HR does not think this incident alone led to this high-potential employee taking another offer. However, it was thought to be a contributing factor. Offering grace to the supervisor, perhaps she just did not know what to say. Demonstrating empathy might have been what he needed to feel included, a sense of belonging, and the opportunity to build trust. She might have said: “I am sorry that you are going through this. I can’t imagine how you feel. Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. Is there anything that I can do right now?”

I think sometimes when we are confronted with uncomfortable topics such as race, we may feel paralyzed and words will just not come. Or leaders might feel compelled to try to solve the issue. In this situation, perhaps the leader was caught off-guard, not sure why the Black employee was impacted. Developing skills for empathy are critical for anyone in a leadership position and for those who identify as allies.

Building Trust on a Team

Building trust is about building relationships. Cross-cultural work relationships are likely more difficult because of the fear of the unknown, perhaps disinterest in those who are different, and/or fear of saying something offensive. Therefore, it is harder to develop trust. Behavioral scientists say that leaders can build trust on teams with the following behaviors.

   Frequent, honest communication—trust is built one interaction at a time. If that frequent communication is not happening for certain people on the team, it follows that trust is not being developed. Studies have shown that honest communication is sometimes difficult across difference, especially conversations about race. In a 2016 Fortune study with interviews with African American men who were in leadership positions in their respective organizations, nearly all had experienced conversations shutting down (or being shut out) when matters of race were brought up.³ We must become comfortable talking about race.

   Be impeccable with your word; do what you say you are going to do. If the leader espouses to be an inclusion advocate, but their actions suggest otherwise (e.g., no visible diversity at the top; the same people selected for special assignments), there is a disconnect between the words and actions, which can erode trust.

   Show people you care about them and their interests, as much as your own. Demonstrate empathy. Get to know everyone on the team as an individual. This trust-building tenet also can be illusive for nondominant individuals in an organization. As pointed out in Chapter 3, women of color are less likely to get acknowledgment for contributions. Needless to say, this suggests there is work to do to create truly inclusive environments.

   Speak from the heart. Identify something good about the team member and emphasize this in your communication. Make sure that you include everyone when you pass out compliments and be careful that they are not stereotypical. For example, complimenting a person of color for being articulate is culturally offensive, as it suggests that it is unusual. In October 2019, as part of a social media campaign, the University of Missouri’s Athletic Department tweeted pictures celebrating the diversity of their student athletes and staff. The intent behind the campaign was to showcase personal information about the students and why they are “more than a student athlete.” The problem with the post was the very different messaging chosen for Black athletes versus white athletes. The white athletes were characterized by career ambitions with statements such as “I am a future doctor” and “I am a future corporate financier.” In stark contrast, the Black athletes’ statements were more identity-focused like “I am an African American woman,” “I am a brother,” and “I value equality.” I am sure that the developers thought they were saying something “good” about all of the athletes, but the biases were glaring. Mizzou issued an apology, took down the posts, and acknowledged that they took the statements from a video. In the video the full statement of sprinter Caulin Graves (an African American male) was, “I am a brother, uncle and best of all, I am a leader.” Track athlete Arielle Mack (an African American woman) said, “I am an African-American woman, a sister, a daughter, and a future physical therapist.” For some reason, only the first part of each statement was selected for the ad campaign.

   Offer your willingness to listen. Inclusive listening takes more skill. It means that you listen to yourself for your own biases, assumptions, and judgments.

   Express your feelings with compassion and understanding. Although this may be good general guidance, there are different cultural interpretations of the appropriate ways to share feelings. For example, women may be labeled as too emotionally expressive. By the same token, Blacks are often labeled as having too much “passion.” Cultures that are less emotionally expressive may be viewed as lacking compassion. Therefore, we need to be mindful of how expressing feelings can be perceived coming from different identity groups.

   Own your mistakes. Honesty and integrity are crucial to building trusted teams. While owning your mistakes may sound good in theory, it may not work as well for subordinated groups in the workplace. Mistakes are magnified for historically marginalized groups. As mentioned in Chapter 4, a study by the National Bureau of Economic research showed that Blacks have to perform better than their white counterparts.⁴ The study found that Black workers are more closely scrutinized, which increases the chances of errors and that they will be caught, and the result is that Black workers were more likely to be let go for “errors.” This feeds into the well-entrenched belief that historically subordinated groups have to be “twice as good to get half as far.” Therefore, owning mistakes can be riskier for historically underrepresented groups, thus impeding progress toward trust.

There is no quick fix to building trust across different dimensions of diversity. However, understanding the complex dynamics that make cross-cultural trust building more difficult is key for inclusive conversations.

SUMMARY

   Trust fosters our capacity for empathy, and conversely empathy recognizes that mistrust for many subordinated groups comes from historical injustices that have led to trauma that may be deeply embedded in the subconscious.

   If you are a member of the dominant group that has perpetrated the injustices, recognize that there may also be deep-seated internalized trauma that plays out as shock and denial.

   Authentic relationships build trust. Think about the real relationships that you have with your cultural others. What do you do to specifically build trust?

   Learn to be empathic. The capacity for empathy is key to building trusting relationships.

   If you are a leader, identify trust as a core value for the team. Allow the team to have input on what trust means to them and define specific trust-building behaviors.

   Don’t expect to have real inclusive conversations if there has been no intentional attempt to build trust.