Mission: Impact podcast & blog
Build a better world without becoming a martyr to your nonprofit cause
Listen on:
In episode 103 of Mission: Impact, Carol Hamilton, Tip Fallon, and Stephen Graves explore the nuances of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), exploring the differences between inclusive and equitable leadership. The conversation highlights the importance of not only representation but also the behavior and mindset of individuals within organizations, emphasizing the need for fairness and addressing power imbalances. This episode provides valuable insights for nonprofit leaders seeking to cultivate more equitable and inclusive organizations, emphasizing the importance of self-reflection, systemic change, and embracing humanity in leadership. Episode highlights: Defining DEI [00:8:08]
[00:08:50]
[00:13:44]
- Concrete examples to create more equitable hiring practices. - Piloting inclusive structures and the importance of leaders doing their own self-work to understand their privilege and responsibility. 00:28:30 - Hippy Dippy or Innovation - The resistance to DEI initiatives and the perception of these efforts as "soft" or "extra." - The financial implications of not addressing DEI, including lost productivity and customer base. - Questioning the fundamental purpose of organizations and the costs of maintaining exploitative practices. 00:38:30 - Embracing Humanity in Leadership - The cultural barriers to embracing emotions and humanity in the workplace. - The need for leaders to create psychologically safe environments and to see employees as whole human beings. Guest Bios: Tip Fallon partners with leaders and teams to create effective and equitable organizations. He became interested in leadership and creating inclusive cultures at a young age, growing up in an area that had substantive racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity, and as the son of an immigrant in a multiracial family. Coming from a predominantly working class neighborhood, he also saw the impact any leader can have at all levels of society and particularly the effects leaders have on those who are most marginalized. These life experiences inform his philosophy that good leadership is equitable leadership. Tip has worked with dozens of organizations ranging from community based nonprofits to organizations with international reach including the Federal Aviation Administration, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and The Nature Conservancy. He has taught as an adjunct faculty member for ten years in Organization Development and DEI programs at American University and Georgetown University. He holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering (B.S.), Organization Development (M.S.), and is a Certified Professional Diversity Coach (CPDC). _____________________________________________ Stephen Graves Born in Greenwood, South Carolina to a pair of faith-driven educators, the values of service and lifelong learning were instilled in Stephen Graves from an early age. These values, coupled with spiritual lessons from an upbringing in the Black Baptist church, shaped Stephen’s social consciousness for understanding the inherent worth every person has in life and addressing the historical and present injustices inhibiting people from fully realizing their worth. With this awareness, Stephen pursued a mission-driven path, ensuring people have a sense of respect, dignity, and belonging to live and thrive in a multicultural world. For over a decade, Stephen has consulted and advised leaders and organizations of all sizes and sectors on focus areas such as People & Culture, Leadership & Professional Development, Language Access, Health Equity, and Patient Advocacy. Stephen earned his Master in Health Administration from the Medical University of South Carolina. He holds an Executive Certificate in Diversity, Equity & Inclusion from Georgetown University. Important Links and Resources: 🔗 Tip Fallon 🔗 Stephen Graves 🔗 All In Consulting Co. More Women work at Nonprofits so Why do Men end up Leading Them https://hbr.org/2024/04/more-women-work-in-nonprofits-so-why-do-men-end-up-leading-them Jay Z - Feeling It: Feelin' It Related Episodes: Episode 62: Highlights of healthy nonprofit organizational cultures, part 1 Episode 63: Highlights of healthy nonprofit organizational cultures, part 2 Episode 86: Building your cultural competence Episode 92: Three stages of nonprofit leadership Episode 97: The business imperative of facing climate change Episode 102: The Nonprofit board’s duty of foresight Click "Read More" for a transcript of the interview. Carol: welcome Tip, welcome Tip and Steven back to mission impact. Both of you have been on it at different times. So it's great to have you back on the podcast. And Just for context all three of us work together through all in consulting and all in consulting does, organizational effectiveness, work and development, work, leadership, development, work, all from an equity lens. And so we thought we could come together and have a conversation. What I've termed some of my learning out loud episodes where we, where we explore a topic. We may not have all of them. Well, I can't say that I ever have the definitive answers, but I always like to start with motivating you to do the work that you do?
