SEVEN

Sharpen Inclusive Habits

Inclusion starts with I and takes all of us.

MARY-FRANCES WINTERS

The need to have bold, inclusive conversations on polarizing topics in the workplace will ebb and flow. Polarizing topics will not always be front and center, and there may be some subjects, such as politics, that you will want to continue to discourage. However, when politics or other polarizing topics come up, you want to be ready and prepared so that the outcome has a positive impact on the work climate. This final chapter provides guidance for honing inclusive habits that you will want to practice on a regular basis—even if it is not about a polarizing topic—and some language to be aware of that can encumber inclusion.

INCLUSIVE HABITS TO LIVE BY

I have found that these habits can enhance our capacity for inclusion.

Acknowledging: You don’t know everything; there is always something to learn.

Legitimizing: Other perspectives are just as valid as yours and should be listened to for the purpose of understanding, not necessarily agreement.

Listening: Listen to understand. Listen for your own cultural assumptions, perceptions, and expectations.

Reflecting: Spend more time reflecting on your own values and beliefs. Why do you believe what you believe? Why would someone believe the opposite? Can you respect the beliefs of others even when you don’t agree?

Describing: Learn to describe the behavior before providing your interpretation, and expand the number of interpretations you consider. Use the DNA tool outlined in Chapter 2 to support you in this habit.

Contextualizing: Consider the circumstances, conditions, and history of the topic for which you are having a bold, inclusive conversation. Provide the proper context for the conversation.

Pausing: Always pause before you provide your opinion on a polarizing topic. Take a deep breath. Think about what you are going to say. Pause to be more patient as well. Be patient of mistakes. Be patient of the frustrations of historically marginalized groups. Be patient with people who don’t understand your experience as a member of a historically marginalized group.

Accepting: Accepting does not mean agreeing. You are accepting that there are myriad worldviews, and it is important to learn more about them. Accepting is better than tolerating. How do you feel when someone tells you that they will tolerate you? Not so good, right? Many diversity programs advocate for tolerance. Work to move from tolerance to acceptance.

Questioning: Show genuine interest in others. Be curious, not judgmental, about their experiences.

Respecting: Respect the dignity of every person even when you don’t agree with them. Separate the person from the position. Practice the Platinum Rule, by treating others the way they want to be treated.

Apologizing: What do you do when you make a mistake or say the wrong thing because you just did not know? As I suggest in Chapter 3, we have to learn to be patient of mistakes and cut each other some slack. If you say something that offends someone else, genuinely apologize. The impact on the other person may be very different from what you intended. Do not defend your comment. Simply say, “I am sorry. Please help me understand why that was offensive.” Consider it a teaching moment. Refer to the next section in this chapter for guidance on triggers and micro-inequities that different groups might find offensive. Connecting: Making meaningful connections across difference is one sure way of breaking down barriers and enhancing our capacity for empathy and shared understanding.

Empathizing: Sympathy leads to patronization and pity. Empathy allows you to see the situation from the perspective of the other person.

TRIGGERS AND MICRO-INEQUITIES: BARRIERS TO BOLD, INCLUSIVE CONVERSATIONS

There are some key triggers that we should avoid in our attempts to be inclusive—words and phrases that may be considered offensive, derogatory, or insensitive by different groups. These slights are sometimes referred to as micro-inequities, seemingly small, offhand comments that build up over time and erode trust and the possibility of meaningful conversations. Note: this is not an exhaustive list. I am providing some examples to help you as you prepare for your bold, inclusive conversations. It is also not an attempt at “political correctness.” Rather, I want to provide an understanding of why certain terms may be offensive. I don’t want you to try to memorize the list. Reflect on it to support you in advancing your cultural competence.

Some key triggers for African Americans include the following:

“You are so articulate.” It suggests that the speaker is surprised and has a preconceived notion that black people are less intelligent than white people.

