The Racial Divide

I've been spending a lot of time this summer thinking about how to have conversations with other white folks about systemic racism. Increasingly it seems people either get it, or think it's a non-issue.

I recently spent an entire day getting tests done in a hospital. Knowing that there'd be some wait time I brought a book with me: David Blight's 2018 biography, Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom. In the course of the day two different health care practitioners (both white women under 40) noticed the book and asked about it.

One was impressed that I was trying to educate myself about the impact of white privilege, and the pain of how the federal government turned its back on the promise of Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation in the decades that followed the Civil War—allowing white supremacy to reassert itself during Reconstruction. We had a solid connection about the need of whites to educate themselves about the dimensions of systemic racism.

The second conversation went differently. When I offered a sketch of the horrific injustices that occurred regularly in the South that was the primary focus of Douglass' orations during his final two decades, this person opined, "Well, life was probably hard for everyone after the war"—as if the hardscrabble conditions that Southern whites faced at the end of the 19th Century somehow excused or justified the lynchings, voter intimation, and unequal access to property and wages that characterized Black lives. (Was she serious? Did she really think that?)

When I persisted, making clear that I thought the reality for whites, however poor, was nowhere near as desperate or unsafe as what Blacks experienced, she backed down. While this exchange was brief, and ended without rancor or harsh words, neither did I think I'd altered her perspective, and I've been brooding about that ever since.

What might I have done differently that may have led this second person to reconsider the story she tells herself about systemic racism? I'm not sure. While I'm glad I didn't just let the moment slide by (as I might have six months ago), I also feel I need a more effective response in such moments—which will undoubtedly keep occurring.

There is a great deal for us whites to do to dismantle systemic racism, and it starts with acknowledging its existence. While I'm clear about that, and the work I need to do, I'm not clear about the best strategy for penetrating white defensiveness—which is incredibly strong in many pockets. I doubt I'll succeed by getting righteous and pounding on the gates.

One Piece of the Puzzle

Just last week I read JD Vance's bestselling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, chronicling the lives and culture of three generations of Appalachian whites, which goes a long way to explaining why poor whites from Scots/Irish rootstock are demoralized about their prospects in the world and feel that Trump voices their anger. Vance describes a lifestyle and world view that was totally foreign to me. While the author had the loving support of strong grandparents that encouraged him to achieve the escape velocity necessary to avoid the downward spiral of Appalachian nihilism, most of his peers have not been so fortunate. Vance paints a grim picture of dead-end jobs, opioid and/or alcohol addiction, out-of-control birth rates, terrible diets, broken families, and high violence and abuse.

As a segment of the population, there is a higher percentage of poor whites who report that they don't expect to earn as much as their parents did (42%) than any other segment. This is the segment that most strongly feels that the American dream has failed them.

While poor whites are by no means the only portion of the population resistant to the concept of systemic racism (Appalachian whites think that they are being discriminated against; that Blacks are being favored), they are part of the issue, and Vance poses a reasonable challenge: what do politicians and more privileged whites (such as myself) have to say to poor whites that can make a difference—not in the way they vote, but in their prospects for a life that works? That allows us to pull together to end systemic racism?

While it's discouraging how big the hole is that we're trying to climb out of, at least I feel like we're moving in the right direction. Finally.

Key Facilitative Skills: Sequencing Work Productively

As a professional facilitator for more than three decades, I've had ample opportunity to observe which skills make the most difference. As a facilitation trainer since 2003, I've also collected plenty of data about which lessons are the most challenging for students to digest. Taken all together, I've assembled a series of blog posts on the facilitation skills I consider to be both the hardest to master and the most potent for producing productive meetings. They will all bear the header Key Facilitative Skills and will be a distillation of where the heavy lifting is done.

Here are the headlines of what I'll cover in this series:

I. Riding Two Horses: Content and Energy

II. Working Constructively with Emotions

III. Managing the Obstreperous

IV. Developing Range: Holding the Reins Only as Tightly as the Horses Require

V. Semipermeable Membranes: Welcoming Passion While Limiting Aggression

VI. Creating Durable Containers for Hard Conversations

VII. Walking the Feedback Talk

VIII. Sis Boom Bang

IX. Projecting Curiosity in the Presence of Disagreement

X. Distinguishing Weird (But Benign) from Seductive (Yet Dangerous)

XI. Eliciting Proposals that Sing

XII. Becoming Multi-tongued

XIII. Not Leaving Product on the Table

XIV. Sequencing Work Productively

XV. Trusting the Force

                                        • • •

Sequencing Work Productively

Plenary time is precious. It's expensive getting everyone together and the time should be used wisely. 

On the front end that means agenda suggestions should be carefully screened to make sure that they are appropriate for whole group consideration, are sufficiently mature for prime time, and have a high enough priority relative to other work that clears the first two hurdles (don't try to put a 20 lb meeting in a 10 lb sack).

But that's not the hard part. What I want to drill down on in this blog is how to tackle an issue effectively once it's made it to the plenary floor. Here's the sequence I propose:

1. Presentation of the Issue 

What are we talking about? What needs to be decided at the plenary level? What are the relevant group agreements bearing on this topic (if any)? If there has been recent prior work done on this topic, what was accomplished and where did that leave off (no need to re-plow old ground).