What, what would you describe as your why? And since you've each been on and probably answered this question before, there's probably new things that have emerged since then, but just go ahead. If Stephen, if you'd like to go ahead first, Stephen: Thanks for having me again, Carol. I guess to answer and start out with the why for me, it always goes back to, I think, a divine calling. As I may have shared in previous episodes and I've not shared throughout my career, I'm a person of faith. So I believe that there's a higher calling and purpose to the work that we're doing and the lives, hearts, and minds that we have, the opportunity to impact. On a day to day basis or day to day daily interaction. So that's really in a nutshell of my, why I was raised in the black Baptist church down in South Carolina and raised by born and raised by two educators. So they instilled values in me around pouring into others and living a life of service. So that for me is why I continue to do the work that I do to serve others, to serve my community. Institutions. And by doing that, when you're blessing somebody else in turn, it becomes a blessing to yourself. So that's my reason. Carol: no, thank you. And Tip, how about for you? Tip: Yeah, some of my why is probably informed by a combination of just my lived experience growing up. So I grew up in a multicultural, multiracial both neighborhood, but also a family. My mom's from the Isan region of Thailand. So I was as young as I think four or five. It's my first trip to Thailand there. So just from a really young age, just. observing just the vast disparities in what types of lives people lead. Not only there, but growing up in a really, really economically diverse part of the United States in Prince George's County. And also in like a working class majority black and brown neighborhood but also going to some schools that were like majority white and middle class, at least. So for me, just from a very young age, I'm just trying to reconcile in some degree, like the, the randomness. of life outcomes that we experience just based on, to some degree, like, birth lottery and then just trying to grapple with how much of these inequities are man made things and if, we can make them inequitable, how can we make them more equitable as well, I'd say is some of my why, and then I'd also credit, if you will, my parents both just, Very engaged in different ways in their respective communities politically personally just growing up in that context of always like questioning things as well. So it's a little bit of my why. Carol: Yeah, I definitely can resonate with a lot of that. Although I have to admit that I am on the other side, probably on the privileged side of a lot of those boundaries. And, but growing up overseas I at least could see that there are many ways of doing things that not everybody does things the same way. And that, that there isn't, even though. Cultures will put a lot of moral judgment into those ways of doing things. They're pretty arbitrary and, and yeah, I remember going to a workshop where I think, and this was at that time a revelation for me, but the, the whole notion that somebody created all of this, we, we've created all these systems, these are made by people and they can be, they can be We can, we can create a new, a new system. We can create a new way of thinking about how to live together and how to be together and how to see each other. So I appreciate all of that. So one of the things that's been coming up in our work is, Really, and I think it's very salient right now, but just how diversity, equity, and inclusion is perceived, perhaps like what it means to be an anti racist or racist organization. What do people define as different buzzwords, maybe inclusive leadership or equitable leadership? I'm curious for both of you, how do you see the, what those, what those terms mean and, and how they might differ? Tip: Stevie G, you go first. Stephen: I think for me, the terms when it comes to DEI, I know that it's been vilified, I guess, in some circles and demonized. But for me, it's always been synonymous with Innovation with employee experience and consumer experience depending on the sector that you're a part of whatever you're in user experiences. So I come from a healthcare background. So we would. You know, make DEI synonymous a lot of times with patient centeredness and patient experience. It's synonymous with professional development, strong leadership, characteristics, traits and skills and ability. So that's to me when I think about what DEI is at the core, it's hitting on all of those themes. As well as community and impacting systems that operate in more fair and just ways. When I think about parsing out the differences between inclusive leadership and equity based or equity centered leadership. I think the key difference to me is fairness, and you can include people in a group. But that just, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be treating them fairly, right? You can include more people who have diverse ways of being in the world, ways of thinking, visible diversity, as well as non apparent diversity, but they can still be treated poorly and unfairly, whereas equity centered and equity driven leadership is really truly around fairness, right? The distribution of the fair distribution of resources. Knowledge power address and addressing power imbalances. Right. And so for me, when I think about equity centered leadership and inclusive leadership, I think there's space and room for