“You people.” This perpetuates the “us-and-them” syndrome and suggests that the person addressed doesn’t belong here. It also stereotypes by lumping all black people together, implying they are all alike.

References to monkeys/apes. Black people have been compared to monkeys throughout history in a way that implies they are less human. For example, Michelle Obama has been likened to apes and monkeys throughout her time as First Lady. Even the phrase “don’t monkey around” can be a trigger.

“When I look at you, I don’t see color.” We have been taught that it is best to be color blind and just treat everybody the same. Color blindness negates the person of color’s identity.

“American is a melting pot.” Some people cannot melt because their difference is visible. A more appropriate metaphor might be a stew, a symphony, or a salad.

“There is only one race—the human race.” This is a minimization statement and deemphasizes the unique culture and experiences of people of color.

“I am not a racist. I have several black friends.” The speaker may not be a racist. However, the racial makeup of one’s group of friends does not determine whether or not one’s attitudes and behaviors are prejudicial.

“I don’t think that has/had anything to do with race.” For a person of color, everything has something to do with race. The sheer fact of being visibly different makes it impossible to eliminate race from any interaction. If the person of color thinks that race plays a factor, then that perception is his or her truth. It is important to acknowledge, legitimize, and understand that perspective.

“As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority.” This diminishes the uniqueness of the experience of the African American. While there may be similarities, a white woman’s experience is not the same as an African American’s. It would be like saying, “I had breast cancer and you had colon cancer, so I understand your experience.” They may have similarities, but they are different.

“We are looking to hire more minorities, as long as they are qualified.” Putting the caveat of “qualified” with “minorities” suggests that the speaker believes minorities are less qualified.

Angry Black Woman or Angry Black Man. There is a stereotype that black people are an angry lot, especially black women, though black men are often depicted this way as well. A few years ago I offered my opinion on some aspect of diversity at a conference. Later, I heard that someone there wanted to meet me, or specifically, he wanted to meet the person who was “ranting.” I was really taken aback. I knew I was passionate, but ranting? No way. I interpreted that as a very negative description. African American directness and expressiveness are often confused as anger.

For American Indians, the following terms and popular idioms may be considered offensive:¹

“Hey, Chief.” If the American Indian addressed this way is not in fact a chief, this is considered insulting.

Squaw. This is considered a very derogatory term, referring to a woman’s sexual organs. “Hold down the fort.” Historically, forts in America were built to hold back the Indians. To an American Indian, this implies that Indians are always on the “war path.” Pow-wow. In American Indian tradition, a pow-wow is a social gathering for ceremonial purposes. To refer to a quick meeting as a pow-wow trivializes that custom and could be offensive.

Low man on the totem pole. While this idiom might not be offensive, it could be considered insensitive. There is actually no hierarchy of importance connected with the images carved on totem poles.

Indian giver. This means that you give something away and then take it back. It is considered derogatory to American Indians. It may refer to the attempts by early settlers to buy land from American Indians, who at the time had no concept of land ownership and therefore did not understand that they were signing over their land.

Redskin. There has been a great deal of controversy and polarization about the use of this term as the name of Washington, DC’s football team. It is considered offensive and disrespectful because the term was used throughout history in a pejorative way to describe American Indians. It is a derogatory slur that is akin to calling a black person the “N” word.

Here are comments and questions to avoid and attitudes to watch out for when interacting with Asian American employees:²

“Where are you from?” When the answer is the United States, the secondary question is usually, “No, really, where are you from originally?” The answer may still likely be the United States. This question is offensive because it can be interpreted as “You don’t belong here” or “You are not as American as I am.”

“You speak good English.” The implication here is that most Asians do not speak “good” English. “Can you recommend a good Chinese/Thai/Vietnamese/sushi restaurant?” Just because a person is of Asian descent does not mean he or she is an expert on good Asian restaurants.

Claims that Asians are not discriminated against because they are prevalent in professional occupations, such as doctors and IT professionals.