This is typically handled by a presenter who is not the facilitator. It's OK for the presenter to be a stakeholder and to have preferences about the outcome; it is not OK for facilitators to be stakeholders—they need to be neutral.

Caution: It is relatively common for strong presenters to slip into the role of facilitator by calling on people with questions or comments, and engaging in dialog with them. Don't let this happen to you! As soon as the presentation is over, thank the presenter, and ask them to sit down. (You're flirting with danger whenever you allow a non-neutral person to run the meeting.)

2. Questions 

Did everyone understand the Presentation? This is not what do we want to do about it—that's later. The point here is getting everyone on the same bus before it pulls out of the station. The better the Presentation, the fewer the questions.

2a. Clearing the Air

If there is non-trivial unresolved tension associated with the issue, it's an excellent idea to deal with that before anything else. If you attempt to plow ahead without dealing with this (perhaps you weren't aware of the tension; perhaps you were afraid of it; perhaps there's resistance on the part of the group or the protagonists to opening that door) it will often bite you in the butt. Tension is associated with distortion and distraction, making it difficult to steer clear of reactivity or to hear accurately what everyone is saying. Rather than trying to cope with distortion on the fly, it's almost always better to deal with it directly and separately first.

Note 1: In order to do this, there needs to be agreement that the group will work with emotions; facilitators need to be authorized to engage with feelings, and they need to have the ability to do so with skill and compassion. That's a lot of ifs.

Note 2: If there are no significant tensions associated with the issue, this step can be skipped.

3. Identification of Factors

Which group values are in play? Do some considerations trump others, or are they all of equal weight?

It generally works much better if the group articulates how it will assess the suitability of potential solutions (or action steps) before considering what those solutions will be. This is an expansive phase. If people hold strong opinions about what should be taken into account, it is in this segment that they can be given time on the soap box to make their pitch.

4. Proposal Generating

Now, finally, we get to solutions. What do people think is the best response, given all that we're trying to take into account (the output of the preceding step)?

Distinct from the previous step, this one is contractive. It's time to set aside the advocacy that characterized step 3, and focus on bridging.

—Pitfall #1: Starting with proposals

Groups frequently require that the presentation of an issue be accompanied by a proposed solution, in the hope that that will speed up the consideration. Groups do this for two reasons: first, as a safeguard against an issue not being well defined. If the presenter is required to offer a response, s/he is that much more likely to have a clear handle on the problem. Second, if the group is lucky, the offered solution may be a winner and allow the group to skip over a potential slog in plenary, saving who knows how much time and grief.

The downside of this is that the presenter is required to invest in a solution before the whole group has had a chance to identify what needs to be taken into account, and if the initiator has a significant hole in their thinking about what needs to be addressed, that dog won't hunt—and all the effort devoted to problem solving may be down the drain, which doesn't help morale a lick.

It doesn't take many experiences of that before there is a significant drop in enthusiasm for serving on committees—which appear to be an assignment to serve as so much cannon fodder for plenary scrutiny. It's much better to not start on solutions until the plenary has signed off on what needs to be taken into account.

—Pitfall #2: Commingling steps 3 & 4

Most groups wrestle with an issue in one big conversation (or multiple big conversations), which can often devolve into a melees or swamp draining assignments if the issue is difficult. While it's no small challenge in and of itself working through topics where the outcome is consequential and there are strongly held divergent opinions, the water is unnecessarily muddied further by attempting to identify what needs to be taken into account at the same time that you're developing solutions.

As was pointed out above, the first step is expansive and the second is contractive. When groups try to breathe in and out at the same time, it gets confusing. People get lost about what kinds of comments are appropriate and it can be hard to follow the bouncing ball. Someone expresses a concern, and the next speaker offers a solution while a third person is waiting their turn to express a different concern. It can be hard discerning whether you're coming or going.

5. Decision

Once the group is satisfied that it's done what it can to sensitively manifest the best solution it can, you're ready to make a decision—unless you believe it's prudent to let the proposal incubate for a time, to give those who missed the meeting a chance to weigh in, and for those in attendance to process any residual reservations.

Note that there can be a fine line between dithering and reflecting. I am not advocating for weak knees; I'm suggesting that if there is no urgency about the issue, then waiting for another meeting cycle to allow for reflected input can result in better grounded decisions.

—Pitfall #3: Getting Bogged Down in Late Concerns

If you decide to postpone a decision until the meeting after you've completed proposal generation, there is a danger of inviting monkey business from members who skipped prior meetings but arrive at the final one to throw sand in the gears by expressing concerns about the proposal—something that should have happened back in Step 3. While it's possible that their last-minute concern is something missed in the prior considerations and the group will be smart to stop and go back, you are not obliged to do so if you have adopted this sequence as the official way you do business. A member's right to have their views taken into account is tied at the hip to their responsibility to make their views known in a timely way.

6. Implementation

The last step is all about dotting i's and crossing t's. What are the action steps, who will cary them out, what's the budget (if one is needed), what are the reporting expectations, and what are the deadlines? In general, implementation details are straight forward, yet groups sometimes neglect to pin them down in the rush to be done and move onto the next topic (or to adjourn). It's a shame to squander otherwise solid work by getting sloppy at the end. Don't let that happen to you.