both, but there are distinctions when we think about what the end game and end goal Carol: Tip, what would you add? Tip: I mean, yeah, all that resonates for me. What I'd add in terms of, Distinction, perhaps I guess just speaking from the eye of personal experiences. I feel like equity is More challenging in a way for me. I feel like Including is one thing right? Let's create more, you know We know a bunch of strategies for recruitment for developing pipelines for mentorship program, you know creating, you know We know the talk and even mechanisms to create more inclusion even legislatively right to create Inclusion through policy and stuff Where I feel like equity gets hard is to Stevie's point is looking at the power piece and back to the privilege piece. I think for me, it feels harder because it requires taking a look at where am I complicit, like, where, like, where am I actually benefiting from these systems and perpetuating inequities and what am I willing to sacrifice to give up to put on the line, if you will to rectify some of these systems. Yeah, one other like distinction metaphorically and literally and literally, perhaps for consideration is because we can have really diverse systems, organizations, businesses, governments, whatever, that can still be really harmful to those on the margins. Right? So we think about to a degree, it's sort of like what's the, like, is the point just representational difference if an institution's not, I don't want to say ethos, but if at heart, the institution is still doing a lot of harm to the community. So I think there's, that's where some of that, like, moral even, right? To some of Stevie's points, spiritual lives, I think, are more at stake when we talk about equity. It's like, why are we really doing this work as well? Pause there. Carol: Yeah, I recently saw a research study that showed that in the nonprofit sector which I focus on a lot it's female dominated. So, and yet when we talk about representation they found that white men in particular, had what they called a glass escalator to accelerate them to the top of organizations. even though in that case there, they were a minority. If you, if you look at the total and composition of the whole workforce in the sector and yet, the larger, The organization, the, the, the more likely that they're going to be in leadership. So there is a lot to do around representation and yet it's not a, it's not a complete solution. Tip: I mean, I'd say that begs the question, right? So is it really female dominated? Carol: Well, right. I mean, in terms of numbers, it is. And Tip: Yeah. Carol: That identity that is, so favored and, and, and I think it's probably unconscious. You know, it's, it's, we've learned it, we've internalized it and so then it gets played out. But across the sector that's where the numbers are. Stephen: I think something else that comes up for me is you have the representation piece, but then you can still have people behaving in ways that reinforce. The dominant group norms or dominant group traits. So obviously in some circles we refer to that as. White supremacy culture traits, right. And what I have witnessed and lived through and we, we've seen it whether it's personally, professionally, I think we all see that play out. Right. So, in the black community, sometimes we say all skin folk ain't Kinfolk. And that just means that sometimes you can behave in ways that just are still detrimental to, to the groups that you're a part of, and the groups that you culturally identify with. So I think that's something else that comes up in terms of and that has again, crossover between inclusive and equitable or equity based centered leadership and the importance of. Being mindful, not only to who's at the table, but how are folks behaving and operating and thinking and what are the conversations? What's the substance of the conversation when they are at that table? Tip: Yeah, there were a couple of things that were coming up for me too, like that, that language, right? Yeah, we often use male dominated fields, women or women dominated fields as shorthand for demographic statistics, right? But for me, like when we say dominated, like for me, that's a power term, right? And I mean, I know some of us have ties and like being to different countries too. And one of the trips that was eye opening for me was going to South Africa, working with people who were jailed and so forth during the revolution and anti apartheid movements there. And I mean, they're right, like just such a case of, you do not have to be the to hold the power. Over the majority population or group there. The one thing that feels sticky is the right word, right? But is this piece of representation? And I want to add in here to at least provide balance because one risk I see is folks who are DEI, if you will, if we're really wanting to maintain Historical power dynamics, particularly in the United States. We'll weaponize this a little bit and be like, Hey, this isn't, we can't do representation, right? Sometimes I twist, if you will, some of these words of saying, Hey Tip, like you're the one who said that it's not just about representation. We have to have diversity of thought and, progressive whatever values or whatever, that's at play here too. And so for me, I just want to say, it's not that simple. Right. That my orientation is if we end up with all white men. You know, head upper middle class leading everything who all pledged to the most progressive liberal values to me. I'm like, that