Assuming that Asian kids excel in schools. This stereotype is offensive because it is limiting and makes sweeping generalizations about a group.

“You don’t act very Asian.” Again, this is a very stereotypical comment. What is an Asian supposed to act like? Treat people as individuals, not as a group stereotype. “You all look alike.” This may be the perception of someone who has had limited exposure to different Asian cultures, but it is another way of lumping everyone from one group, which ignores their individuality. (As mentioned in Chapter 3, gaining more exposure and experience helps one learn to differentiate.)

“Asians are not good leaders.” There is a widespread assumption that Asians are not interested in leadership roles. Asian employees who do not have Western roots might have a different, quieter leadership style that is not as valued in Western culture. (People with this mindset might consider expanding their interpretation of desired leadership qualities.)

“Why are you so quiet? You need to speak up more.” This kind of mandate suggests the person requiring this behavior is not very culturally competent and isn’t aware that there is more than one way to engage and that cultural behaviors vary. Rather than dictating new behaviors that fit in one’s own cultural framework, it would be better to incorporate different methods of obtaining input.

Model minority. This designation, given to Asians because a large majority are seen as successful and highly educated, is still a gross generalization and therefore overlooks the issues of inequality that are uniquely faced by Asian Americans. Model Minority Mutiny is an attempt for the Asian American community to dispel the model minority myth.

The term Oriental. While it is not universally considered offensive, in the United States it is at the very least outdated. President Obama signed an order to eliminate the use of the term in all federal documents. Some opponents of the term believe it reinforces the perpetual foreigner stereotype often associated with Asian Americans, thus justifying exclusion of and discrimination against Asian Americans.³ (Note: In Britain, the word Oriental is still used as a generic term to describe Chinese or Southeast Asian people, mostly because the word Asian in the UK is used to describe people from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.)

Asia is very big continent comprised of numerous cultures. It is not useful to make sweeping generalities about Asians, or any group, for that matter. Learn to distinguish different cultural groups.

Gender inequality is a serious concern around the globe. While women make up half of the world’s population, they continue to face serious inequities from a socio-economic perspective. In many organizations, women’s upward mobility still lags; thus, the glass ceiling continues to persist.

As pointed out in Chapter 1, men are half as likely as women to believe that women are still held back from reaching their full potential, even though research supports that equally qualified women are less likely to be promoted. According to a study by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Co., women and men have equal aspirations for promotions; however, women are 15 percent less likely to make it to the next level in the organization.⁴

Here is a sampling of triggering comments and micro-inequities related to gender:

“Women are too emotional to be good leaders.” Women may have learned to be more relationship oriented, to be nice, and to get along with others, while boys may have learned to compete, to be brave, and not to cry. Men may have been socialized to believe they are supposed to protect women and not take direction from them. Contemporary research suggests that good leaders have a blend of qualities that include emotional intelligence—being in touch with their own emotions and the emotions of others—making them more able to empathize and lead from the heart.

“Are you planning on having a family?” This is actually an illegal question in the United States. However, I have heard that it is still asked.

“Work-life balance is a woman’s issue.” Work-life balance is a human issue. Both men and women must balance their work and personal responsibilities.

“Women are not as good in math or technical roles.” This is a persistent stereotype that is just not true. Men do not have more natural abilities in math and science. Studies show that the differential is due to social conditioning and the perpetuation of the stereotype.

“Women are not as committed to their careers.” Gallup research suggests that women are actually more engaged than men in the workplace.⁵

When a woman speaks, her voice is often not heard. A man can offer the same input and he is more likely to be recognized for the contribution. During President Obama’s administration, high-ranking women were intentional about fixing this problem. They called it “amplification.” They would repeat an idea of a female colleague and give her credit for the idea by name. The impact was that more women were being seen as valuable members of the team.⁶

Women are more likely to be judged by outward appearances than their contributions. Research shows that “attractive” people—both men and women—earn higher salaries. Women, however, are held to an even higher standard. Throughout her political career, Hillary Clinton was often criticized for her dress and facial expressions. During a trip to Bangladesh in 2014, the headlines focused on the fact that she decided to give a speech at Dhaka International School without makeup, rather than on the purpose of her talk.⁷

Some triggering comments and questions for Latino workers include the following:

“You don’t look like a Latino.” We may have a preconceived notion of what someone from Latin, Central, or South America should look like. Latinos come from all different racial and ethnic groups and many different countries, and therefore there is no such thing as a Latino look.

