In our previous discussion, we talked about discrimination, bias, and other behaviors that none of us want in our organizations. We now understand that discrimination and bias can be explicit or intended, or implicit and unintended, but nevertheless resulting in a harmful consequence. If not managed, these behaviors can infect your organization's processes and lead to what is often referred to as systemic discrimination. Now, when I say that, I'm not talking about some political weapon aimed at undermining your organization or the policies that govern it. By the way, that's zero sum game thinking or thinking that if we explore how power is distributed, we somehow delve into chaos or a system that will be unfair to persons who legitimately achieve power or append the path of power by some who feel they deserve it. My interests in this topic is the E in DE&I. Being an equitable organization means that we should look for policies or practices that create disadvantages for any group, but especially for the traditionally marginalized because they are often the ones that are denied equal opportunity. When we think about systemic or institutional discrimination, we are focusing on the ways in which an interconnected set of policies or practices create disadvantage and disparity for some groups on the team, but not others. For a systemic issue of discrimination to exist, know that two essential elements are required. Bias and organizational power to support the bias. Since we know that bias is thinking and organization can influence but cannot control, examining the concept of power is critical. Let's explore power and start with something that we can all agree with. There is no question. All organizations will have individuals in inherently unequal positions of power. Executives will manage supervisors and supervisors will manage technicians and so on and so forth. As such, we often message to our employees how those relationships should be managed. Like here are the ways employees should and should not interact with each other. Managers shouldn't supervise family members or date their subordinates or engage in activities that present a conflict of interest or do anything considered to be an abuse of power. We do this because we know that any relationship where there's a power dynamic, there's potential. If that relationship is not managed well, it could lead to a serious breach of trust. I think we all agree that power, the ability to decide what is best for others, like the power to decide who will have access to resources, needs to be assessed and monitored. For the most part, the power to decide is designated by the organization. Certain positions within it have power. But what about the power that is given to someone at birth, the power assigned to them through no effort of their own. For instance, compare the power that a citizen has versus the power of a non-citizen or the power a person has in the US when they speak English or are cisgendered, neurotypical, able bodied, own property, educated, or male, or slim and attractive, or rich, or a part of the majority group. What power do you have to decide what is best for others? Shouldn't this power be assessed as well? Shouldn't your organization know how all forms of power contribute to the larger system? Put it this way. If you agree that managers should not breach the trust or exploit their employees by abusing their official power, the same could be said for other forms of power that one may have. Another form of power is privilege. In it's simplest definition, a privilege is a special right, entitlement, or advantage that most people don't have. But for those that do, they can use it for their own benefit. For instance, I grew up in the Los Angeles area, but before I moved there, my father was in the military. Though I didn't see it as a benefit or a positive at the time, we were able to move around the world before we settled in LA. While my experiences in LA made me who I am today, whenever my friends and I experienced or questioned the bad things that we were going through, my friends who didn't have the luxury of traveling around the world would say things like, "There's nothing we can do. Every place is like LA. Every place is like where we lived." While I understood what they meant, I also knew that LA may be similar to a lot of places, but not every place was like LA. Not every place was like where we lived. As I grew older, I realized that I had an advantage, a privilege, and that I knew something that gave me perspective that they didn't have. I had a privileged in that I knew things could be different. Last point and then we'll wrap this up. This work is exhausting. As a shortcut, some people adopt a strategy called color blindness. When they do that, they claim that they do not see identity, just people. Color blindness reflects an ideal where skin color or identity is insignificant. Often time, color blindness is used as a way to mitigate privilege and avoid considering how it confers a special advantage for some at the detriment of others. Because all forms of diversity are a fundamental part of our identities, an inclusive organization should always acknowledge and appreciate those identities. To do otherwise would lead to a one size fits all management style, form of cultural incompetence. Moreover, color blindness makes it virtually impossible to address organizational inequality and inequity. It's like saying, "Let's wipe the slate clean and start the race over again but leave in place the structure that led to the discrimination in the first place." Instead, as a part of your task to address the DE&I issues in your workplace, locate how power is distributed in your organization and connect that distribution to the parts of the structure that are leading to unequal, inequitable or disparate results. You can do this by mapping out how decisions are made. What is the hiring process? Who makes selection decisions? Who has power and who was left out? When you investigate, don't just identify the official designees of power, but the persons or groups whose ideas get implemented. The folks behind the scenes that actually control resources and the ones who have the attention of your official power players. Once you find out where power is being held and how decisions are being made, you need to reach out and embed yourself in these networks. Spend time with them, understand their processes, and make them aware of any disparities that have resulted from their decisions. Point out any blind spots and introduce systems of accountability that remove barriers to inclusion instead of erect them. Identify the powerful and the powerless alike, and connect them so that they can discover effective ways to share decision-making, i.e. become more inclusive. One final point, when you engage in these conversations about power and privilege, the dialogue tends to devolve into an us versus them, has versus the have-not grievance session. From the start, be clear that the problem is the inequity, not each other. Create a safe place so that people can be candid with one another. So that enough trust and good faith can be established to remove barriers. Spend some time in the past for contexts, but quickly move the conversation along to the future. That's how you create a more equitable workplace for all identities. If you didn't know, now you know. Take care.