doesn't feel right either. So I think that's where the complexity is to, yeah, to really look at what values were centering and who were centering in this work. So I guess I'm curious for y'all too, in terms of representation I don't know, in this work, do you. Yeah, just curious like what comes up. Do you see it as a major goal in organizations or in the field at large? Do you see it as a hindrance to the work or like a false goal if you will? Carol: Well, I, for me, I think I think it is what you're saying, as it, as a both and of power structures have been dominated literally by, one identity of all the, all the, all the factors that you just named. And. It means that there's a lot of, one way of thinking about things and one perspective that's represented. And so there's a lot of value for an organization to bring. diversity, literally of lived experience into the organization so that lots of different things that if you're only coming at it from one identity and one, that, that you're just not going to see things are not going to be apparent to you. They're not part of your experience. And so there's that richness. And I think it's also not a panacea, it's not the only goal. It's, it's the other things that you were talking about, Stephen, of addressing those power dynamics and how are those, how are resources being used? So those are some of the things that come to mind for me. Stephen: And yeah, Tip I would add to that. I think a lot of times organizations, I don't think it's a false goal, but I think it is a lower hurdle because it's easy to attach a number to representation. Whereas, process goals or process outcomes can be oftentimes a little bit. Trickier to measure and see the impact of. So I think that's why some. Orgs and leaders may defer to just going back to representation and those numbers and those metrics are the key indicators when the one indicator, but not obviously maybe the most important one. Carol: Right. You could have all those folks in the room, but if they don't feel comfortable and safe, to share their perspectives, you're losing that, whether they're sitting there or not. So what are some ways that you could see or you've seen leaders embodying that equitable leadership framework or frame? Stephen: Well, one example that comes to mind is thinking about policies and ways that you can affect change or amend policies. So for example, when a leader says, Hey, we're going to remove. Educational requirements from job descriptions. That's 1 that just came up often that I've seen. And that is an example of. You're not only going to include a larger one. Interview pool, but you're making it fair for people who. Maybe they don't have a bachelor's degree, but they have 10 years worth of lived experiences that equates to probably a master's degree. Right? So I think that's just 1 example of. A way to be equitable when we're thinking of equity centered leadership as opposed to other forms of leadership. That's 1 example that comes to mind. Yeah, 1 to Carol: How about for you to have examples? Tip: Yeah, one thing that I bring in to connect the dot to that last piece too about hierarchy, right? And like the limitations of hierarchy, right? So even as we have these conversations, and I think there's this underlying assumption when we do organization development work that the hierarchy, it's this question, right? Like, how do we get more diversity at different levels at higher levels of the hierarchy? I think one thing equity centered leaders do is also question the need for that much hierarchy and, Scarcity of space to begin with, right? So we have. I know we work with some leaders who try to pilot more inclusive, democratic, liberating structures to diversify the decision making process, bringing people in really like in a sense, like relinquishing some control in their organizations. So that's one thing that I see folks do is really like, just look at that decision making structures and and like the group structures and organizations say, like, do we need this much scarcity of people at the very top or who have access to certain information or process decision making power. and another thing that I think is really important is particularly for leaders who have a lot of dominant group identities. It's just doing their self work. So I know there's, again, leaders that we engage with in, in this area who do that self questioning of as a, know, middle aged white man, woman, whatever, like, like, what is my responsibility here to use my privilege here, but also like, how do I make space, appropriately for, While I'm in a top level leadership role and or setting up different types of succession plans and mentoring and and so forth in the organization as well. So those are a couple of things. Examples that come to mind. Curious for you, Carol. Anything? Stephen: elaborate on that point Tip. I think another example, and this is tied to what you were saying. I've seen I've had friends and colleagues who have experimented with. This idea of, like, a co director model, right? So typically you might see folks hire a senior director there. In their org charter Just a director in general, but it's oftentimes it could be useful to have a co director model where two or more people are sharing some of those roles and again, it is a way to knock out some of the historic power structures or hierarchy that was in place. So that's it. Something else that comes to mind. And then I think to add on to something else that Tip said in terms of that idea of self