“Do you speak Spanish, or do you speak English?” The assumption that someone with a Latin heritage should speak Spanish is stereotypical, as is the assumption that the person may not speak English. Latinos may be second-or even third-generation Americans and may not speak Spanish. A Latino may be bilingual, speak only English, or speak only Spanish.

“Your English is so good.” Why would you expect it not to be?

“Can you recommend a good landscaper or housekeeper?” The assumption is that most Latinos do landscaping or housekeeping work and therefore any Latino must know someone who does.

“I know a number of Mexican people.” Not all Latinos are Mexican. What message is the speaker trying to convey by saying this? That he or she understands the person being addressed? That he or she is not prejudiced? Claiming to know Mexican people is probably irrelevant to the conversation.

“Tone it down. Why are you so emotional?” For some Latino cultures, animated discourse is a sign of enthusiasm and passion. For some Euro-American cultures, strong emotional expressiveness is seen as a distraction and inappropriate. (See Chapter 3.) Being told to tone it down can actually result in someone “shutting down.”

“Do you speak Mexican?” Mexico is a country, not a language. Spanish is the official language of Mexico. Illegal immigrant. As pointed out in Chapter 3, this term is offensive. It is labeling the person and not the action. It is judgmental language. There is still a presumption of innocence until a jury has convicted an individual.

Examples of comments that can be insensitive to the LGBTQ community include the following:⁸

“I never would have guessed you were gay.” While perhaps well intended, this comment has a judgmental tone. It could be interpreted as “I thought you were ‘normal’ like me.”

“I suspected you were gay.” This type of comment plays into stereotypes and can come across with a judgmental tone.

(To a transgender person) “What did you look like before?” It is inappropriate to talk about the past with a transgender person. Their current gender identity is who they are and should be affirmed.

“I have a gay friend that you should meet.” No one should assume that a coworker would automatically want to meet that person’s gay friend. Not all gay people are friends, just as not all straight people are friends.

“Your lifestyle is your business. We should not talk about that at work.” Sexual orientation is not a choice the way a lifestyle is. The ability to bring one’s whole self to work enhances engagement. Being able to include one’s partner in office small talk or bringing the partner to work functions is part of being in an inclusive environment.

“I’m sorry.” When spoken as a response to a coworker who has shared a part of their identity with you, this statement is judgmental. Why would you be sorry for that?

“What do gay people think about _____?” One gay person does not speak for the entire gay community. This is true for any of the groups discussed here. It is inappropriate to ask one person of a certain identity to speak for everyone in that group. Treat people as individuals.

In Chapter 1, I mentioned that conversations around disability and individuals with disabilities are not necessarily polarizing. However, this topic is one that we shy away from discussing, mostly due to our fear of offending. People with disabilities have struggled to move beyond being depicted as one-dimensional sources of inspiration who offer others an opportunity to be heroically inclusive. They are more likely to be invisible and under-recognized for their capabilities and contributions. The stigma surrounding disability leads many people and their allies to be reluctant to self-identify, even if they need an accommodation. Here are some micro-inequities, and triggering words and phrases for people with disabilities:⁹

“What is wrong with you?” While this may be a well-meaning question in an effort to be supportive, it is offensive. The term wrong is negative and the opposite is right, so it connotes that the person is not legitimate. It is especially inappropriate if one does not know the person well and has not built a trusting relationship. Some people with disabilities would prefer not to talk about their conditions. In order to engage in an inclusive conversation, it would be better to ask if the person would like to talk about his or her disability. If the answer is yes, the person with the disability should be allowed to describe the condition, and the person who asked should just listen. (See Chapter 5.)

