Reliable news and information are inextricably linked to democratic society. It seems incumbent upon us to take action. But what action?

The American Press Institute says, “For democracies to thrive, people need accurate information about the problems of civil society and the debates over how to solve them. That requires an economically sustainable, independent and free press; [one] that is vested in the values of verification and monitoring the powerful, and is dedicated to putting citizens first, ahead of political faction.”[ii]

Unfortunately, economic sustainability now seems at odds with a free and independent press in the United States.

Thirty years ago, 90% of the media in the US was held by 50 different companies.[iii] Since 1996, however, FCC regulations limiting media mergers and cross-ownership have been “relaxing.” Media ownership consolidated within a very few short years. The FCC completely eliminated key rules in 2007. Since then, 90% of all media consumed in the United States has been owned by six companies.[iv] This includes print, television, film, music, video games and related investments. And it includes the internet. In other words, these six companies control 90% of what Americans see and hear.

Media properties have actually been good investments. But corporate owners have attempted to extract wealth by cutting news staff, squeezing salaries and controlling content. This magnifies the problems of media consolidation. Where there are no editors, collaboration and fact-checking suffer. Where there are no journalists assigned to breaking news or local stories, content is reduced to what the wire services provide. At that point, everyone is getting the same information from the same sources, slanted to match viewpoints identified by market research and data mining.

Amplify that in a social media environment with few restraints. The implications are grim.

To fully grasp what is going on in media today and do something about it, we must go beyond news about the news. We must bring together what we know from two separate bodies of knowledge: mass media and human psychology.

What we see and read every day matters. The more we are exposed to words, images or ideas, the easier it is for related words, ideas and – ultimately – behaviors to be evoked. Social psychologist Daniel Kahneman says this is because our minds are “associative machines.” Much of this associative processing happens very quickly in our brains, without our conscious awareness.

The deliberate manipulation of public consciousness grew rapidly just about 100 years ago – after a man named Edward Bernays noticed how effective propaganda had been in World War I and rebranded it as “public relations.”

A nephew of Sigmund Freud’s, Bernays was the first person to systematically use the discoveries of psychology and the “unconscious” to mold the behavior of the public. He called it “the engineering of consent.”[v] One of Bernays’ first clients was the American Tobacco Company. He famously hired rich debutants to march in the 1929 Easter Parade in New York City with cigarettes hidden in their garters. At an intersection where Bernays had stationed photographers, these women flipped open their skirts, took out their “freedom torches” and lit up. You know the story from there.

In the last few decades, with technology and neuroscience, psychologists have made breakthroughs in measuring the mechanisms of our “associative machinery.” This is what makes us so susceptible to commercial programming and to errors in thinking, or cognitive bias. In the last 20 years, there has been an explosion of research into this type of bias. Consultant Howard Ross found over 1,000 studies of cognitive bias in a 10-year period. One recent “cheat sheet” of implicit biases named 175 types, but missed some of the most well-known. There are so many ways our fast-thinking brains can lead us astray that no one seems to get them all.

Our biases can be manipulated by things like repetition and bold font or quality paper; by familiarity, optimism and stereotypes. They can be manipulated by the frequency or unusualness of events, by background music and even weather.

And of course, our biases can be manipulated by what we already believe.

You can see that these things have nothing to do with whether information is true, or useful. But, Kahneman says, “anything that makes it easier for the associative machine to run smoothly will also bias beliefs.”

This is what Robert Mercer[vi], Cambridge Analytica[vii], Sinclair Broadcast Group[viii] and others like them use on us with our social media accounts and their news outlets. This is why we must take action. Now. Every day.

Secret Weapons for News Consumers

When we connect the dots between brain science and mass media, we can see how the two are used together to distract, distress, influence and indoctrinate. By understanding key principles in both psychology and journalism, we become better at navigating today’s media environment and using it for good.

