Talking About Race at Work

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to The HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Sarah Green Carmichael. Today I’m talking with Kira Hudson Banks, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at St. Louis University and a principal at the consulting firm the Mouse and the Elephant.

Kira, thank you so much for talking with us today.

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: Thanks for having me.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So Kira, you have studied in your academic research issues of race and diversity, and you’ve also consulted with companies to help put inclusion into practice with the Mouse and the Elephant. And based on that expertise, you recently wrote an article for HBR on how managers can facilitate healthy conversations about race at their companies even before– and I think this is key– even before there’s been any kind of particular incident to spark such a conversation.

Why do you think it’s so important for leaders to talk about race before there is some kind of catalyst?

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: So there are a few reasons, but the main one is that when things are difficult, it raises the stakes and it’s even more difficult to talk about sometimes controversial topics, right? And so if we’re honest with ourselves in our society, in the United States. And more broadly, I would say, but specifically in context of the United States, we are socialized to not talk about race. So if we wait until something blows up to have the conversation, we’re not skilled and we’re not as able to hear each other because we’re already doing something that we’re not practiced at.

And so if we think about any other topic. If we think about operational excellence, we don’t wait until something goes wrong to talk about what that means for us in a company. We spend time operationalizing it, we have trainings, we have ongoing learning. And so then when an incident hits us, we have a vocabulary, we have a common language, that we can approach this topic with. And so it’s essential that we build that muscle around race because we typically don’t come to our workplace with those skills.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So in imagining how this would play out, I think the worry is that it would fall into the same bucket as a lot of the HR initiatives that employees tend to get cynical about. Like, oh, it’s just another sexual harassment training that I have to do instead of doing my real job or, oh, it’s the kind of checklist thing that you do when you join the company then you never think about it again. How can companies do a better job so it doesn’t fall into that employee cynicism trough?

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: Right, right. Yeah, I think we’ve got to do it differently. The way that I encourage people to think about these trainings is in a long-term way. So that’s one of the reasons why I talk about making a long-term investment. If it is just that training that you have to do for compliance reasons, people are going to be cynical because it is surface, if that. And so it’s really important that the structure of whatever process it is, or series of trainings, be one that is a clear arc for folks.

And I think about it in our company at the Mouse and Elephant, we think about awareness as being just the first step on the path of inclusion. And oftentimes, those one shot events or those trainings are just about building your awareness, making sure you know that something exists. So you shouldn’t sexually harass or you shouldn’t discriminate on someone because of their race. We all know this.

So what I would encourage people to think about what are you wanting folks to get in terms of the outcome. What you are you wanting them to get out of this experience? And then you’ve got to create the opportunities and the trainings around that arc.

And typically when you ask folks what they’re wanting to do, they don’t just want awareness. That is the baseline and the bare minimum, and so you’ve got to think about what’s your long-term strategy. How does this fit into your bottom line? Is it about profit?

Is it about innovation? Is it about team building? And whatever you decide you’re hoping to get out of this diversity inclusion or equity effort, then you’ve got to think about what trainings and opportunities support that.

So I would encourage people to get out of the check the box mentality. Just having an unconscious bias training is not enough. That is not sufficient to stop unconscious bias from happening. It does take care of the awareness but barely even that.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I am glad you mentioned unconscious bias too because it does seem like we’re in a moment now when unconscious bias is this phrase that people have discovered and our talking about, which is great. At the same time, it’s not the only kind of bias, it’s not the only problem.

What are some of the other things that companies should be thinking about beyond just our unconscious biases, which are, in a way, almost the easiest ones to talk about?

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: So I would encourage companies to think about what an inclusive climate would look like at their organization. What would it look like? What are they desiring from how people interact with each other, from how they interface with customers?

Whatever that looks like, to operationalize that. That in and of itself is an exercise. To be able to talk about, oh, well, for me it looks like this, and for you it might be something else. How do we have a common language and a goal if we’re going to talk about the same thing? So I think that’s the first step.