“Were you born that way?” The person with a disability may wonder, was I born what way? This can be an intrusive question, depending on the relationship. Again, it has a negative connotation.

“I don’t think of you as a person with a disability.” This is like saying I don’t see you as a black person or an Asian. I realize that often when someone says this, the intent is assurance of equality. (“I don’t see you as any different from me.”) It is often heard by the person with a disability, however, as “Then you don’t really see me. I am different, and that is okay.”

Speaking more slowly or loudly to a person in a wheelchair. Our unconscious biases may lead us to assume that a person in a wheelchair also has other limitations and it might be an automatic response to speak louder or more slowly. Catch yourself if you do this. It is a part of the introspection and reflection process that I have discussed throughout the book.

Assuming that a person with a visible disability wants your help. As inclusion allies, we want to be helpful. Don’t assume; ask the person if and how you can be helpful.

“How do you go to the bathroom?” This is also a very intrusive question. Even if someone is trying to learn more about the other person, as is advised in Chapter 3, this would probably not be a good question to pursue. It is private and personal and may make the other person feel very uncomfortable.

“You really look good.” The implication is that this is a surprise because a person with disabilities would not look good. Again, this is probably a well-intended statement that is meant to be supportive, especially if someone has been out of work for a while with an illness. However, it can come across as “You look good for someone in your condition.” Or, the person might hear it as “I really didn’t have high expectations about how you would look.” It might be better to say, “Good to have you back. Let me know if and how I can support you.”

There are also sentiments that historically marginalized groups should avoid saying to white people, including the following:

“You could never understand my issues.” While I have contended throughout the book that it is really hard to walk in another’s shoes, there are many white people who do understand, want to understand, and want to be allies.

“All white people are racist.” We are all biased, but I don’t believe that all white people are racist—that they consciously believe that black people and other historically marginalized groups are inferior and purposefully discriminate (take action) based on that belief.

“You are just a typical white person.” What is a typical white person? This is a very stereotypical comment—a narrow, limited perspective on an entire group of people. People are individuals.

“You are not diverse.” Everyone is diverse. We are each unique. Diversity is more than race. It includes age, gender, gender identity, background, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. No two people are exactly alike. Two white men may be different in many ways—age, occupation, religion, geographic location, interests, and so on. All of the aforementioned dimensions of diversity influence who we are.

“All white people are privileged.” Privilege is relative. (See the discussion of privilege in Chapter 2.) We all have some level of privilege in various contexts. For example, there are black people who have socio-economic privilege over white people. To cast an entire group as privileged without knowing individual circumstances fuels polarization. While white privilege exists, it is conferred and not asked for in many cases. Playing the white privilege card makes many white people feel guilty, which stymies inclusive conversations. It does not help to state the obvious.

Religion is a very difficult topic for the workplace. In general, like politics, ad hoc discussions about religion should probably be avoided. Structured conversations as I have described in the book can be useful in helping people to learn about each other’s religions. A handful of major companies (e.g., Ford, Aetna, and American Express) have started faith-based employee resource groups.¹⁰

For example, Ford’s Interfaith Network (FIN), is one of eleven company-approved employee groups. Its board members represent eight faiths—

Buddhism, Catholicism, Judaism, Evangelical Christian, Islam, Hinduism, Orthodox Christianity, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; however, all are welcome to join. There are also “Other Affiliates,” including Asatru, Baha’i faith, Humanism, Sikhism, Jainism, Spiritism, Paganism, Unitarianism, Zoroastrianism, and Universalism.

The primary purpose of faith-based employee resource groups is to educate employees about religious diversity. Companies believe that such networks can also help with recruitment and increase employee engagement.

