Thanks, Kevan, I've been enjoying these! As per the quote about intent, a similar favorite of mine is-- "assume best intentions but own impact." It's a subtle difference and I was surprised the author didn't mention it.
It says-- "Telling people to ‘assume good intent’ is telling them that no matter how badly they hurt, they still need to smile and be nice so the person who hurt them won’t feel blamed." This is a large extrapolation that doesn't make sense. I didn't see concrete solutions from the author and was disappointed by that.
Many corporations view D&I as risk mitigation to not get sued, or as feel-good, look-how-progressive-we-are branding efforts. The ones doing D&I well recognize how diversity and inclusion boost bottom line and other relevant metrics. I'd love to see more in this realm from you :)
I love the quote you shared. "... own impact" adds so much to the idea of intent.
Would love to hear any interesting articles you come across. I have a lot to learn in this space and am happy to keep adding my latest learnings into these emails. Glad to hear you like it!
Sure! While this isn't an article per se, I think it's still relevant. One of my mentors at Google explained that culture is a set of behaviors deemed acceptable. When something bad happens, it is best addressed directly at that moment. Otherwise, if no one speaks up, whatever bad thing occurred is communicated as being acceptable, even if no one explicitly says "I agree."
How best to reply has nuance on a case by case basis, but this is also where "assume best intent" comes in. You could open with something like "what you said may be interpreted differently than you intended." This is especially important for errors in speech. If the reply is an ad hominem like "you're racist," for example, it immediately devolves the situation into an identity-based attack and defend about the person who said the thing, rather than a discussion about a behavior that has occurred. Calling out the person who said the phrase puts the attention on them, rather than on the behavior. The goal is to change behavior. This is where ownership of impact comes in. Not only regardless of why someone stepped on your foot, but regardless of who steps on your foot, the fact is that the foot was stepped on.
Even if someone is racist, they often won't admit it, especially if there's a negative repercussion for admitting--like demotion or firing at work. Racism isn't an innate behavior, as is true for many biases, they are learned. Just as they are learned, they can be unlearned. But, in order for learning to occur, teachers must appear. Great teachers welcome ignorance and provide wisdom, they don't blame the ignorant for their ignorance. Once we engage in shame/blame, the ability to learn and change behavior decreases significantly as the shame/blame often puts people into fight/flight which is terrible for learning anything.
Additionally, meeting things with inquiry allows us to uncover subconscious bias more effectively. It's a small shift that is incredibly powerful, as it facilitates shared dialogue rather than name-calling. The responsibility for calling out these instances doesn't fall on the person affronted. It is the responsibility of anyone who notices the situation. If there are power dynamics at play, those with more power can lend it, or lend privilege by speaking up in the way mentioned above.
This is a space I am keenly interested in. I have many resources to share but don't want to inundate you all at once. Perhaps we could chat in more depth if you're curious :)
Thanks, Kevan, I've been enjoying these! As per the quote about intent, a similar favorite of mine is-- "assume best intentions but own impact." It's a subtle difference and I was surprised the author didn't mention it.
It says-- "Telling people to ‘assume good intent’ is telling them that no matter how badly they hurt, they still need to smile and be nice so the person who hurt them won’t feel blamed." This is a large extrapolation that doesn't make sense. I didn't see concrete solutions from the author and was disappointed by that.
Many corporations view D&I as risk mitigation to not get sued, or as feel-good, look-how-progressive-we-are branding efforts. The ones doing D&I well recognize how diversity and inclusion boost bottom line and other relevant metrics. I'd love to see more in this realm from you :)
I love the quote you shared. "... own impact" adds so much to the idea of intent.
Would love to hear any interesting articles you come across. I have a lot to learn in this space and am happy to keep adding my latest learnings into these emails. Glad to hear you like it!
Sure! While this isn't an article per se, I think it's still relevant. One of my mentors at Google explained that culture is a set of behaviors deemed acceptable. When something bad happens, it is best addressed directly at that moment. Otherwise, if no one speaks up, whatever bad thing occurred is communicated as being acceptable, even if no one explicitly says "I agree."
How best to reply has nuance on a case by case basis, but this is also where "assume best intent" comes in. You could open with something like "what you said may be interpreted differently than you intended." This is especially important for errors in speech. If the reply is an ad hominem like "you're racist," for example, it immediately devolves the situation into an identity-based attack and defend about the person who said the thing, rather than a discussion about a behavior that has occurred. Calling out the person who said the phrase puts the attention on them, rather than on the behavior. The goal is to change behavior. This is where ownership of impact comes in. Not only regardless of why someone stepped on your foot, but regardless of who steps on your foot, the fact is that the foot was stepped on.
Even if someone is racist, they often won't admit it, especially if there's a negative repercussion for admitting--like demotion or firing at work. Racism isn't an innate behavior, as is true for many biases, they are learned. Just as they are learned, they can be unlearned. But, in order for learning to occur, teachers must appear. Great teachers welcome ignorance and provide wisdom, they don't blame the ignorant for their ignorance. Once we engage in shame/blame, the ability to learn and change behavior decreases significantly as the shame/blame often puts people into fight/flight which is terrible for learning anything.
Additionally, meeting things with inquiry allows us to uncover subconscious bias more effectively. It's a small shift that is incredibly powerful, as it facilitates shared dialogue rather than name-calling. The responsibility for calling out these instances doesn't fall on the person affronted. It is the responsibility of anyone who notices the situation. If there are power dynamics at play, those with more power can lend it, or lend privilege by speaking up in the way mentioned above.
This is a space I am keenly interested in. I have many resources to share but don't want to inundate you all at once. Perhaps we could chat in more depth if you're curious :)