Black colleagues, but even when they did it was to express sympathy (tinged with pity) rather than compassion (empathy tied to action).
That's why so many, to this day, struggle to take the necessary steps to address systemic racism within their corporate structures. I say this not to judge but to highlight the reality of what sits beneath public pledges of solidarity and commitment to change, and what our reluctance to tackle this has led to. Logically, we know that systemic racism is a bad thing, that it's unfair and we should all do better, but practically, it feels uncomfortable and messy. Plus, isn't it a problem for society to fix, not an agenda item for the boardroom?
Public perception matters – sometimes more than the impact on the colleagues most impacted.
A Day That Changed Everything
Everyone assumed that the death of George Floyd officially started the global race to equality, with everyone else coming out of the gates hard and fast. But that wasn't the case.
Yes, some did, for a variety of reasons – some personal, some not. Yet it actually serves no purpose to ruminate on this in an attempt to explain away the delay in taking action, other than seeking reassurance that other companies are lagging too.
The other point to note is that even though some companies did start their journey earlier, that doesn't necessarily mean they're ahead of the curve. Speed doesn't equate to depth of understanding and quality of action. Thoughtful action is better than knee‐jerk statements and aspirational goals that sound good but don't actually effect change in the long run.
Think about where your company was in the summer of 2020. What actions did you take? How much time, money and resources have you dedicated to this so far? To what extent has it made a difference? How would your Black colleagues respond to these questions?
Think about where your company is today. How much has changed? What are some of the conversations you're having now? Where are the challenges? What is stopping you from realising your ambitions to be seen as a company that is taking this seriously?
Whilst timing or speed doesn't necessarily equate to a better outcome, by the same token, claiming you are too busy or there is too much activity in your corporate calendar to give this the attention it needs is a delaying tactic your colleagues and stakeholders can see through. If people and culture are the bedrock of your company, then anything detrimental to the psychological and physical safety of your workforce needs to be addressed and prioritised.
Doesn't it?
We really want to do something about this, but my organization is not quite ready. I need to do more to convince them. I'm embarrassed to say it, but I'm being honest. This is what I'm dealing with.
Global chief diversity and inclusion officer, 2021
So in this case, timing doesn't necessarily equate to a better outcome. Yet by the same token, claiming you are too busy or there is too much activity in your corporate calendar to give this the attention it needs is a delay tactic your colleagues and shareholders can see right through.
Like most things in business, it's not always about what you did or didn't do. It's the why behind it that makes all the difference.
Whether you did a little bit of something or a whole lot of nothing, can you articulate why that was? Does your reason sound plausible? And if you had your time again, would you have done the same thing?
It suddenly struck me just how white my leadership board is. I'm embarrassed to say this but I never really noticed it before.
Founder and CEO, 2021
How Tokenism Became the Answer
It's the ultimate elephant in the room, isn't it? Despite decades of proclamations of diversity and inclusion, boardrooms have basically remained the same.
You might not have noticed, but others certainly did. Your colleagues would have noticed, and your shareholders too. Not everyone would have cared, of course, but it would have been noted.
In years gone by, it was enough simply to talk about diversity and inclusion initiatives, and to proclaim commitment to encouraging everyone to be themselves, to accept people for who they are and what they bring to the table. Authenticity was a key word, used repeatedly, a badge of honour to ensure that talented colleagues felt like they belonged. Yet despite this emphasis on recognising and valuing difference, corporate boards remained mysteriously the same. And in fact, it was seen as a ‘positive’ to have a majority white cisgendered male board, one gleaned from a specific socioeconomic background.
Homogeny was dressed up as culture fit.
But not now. All those perceived positives have suddenly shifted to become negatives. And they're not just negatives for large conglomerates or listed corporations. These factors affect small operations too, because as long as you have colleagues, investors and clients, specifics will now be asked of you. In order to succeed in the post‐2020 world, your company will need to get really comfortable about answering the tough questions about the climate crisis, gender and now race and ethnicity.
If you're reading this believing that you've made real inroads into tackling systemic racism within your company, I promise you there is still value in reading this book. Consider it this way: How confident are you in your ability to demonstrate credible action plans rooted in clearly defined problem statements, which themselves are based on the right quantitative and qualitative data sources and where your impact centres those most affected by racism?
Consider these scenarios:
If an investor was ready to invest £100 million into your company on the proviso that you could detail the specific actions you've taken to address systemic racism within your workplace, how confident are you that you would get the full £100 million?
If a regulatory body was reviewing your licence to operate in new territories or markets, on the proviso that you could detail the specific actions you've taken to address systemic racism within your workplace and extending to the products and services you offer, how confident would you be that your licence would be granted?
If your government was about to award continued funding to enable you to serve the general public, on the proviso that you could show how you understand the interconnected elements of how race, gender and social class contribute to exclusion and marginalization within your workplace and the communities you serve, and demonstrate the steps you've taken to address that, would you still get the funding?
How would you score if your entire workforce was to conduct an appraisal of how you've performed? Part of the evaluation criteria would look at:The extent to which your leadership and managerial teams understand the context of racism and their role in being part of the solutionHow far you have listened to Black colleagues and regularly solicited feedback on initiatives and programsHolding leadership teams to account, including tackling individuals whose behaviour consistently does not align with professed statements and commitmentsEvaluating the formal and informal ways decisions are made to ensure there is representation, that the loudest, most senior, and most privileged voices are not always the ones that are prioritisedHow safe colleagues feel to raise issues and feel confident that you will do something about it, without scapegoating, tone policing or gaslightingHow far you've delivered on public pledges to do better and do moreWhether everyone understands that equity isn't reverse racism or discrimination in disguise
Questions like these go beyond equality initiatives