The coordinated efforts to educate about different religious beliefs is a positive step. However, we still have to be mindful of discussions that are off-limits. The following should not be allowed in workplaces:

Proselytizing. It is totally inappropriate for employees to try to convert others to their religion.

Denigrating someone else’s religion. While you may totally disagree with someone else’s beliefs, you should respect that they have the right to them.

Offering prayer or some other spiritual practice to someone who is not interested. We have to know when to keep our religious beliefs to ourselves and not force them on to others.

In general, for any group, if you want to increase the likelihood of having an effective bold, inclusive conversation, you should avoid these types of phrases:

“I think you are being overly sensitive.” How would you know? If you have not had the experience, you cannot judge the other person’s response. This is demeaning and dismissive. It is better to ask, “Why is this important to you?”

“That’s not anything to worry about.” Perhaps it is not anything for you to worry about, but you cannot know what the other person’s reason for worrying might be.

“I know how you feel.” You really don’t know how someone else feels. It is better to say, “Help me to understand how that makes you feel.”

“Calm down.” This can be triggering for someone who doesn’t feel that they are being overly emotional. It might be better to say, “I see that you have a lot of passion around this topic.” However if the person is visibly angry, it might be best to say, “Let’s talk about this tomorrow after we have both had an opportunity to think about it more.”

“I have a lot of friends who are _____” (fill in any group). This is offensive because it implies that just because you have friends from the same racial, ethnic, or religious group as the person you’re addressing that you could not be biased. Or if you are saying something else, what are you trying to convey?

FINAL THOUGHTS: PUT YOUR HEART IN IT AND COMMIT TO LIVE INCLUSIVELY

We will never have all the right answers of what to say or what to do when we are attempting bold, inclusive conversations. There is usually more than one right answer, which is why this work is hard.

This is a guide; the work is a journey. Don’t try to memorize all the dos and don’ts. There are too many of them, and they will keep changing anyway. If your heart is in the right place and you genuinely have a desire to learn how to have the tough conversations on the topics that seem to continue to polarize our society, you will be fine. You will make mistakes along the way because learning by its very definition is about making mistakes. Hopefully we will all learn the skill of patience to allow more of us to grow together in our quest to make this a more inclusive world.

I invite you to commit to Live Inclusively by signing the pledge below and inviting others to do the same!

Commitment to Live Inclusively

   I commit to be intentional in living inclusively.

   I commit to spending more time getting to know myself and understanding my culture. It is in understanding myself that I am better positioned to understand others. I will acknowledge that I don’t know what I don’t know, but I will not use what is unconscious as an excuse.

   I will be intentional in exposing myself to difference. If I don’t know, I will ask. If I am asked, I will assume positive intent. Most importantly, I will accept my responsibility in increasing my own knowledge and understanding.

   I commit to speaking up and speaking out, even when I am not directly impacted, for there is no such thing as neutrality in the quest for equity, justice, and inclusion.

   I will strive to accept, and not just tolerate; respect, even if I don’t agree; and be curious, not judgmental. I commit to pausing and listening. I will be empathetic to the experiences and perspectives of my “others.” I will use my privilege positively and get comfortable with my own discomfort.

   I commit to knowing, getting, and doing better than I did yesterday—keeping in mind that my commitment to live inclusively is a journey, not a destination.

CHAPTER 7 TIPS FOR TALKING ABOUT IT!

   Polarizing topics will not always be front and center in the workplace, but it is important to be ready for the conversations when they arise.

   There are inclusive habits that you should hone and practice on a regular basis.

   Avoid words and phrases that may be offensive, insensitive, or outdated as you learn to converse with different groups.

   Don’t try to memorize a list of dos and don’ts because they are a moving target and there is always more than one right answer.

   Come from your heart, learn from your mistakes, and commit to continuing to contribute to making this a more inclusive world for all.

   Take the pledge to Live Inclusively.

   Invite other to take the pledge to Live Inclusively!