So here are the things: The more we know about errors in thinking, the more we can choose to correct them and take the antidotes: mindfulness, personal reflection and critical thought. The more we know about the media oligopoly, the more we can choose consciously what we watch, buy and invite into our brains. We cannot counter cognitive bias if we don’t notice it. And little things can make a big difference.

• Slow down. Take time to think critically.
• Be aware of your triggers. Step back, reflect and research before responding.
• Challenge your own assumptions. Ask questions.
• Know your stuff. Get information from multiple, reputable and independent sources.
• Build media literacy skills. Learn how to decode messages and assess their impacts.[ix]
• Act like a journalist. Fact-check and don’t share it if you can’t vouch for it.[x]
• Take a break. Turn off the machines.
• Develop comfort with complexity. Truth can be subtle. Democracy is hard.

Image courtesy of Dr. Sam Ebersole

When Fact-Checking Alone Does Not Work

• Discuss these topics openly with friends and colleagues. Share information and tools for being a responsible news consumer.
• Join organizations that work on responsible journalism, holding media accountable and a free and open internet.
• Support alternate news sources that are transparent about their ownership, funding, mission and motives.
• Publicly call on news organizations to uphold journalism’s purpose and ethics, and to encourage independence and diversity of opinion.
• When editorials present false equivalencies or inaccuracies, call for the newsroom side of that outlet to report on falsehoods with journalistic investigation and fact.
• Register public complaints when racist or other propaganda statements by public figures are “given a pass” or reported as fact.
• Write to your elected representatives. Support net neutrality and specific regulatory practices to break up the “big six” and to restore integrity and equity to media ownership policies.

Jody Alyn specializes in equity and inclusion strategies. She works with companies and communities that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems and seriously improve results. She also writes, presents and gives interviews on topics like implicit bias, incivility, and poisonous politics at work. In 2018-19, she partnered with Pikes Peak Women, Citizens Project and the Pikes Peak Library District to create the “Fact and Fiction in Media” program series in Colorado Springs.  

[i]https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/purpose-journalism/. Accessed 11-28-18.[ii]https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/about/about-us/?utm_content=nav. Accessed 11-28-18.
[iii]https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/. Accessed 11-28-18.
[iv]https://www.webpagefx.com/data/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media/. Accessed 11-28-18.
[v]https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Consent-Edward-L-Bernays/dp/B0007DOM5E. Accessed 01-07-19.
[vi]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage. Accessed 01-08-19.
[vii] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg9vvn/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win. Accessed 01-10-19.[viii]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/business/media/sinclair-news-anchors-script.html. Accessed 01-07-19.
[ix]https://medialiteracynow.org/what-is-media-literacy/. Accessed 01-07-19.
[x]Adapted from “Building Resistance to Brain Bugs” presentation by Dr. Sam Ebersole, Colo Springs, 08-30-18. Also, see 10 Best Sites, for example.

The post Of Minds and Media first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

People have lost all decorum. They are suspicious and hypersensitive, watching for others to cross some line, whatever that line may be. They are also hyperreactive so that when a perceived line is crossed, they react with anger, accusations and defensiveness instead of questions or curiosity. Workplace incivility has escalated. It is epidemic. The damage is severe.

Though the foundation for this was laid strategically over time, this unprecedented level of politics-related conflict in the workplace comes from the last election cycle and its aftermath.

In early 2017, 29% of employees surveyed said they were less productive after the election, according to performance management company BetterWorks. Forty-nine percent had witnessed a political conversation turn into an argument; among millennials, that figure rose to 63%.

According to an American Psychological Association survey released in May 2017, 26% of workers said they felt stressed by political discussions at work, a nearly 10% increase over a survey conducted only months earlier, before the election.

Subsequent research reports have been sparse, but the trend continues. In March 2018, for example, fully three-fourths of the participants in a nonprofit conference session raised their hands when asked how many had seen or felt increased tensions in the workplace related to the election.

Why Is This Happening?