And then what comes before that, or in terms of the stats, what will come after you’ve operationalized it will vary. Typically, things like unconscious bias, things like understanding systems of oppression, and dynamics of privilege, and all of those terms and definitions that get thrown out will be a piece of it. But I actually would encourage folks to anchor whatever training that they’re going to do in a common definition of what inclusivity looks like for their organization, and then work backwards.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So a question about that. Would it be your recommendation that companies focus their efforts around specific topics like race or like gender or that they really talk about inclusiveness and try to incorporate multiple topics in one initiative?

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: I think that it’s a both and. So in some ways, that’s a false choice that I hear a lot of companies get stuck in. Yes, we want to talk about race, but gender and sexual orientation, and diversity of thought, introversion, extroversion, all of those are important. And so when you think about what your definition of inclusivity means, you want to think broadly about who needs to be included, who’s at the table, who’s not, who you interface with, what markets you might want to interface with.

But when it comes down to the programming, I think you also have to be honest and reflective about what your company needs, where you need to start. Sometimes it’s an open door. So I worked with a company once where the CEO, he had two daughters. And so he was keenly aware his daughters were starting to go to college of how their gender was impacting their experience and their experience of leadership.

And he looked at his own company, and not unlike most companies, as you went higher up in the ranks, the number of females decreased, the number of women decreased in positions. And so for him to publicly say in the company let’s look at the society in terms of pay inequity and then let’s look at our company. Oops, we see the same thing. We shouldn’t be surprised. We’re not going to be embarrassed, we’re going to talk about it. And so the experience of women in the company is important to us.

That was an open door. So they’ve started with gender. And there were other companies where they were having difficulty retaining employees of color and international employees, and so that was an open door, a place for them to start.

So it requires some reflection to understand where your open doors, where your areas of growth may be most needed. But then not only being narrow with your definition throughout the process of understanding inclusivity but also allowing different types of social identities and experiences to be represented.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: OK. That’s helpful, thank you.

As we’re talking now about how to actually operationalize this and what to actually say, I think one of the things that I often see play out in the media is that a company who has been called on the carpet for a bad diversity will publicly say that they are really a meritocracy and recommit to this idea that they’re really meritocratic. But inevitably what happens is someone republishes this research that actually companies that emphasize meritocracy are often the worst offenders in terms of diversity practices and actually rewarding people doing equal work with equal rewards.

And I find that it’s one of those findings that’s really fascinating because it seems so paradoxical. But it does seem to be supported by other research that suggests those of us who think we’re the most objective are actually the most likely to exhibit bias. When companies and leaders in companies are thinking about what to say, what should they emphasize that’s not meritocracies since we know that doesn’t really work?

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: [LAUGHS] Yeah, it’s really tempting, right? But, like you said, there’s plenty of research on that myth of meritocracy. I would encourage if you’re stuck in this hot spot to think about being humble rather than defensive. Because let’s be real. Oftentimes when I engage folks in conversations around race and around difference more broadly, one of the ground rules that I ask folks to consider is rather than assume that we’re not going to offend, be willing to work through the conflict.

And I know the stakes are higher when you’re a company, and there’s profit involved and you just want to rush to look like you’re cleaning it up– and you should– but I think that sometimes it’s important to acknowledge the misstep. Before you jump to defending and saying but, but, but, but, but we have this meritocratic system, and we do things, and we have this mentoring process, and all of these other ways in which we do this well, there was a misstep. And we all have missteps.

And if there were a company or a place in the world where these missteps weren’t happening, we’d be seeing a mass exodus to that place. It doesn’t exist. So my first response would rather than look for what you can use or what argument you could use to defend against, just to name the misstep, acknowledge. Oftentimes, for people to hear that a company understands why what happened was problematic is the first step.

And then you’ve got to think about what you’re going to do. And so, if you think you have a system of meritocracy set up in your company, you might say we think we have this system. But you know what? This has reminded us that we need to be reflecting more deeply or we need to circle back with those who are most underrepresented in our company and ask them how it’s working for them, or how it’s not or how people perceive that it’s being used to perpetuate bias.