reflection, but also the ability to have self accountability and to be responsible and own up to times that you didn't get it right. I can't tell y'all the number of individuals that I've seen, both, professionally, personally. Who for whatever reason, whether it's ego, whether it's the fear of being judged a certain way, they just don't have as much capacity as possible in the role that they occupy to be accountable for their decisions. Both, positive or negative, have an impact on their teams. Carol: Yeah, and I always really appreciate it when we are working with someone who is open to feedback and they may, for a minute, get defensive about whatever that might be. And of course using the term feedback as, as, assuming that there might be something that they might need to be called in about. Of course, feedback can be positive as well but people are usually associated with that. But then just, being ready to listen and and take it in and think about, okay, well, what I might do differently in the future. And, that certainly is a characteristic that I think is known, really valuable and it's so interesting. You're talking, we, we talk a lot in this arena around sharing leadership and sharing power. And I have a podcast episode that'll be coming out actually. By the time this one comes out, it will have come out, but this was a couple of people who were talking about being resilient in the face of climate change, and they also talked about shared leadership. And the point because you don't have a single point of failure. You don't have so much invested in one person who can, quickly make decisions or, or whatever it might be, you have lots of people who are ready to step up, step in and, and so it was so interesting to see, kind of, from a very different frame of reference, same things that we're talking about, about, to me that are all about, like, making all of these things more human that, that, that also showed up there. And, I lost my train of thought. Tip: Yeah, I was gonna say that, that resonates. It's like a theme that comes up for me is like how much unlearning there is. that we need to do in this process, right? It's for myself, like, 20 years of professional experience in these systems and even those of us at the tops, it's like we've got there by internalizing how to survive in these systems. So I mean, yeah, I think it's really hard. I think to your point, one thing that's true for me is, looking outside of the traditional, corporate, if you will, type entities for how to be more human centered. Equity centered systems thrive. So looking at community organizing, for instance, climate change, like, I mean really a lot of like, how do social movements thrive when there's not that much hierarchy? You look at a black lives matter movements, organizational structure for different, for instance, right. Very, very different than how to advance DEI work within a large corporation. But like, what are some of those principles that we can learn from and then unlearn some of our work in here too. Carol: it's easy for folks to say that's not possible to share leadership to do all these things because, there's such urgency and obviously one of the, the Maybe not obviously, but one of the characteristics of our dominant culture is this constant sense of urgency and always being behind and, productivity as your, as your coin of the realm and, and worth as a human. All of those things that play into it being very difficult to actually take the time to slow down. And include more people in a conversation in a decision. And so it can feel like all of these things can feel difficult because of those other either internally created pressures or that, that seem like they're, they're being pushed from the outside. Stephen: As we were listening. Yeah. And Carol, that makes total sense. In terms of slowing it down, I was thinking about the hierarchy piece. And for people who know me, they know I make a lot of hip hop references and I draw lyrics. And as we were listening, I was thinking about a lyric from, and I'm going to edit it obviously for our audience, but it's from a line from Jay Z from his first album. And he essentially says that if every person. And your click is rich. Your click is rugged. Nobody will fall because everyone will be each other's crutches. So essentially what he's alluding to is if you have strong people in your click or in your team. And, he uses the word rugged, but he's really talking, in a positive way. If everybody's strong, then nobody's going to fall and nobody in the organization is going to fall because everybody can lean on one another. I think that ties to Carol, what your point was earlier. Around that point of failure, right? Because you have so many crutches together metaphorically that it creates a found, a great foundation that, there's no room for very little room for failure. So that's my hip hop reference, maybe one of probably a few others that I might make in this episode. So. Tip: Yeah, I think, I mean, even the way that we started this conversation, one thing that I think is really important is just starting with the why and getting really clear on that. Why? Right. So for leaders for But I'd say also for boards to, when appropriate, it's like really getting clear on, I'd say like the personal why, but I think there has to be some consensus on like the institutional or organizational why as well. I mean, especially, as we record this podcast, I mean, we're looking at the student organizing and uprisings and stuff on