So I always suggest the approach of being reflective and humble rather than defensive because that doesn’t really get us anywhere or doesn’t get us through the conflict.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: And it also sounds a little bit that just saying we’re color blind is not the answer.

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: Uh, no. And there’s plenty of research to support that. So this idea that we are colorblind in a number of studies, like as you mentioned, shows that we actually find that it increases our bias. So to claim that we have a system that fails to take into account race or other sorts of types of difference that we know psychologically we take into account is false.

And so that whole idea that I don’t have a prejudice in my body? We all do. And so let’s be reflective and create the space and awareness to have more choice in how that affects our thinking rather than assume that we’ve taken it out of the equation.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So I wanted to ask you about millennials because I know you’ve done some research on this younger population. But also there was a study that came out last year from Deloitte and the Billie Jean King Leadership Initiative that got some attention at the time it came out.

They found that millennials have different ideas about diversity and inclusion, and one of their findings was that millennials really seem to have a definition of diversity that’s about cognitive diversity and more about of your background, and experiences and thinking styles then about demographic factors.

And this sort of created some debate of our millennials naive? Is this good, is this bad? Does this mean that we’ll see a backsliding in diversity efforts? Does it mean that millennials are more likely to promote initiatives?

And I’m just wondering when you think about this new generation that’s moving into leadership positions now, do you think that they see things differently than their parents did?

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: I do, but I think that it’s important to look at them in historical context. So there are two pieces of this that come to mind. One is that the fact that they see these different types of diversity, maybe in a less demographic way and more of a complex way and personality way than historically we have, can be a benefit. Because what it can push them and others around them to consider is within group variation, which is important.

We don’t want to do diversity inclusion equity work in a way that assumes that all black people think like X and all Asian folks think like Y. We want to acknowledge that within group variability. And so what they are citing are those moderators and mediators, those variables that influence when, for whom and why those demographic variables might matter. So it’s usually an interaction between personality, and cognitive style and your experience as a person of color that might influence how you experience a workplace.

So that’s the positive side, or what I think can be an added benefit to this work. The cautionary piece I think– or maybe it’s more just information, to put it in context– is that the young people today were raised squarely in this colorblind rhetoric. Their whole life was seeped in that. There is a way in which many of them were told and saw in their schools that maybe weren’t as segregated as they were historically– and if not segregated, there wasn’t as much hoopla around that– so there’s these historical dynamics that they have not experienced because of race.

And so it’s been interesting to me with the recent protests and demands around police violence and racial equity hearing some of the young people who are understanding systems of privilege and the history of race dynamics in a way that they were never taught. So unless their parents taught them, they never really learned, if that makes sense. So if we put them in historical context, I think these young people are very different than their parents were because their parents maybe either lived or heard from their parents about racial strife and understanding the inequities.

Like I even think about I didn’t experience it in the way that my parents did. But you have folks who lived in the 60’s, and then there are some states– like for example, Missouri– we didn’t formally desegregate our schools until 1981.

We think Brown v. Board, 1954. There was a battle going on in the state of Missouri about how that will happen. Missouri’s not alone, my point being you could be pretty young in Missouri and have experienced some of those dynamics, and yet you might have a child who you choose to live in a certain place and their experience is void of that. Does that make sense?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That makes a lot of sense. Yeah.

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: So I think we have to put them in historical context.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That’s really interesting. OK. So I could actually now just go down a rabbit hole on millennials, but I will pull back because we’re almost out of time. And I guess this whole time we’ve, for the most part, been focusing what leaders can do, what managers can do. I want to ask you at least one question about what individuals can do as people. I think if you have a manager who’s trying in probably a slightly awkward or fumbling way to improve on these issues, how can you react to managers who might have good intentions but maybe not exactly saying the right thing or even always using the right terms?

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: Yeah. It’s a tough question because it depends, right? It depends on your prior relationship with that person, on the stakes of what it is the misstep that they’ve made, and what it is that might come of them getting defensive, and what sort of retaliation you might experience. So there are so many variables, let me just preface anything I say with that.

Then it’s hard to give an answer for that, but there are a few things that I can think of. So one of them is if it’s to the point where you cannot have a conversation with this person for whatever reason, then you might want to think about finding some resources and going through HR to have them funnel those resources to that person. And or you might want to think about how to take your complaint to HR, not just about that person, but that there is a climate or culture in the company where these things are happening and I don’t feel like I can speak up. And I think HR, from my experience, folks in HR are sensitive to that.

For example, I worked with a company and they had some issues around gender and sexual harassment. And as it came out, they found out that other people knew but they were scared to tell. They felt like they were tattling on someone and they didn’t want to get that person in trouble. And so they had to ask themselves not only about this person, and what happened and why it happened, but they also had to ask themselves what sort of culture or climate are we creating that it’s hard for people to speak up and say hey, I saw this. It didn’t actually affect me but this happened or to be willing to say this affected me and impacted me.

So I guess I would say that there’s a way in which you might point not directly to that person, but more raise some questions or concerns around culture and climate that HR typically is invested in addressing. And then also, if it’s someone that you have a relationship with and you feel like you can say something, I often try humor. Somebody will say something to me and I might say, oh, that’s not funny but moving on. Or something that just you acknowledge what they said is problematic, but you’re also not calling them out in a way like wagging your finger at them and saying that they’re in trouble or that they’re a bad person.

So I would, on a long spectrum, think about in the moment what can you say. Funny, not funny. What can you do to call attention to it but not call them out in a way that’s too embarrassing, and then they might follow up with you.

Two, if it’s somebody that you don’t have a great relationship with but you know someone who does, maybe you send a few articles their way. And one of them that comes to mind around race is immigration. Some people feel that there are some lines in terms of what we talk about and what we don’t, but oftentimes when it comes to immigration, depending on where you are, people feel pretty free to share their opinions, and the term illegal is often used.

And there was a campaign by an organization called Color Alliance to say that people are not illegal. Like you can talk about immigration, we could talk about the dynamics, but people themselves are illegal. And so if somebody were to make some comment that offended you, you could maybe send them some information or resources about that campaign.

So you could target material to them and say, hey, I just wanted you to have this as another way of seeing things. I didn’t want to call you out in the moment, but I thought you might benefit from hearing from folks who would prefer you use different language. And I’m one of those people so I wanted to share this with you because we can’t know everything. It’s about the way to engage them that’s not direct, it’s not in the moment, but could provide them some information.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yeah. That’s an interesting idea, following up later with something. I know one comment that I have gotten and I know other people have gotten is the comment, oh, we would love for you to either work for us or do something with us because we’re really trying to get more women or we’re really trying to have more of a diverse array of people working with us. And it’s like you should want me to work for you because I’m really good at what I do.

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: Really good at what I do. Yeah, and that is something that, again, you could take the approach of in the moment and say, oh, well, yes, I’m glad you see that I’m a woman.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: [LAUGHS].

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: I would hope you would want me because I’m really good at what I do. I would be one to take that direct approach. Others, it might not work for them.

And so then there are ways in which people have talked about that. That you want people to see the different social identities that they hold, but we shouldn’t reduce folks to solely that. And I think that’s why some people say, A, let’s just not talk about it or B, let’s be blind to it. Because it’s complex, it’s kind of messy.

So you can see how and maybe have empathy for somebody who gets that it’s important, might mess up and say, we want you because you represent this demographic and not fully see how that’s offensive.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Right. How that might get under your skin a little bit. You’re like, well, yeah. Thanks but meh.

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: Yeah, yeah. So there, I would say, a few ways. That was a direct way, an indirect, later sort of way, and a take it through the higher powers and think more broadly either about that person or the culture. But it really depends on so many things, so many factors.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Kira, you are right that these are messy issues sometimes to talk about. But I really do appreciate you coming on the show to talk about them with us today.

KIRA HUDSON BANKS: Well, thanks for having me. I really enjoyed it

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That was Kira Hudson Banks. She’s a professor at St. Louis University. For more, go to HBR.org.