college campuses in the United States and we're really seeing higher ed institutions really seeing their values and their whys come into tension and conflict. And we're like, we espouse one thing of being here to serve and educate the student and, advanced society and stuff. And then it's like, well, what are all our, our other agendas here? Right. And who else are we beholden to? So I think to do this, like deep work and ask people to, to be vulnerable, to make sacrifices, but also to take accountability. I think it requires a strong why, right? So it's like, I think about what are those conditions for psychological safety, right? For a leader or anybody just to own their stuff. So I think that's another piece of our dominant, really high performative and extractive culture. It's like your worth is your performative excellence, and you're not here to learn, right? You're not here to develop like you're here to perform. And so I think there needs to be some more just spacious and humanistic orientation to that, too to really see ourselves as like people and leaders in progress to and not, perfect D. I. Leaders or people with privilege or from marginalized identities But how do we show up to learn and find a shared why? Which seems hard right now at different levels. But I think that's, I think that's an important query for us. Carol: Yeah, that's why I particularly really enjoy these learning out loud episodes where we do get to explore a topic and not necessarily go into it with, okay, here are my 5 talking points that I want to make sure that we cover. But 1 of the other things that comes up in, in the work that we do is the feeling that, it's, it's extra or it's a soft or, you know it may be a little hippie dippy. But I, I love the fact that you started Steven with the, with the idea that actually it's about innovation. It's about, really centering the people that you're trying to serve as an organization. For me, it's just for all of us to be more human, seeing each other and, and, Supporting in whatever way we can, a world where everyone can really thrive. So I'm curious about some of those pieces too. Stephen: Yeah, I mean, that's something that I'm always trying to combat with leaders and with members of dominant groups who think that is hippie or that we're singing along songs and holding hands with each other. I mean, all of that is great and there's a warmth to that in terms of building camaraderie, but it also obviously hits on. Important outcomes and metrics, and it is not only about generating revenue for an organization that may be in the for profit business, but it's also about ways not to lose money. And one way to lose money is having disgruntled employees who. Are pissed off going to and from work. Right. So it's just fiscally irresponsible. Even if you don't necessarily care even you be like a bad human being, if you don't care about people's humanity if you are driven by the money you're going to, over time, you're going to lose more money than you make if you don't have practices in place that shows that you care about the people who. You're working with. So to, in a nutshell, that's what I would say to them, for lack of a better word, maybe the non-believers or people who haven't. Maybe I drank the juice as far as DEI and what it's all about. It's just fiscally irresponsible and it's a good way to lose money. If you're not centering this work, Carol: Tip, how about for you? Tip: Yeah, I guess there's one of those where I have more questions or queries than answers. One of the questions that comes up for me is like, what is our. Individual or shared belief about the purpose of a business or an organization or a university? Is it to make money at all costs and provide max value to investors and stuff and some of the like one argument I guess that I see is To balance that out stevie is like actually you can be very exploitative as possible as long as you're getting away with it, right? If the employees don't have a better game in town, if you will, you know their They're at your liking at the whims of your organization. And while I think we've made a lot of progress as a country and as a nation on these fronts I mean, I still like it, we still see it right. Like really big dominant, like pseudo monopoly or duopoly having organizations can get away with this type of behavior. And even like those that have DEI programs and stuff, they can invest in it a tiny bit, do some of that, DEI washing, if you will, of their work. So for, yeah, for me, it goes back to the, why there's one thing I'd add to Stevie's point is there's loss of institutional knowledge, loss of productivity and all that stuff, but you also lose customers. I mean, you can pick many, many corporations nowadays who take a stand on one side or another of equity inclusion. You take a Nike or a Tesla, as a couple examples and you see the market react. A lot of people will flock or push away from some of these large corporations. And I think that's pretty true across sectors to maybe not as public. But I think that's true too, is yeah, is the yeah. The politics like winds and climates and stuff, they do change and evolve over time. So for top level leaders to, to really be conscientious about like, yeah, where are my values here? And am I okay with the costs of ignoring the needs of my staff, employees, volunteers, whatever, or those of the community? Yeah, there's, there's a lot of costs and it's like, yeah, what am I willing, how much am I willing to pay for, whatever. my comfort, right? Of course, this is what I grew up with. This is what I'm comfortable with and here's where I'm going to stand. And yeah, and maybe you have the power in your system to withhold those wins against you. Maybe you don't. Carol: Yeah, I think it's also, a lot around how we're socialized that in us culture dominated by white supremacy culture that, and, and also very, Male dominated a masculine like, well, as defined in our culture of like not feeling feelings, not doing that touchy feely stuff, that that is seen as feminine. And I feel like we all lose out when we aren't able to be in touch with each other. You know, who we are internally, what our bodies are telling us, all of those things that, that are, that our culture very much tries to cut us off from. And so, it can be a lot of work. Because of that cultural experience and learning, it can feel uncomfortable for folks to be asked to show up in a different way. But for me, I would hope that at least for me, as I've come to, accept that I have feelings, even though I was not taught that growing up, that it's actually a richer way to live. Sure. Tip: Yeah. I mean those, and I mean for me, and some of this is like self selection of who our clients are. Right. So I think for us, like these are, these are more few and far between, but. Yeah, when folks have that mindset of like, no, this is the workplace, you check your emotions and biological needs at the door sometimes, right? And D. I. Is part of Kumbaya culture and sensitivity training and all that stuff is not real work, right? It's not real business work. Yeah, part of my internal, quip now is like, I don't know, yeah, maybe you could benefit from a hug, like from being seen for your complexity because I do see that, I don't know, typology, if you will show up to of if I have learned these survival skills would be hard, be rigid, suppress my emotions and the way that I treat myself to dehumanize myself gives me permission to dehumanize others. I'm suffering. I'm not getting my needs met. So you should be okay. Not getting your needs met in this organization. You should be lucky to be working here, right? This is a dog eat dog world. I'm giving you a job, right? This is to your point. I'm hearing that it is very limiting from my take a very limiting way to experience humanity. And I'd say on the counter side of that, for me, it's I think a big one of the big challenges in my work. is leading with empathy when I encounter folks in that position to see their humanity and finding that, know, like, where is that opportunity or her place of ripe intervention to invite the unlearning to invite a new behavior to invite vulnerability. Because some of these beliefs about ourselves, about the rules of what's appropriate go, like, deep is not even the right word. It is like it can be all permeating. Yeah, Carol: in, we've been talking about some for profit instances, but shows up very much in the sector as well. And I, especially I've seen the disconnect when the whole purpose of the organization is to serve and. And, and, and address a need, a human need that isn't being addressed societally. And yet internally, staff are having to squash their needs and not being able to take care of themselves while they're taking care of others. So being able to find some balance there and have allowed all of us to be humans in this is really, really important. So as we close out here on each episode, I ask each guest, what permission slip would they give nonprofit leaders or what would they invite them to consider to avoid being a martyr to the cause? And as they work towards cultivating a healthier, more equitable organizational culture, either a permission slip or an invitation for nonprofit leaders, either of you go ahead. Stephen: I'll go, I think I, people who have attended learning skill building sessions with me again, I'm gonna use another hip hop reference here. Paraphrase a lyric. But Common out of Chicago once said you should have the willingness to show the willingness to grow with the willingness to know what you don't know. So I would invite people to explore in their moments of self reflection as well as organizational reflection to show that willingness to grow as well as the humility and that accountability piece around being willing to admit when you don't know something. Maybe about a specific culture, a specific identity and lean into those moments and opportunities for growth. So I would invite leaders, staff, folks at all levels and in all types of organizations to be able to do that. Carol: Thank you. Tip: I'll paraphrase or piggyback from what you shared, Carol. I would offer permission to any leader or person in the nonprofit space to feel all of your feelings. And, if no one's told you that all of your feelings are valid, all of your feelings are valid. Carol: All right. Well, thank you so much. Thanks for coming on. It was a lot of fun. Tip: Thanks. Stephen: Thank you. Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
Archives
October 2024
Grace Social Sector Consulting, LLC, owns the copyright in and to all content in and transcripts of the Mission: Impact podcast, as well as the Mission: Impact blog with all rights reserved, including right of publicity.
|
Telephone301-857-9335
|
info[at]gracesocialsector.com
|
Grace Social Sector Consulting, LLC, owns the copyright in and to all content in, including transcripts and audio of the Mission: Impact podcast and all content on this website, with all rights reserved, including right of publicity.
|