People in positions of highest authority are normalizing toxic behavior: publicly modeling some of the worst behavior – bigotry, name-calling, dishonesty and threats – on a level not seen in a lifetime. And it’s not just those who actively act out. Leaders who remain silent are complicit. When they don’t call out aggression or lies or threats, they are saying this behavior is okay. They give credibility to perpetrators. Their passivity is almost as problematic as the offenders’ actions.

Media, especially social media, plays a big role as well. Poisonous political rhetoric is repeated countless times in a never-ending echo chamber. Repetition makes bad messages seem valid. And while people receiving these messages may think it’s just “white noise,” in fact their automatic and often unconscious brain processes are absorbing these messages and even accepting them as real. Before you know it, things that aren’t even true seem like things worth fighting for.

Humans also have a natural tendency to “tune” our behavior to match the behavior of people who are important to us. Social tuning, too, is mostly unconscious. So, adults may “tune to” or adopt the behavior of their leaders much in the same way children mimic what they see their parents do, even when the behavior is destructive.

What Can You Do?

Fortunately, there are actions you can take. The most important thing is to pay attention to incivility of any sort. See it. Name it. Deal with it. While it can be tempting to avoid conflict, there is no quicker way to become part of the problem you are trying to solve than to ignore what is going on.

QUICK TIPS

For employees:

• Tell someone when there is a problem. Tell your supervisor, if that is safe. HR or employee committees may be options. Ask for action and accountability.
• Document what’s happening. At a minimum, share your story with supportive colleagues, family and friends.
• Evaluate your role in the situation. Where might you have slipped? Is there anything you can do to defuse matters?
• When others struggle, be a witness. If it will help de-escalate the situation, let the offender know that their behavior is not okay.
• Limit your exposure to media, especially social media, at work. This will help reduce tension and the temptation to talk about what you are reading.

For employers:

• Listen to employees. Take them seriously and follow up with meaningful action, when needed. Beware of false equivalencies.
• Provide tools to address situations as they arise and guidelines to have effective conversations about the topics that directly affect your workplace.
• Engage everyone in conversations about how to create an environment that works well for all, rather than establishing “rules” or a “ban” on certain topics. Consider how your existing culture may be feeding the dysfunction.
• Demonstrate that respect flows from the top down and that mechanisms for accountability are in place. This could include changes in staff and systems.

Politics are not, by nature, poisonous. The outcomes of political decision making, policy and law, govern how companies and communities function. Ultimately, we must reclaim “politics” from the list of dirty words and encourage everyone to respectfully engage in matters that affect our work and lives.

Jody Alyn specializes in inclusion strategies. She works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems and seriously improve results. See In The News for Jody’s media interviews on this topic.

The post Pay Attention to Poisonous Politics Talk at Work first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

A stone, a bird, and certainly a human are ultimately unknowable, Tolle says. Each has inherent complexity and unfathomable depth. “All we can perceive, experience, think about, is the surface layer of reality, less than the tip on an iceberg.”[1]

Words like “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” (DEI) represent layers upon layers of other words. Decades of politics and polarization tactics give these words great capacity to, very quickly, cast strong spells on us. It is easy to imagine why companies and communities might give up on DEI initiatives, or why some might think it best not to even begin.

Yet, I’ve seen greater courage and commitment in both public and private sector organizations this year. Awesome DEI approaches are being applied to fit these times in which we find ourselves. By stepping back and embracing complexity, it becomes possible to ask questions that have not been asked before. New solutions emerge.

Organization XYZ began an inclusivity project late last fall.[2] The project’s purpose was to build a language framework and philosophy of inclusion that would guide organization-wide action and set the stage for achieving other strategic priorities.

This couldn’t be just any DEI process, however. The project’s start date almost immediately followed 11/9, the 2016 US presidential election. Many different ideas, identities and issues that come up around equity and inclusion had already become tools of an extreme and extremely effective national polarization strategy. XYZ operates as part of a public sector, and in a large geographic region that includes diverse populations in rural areas and three different cities. XYZ had to navigate the most volatile political divides because its constituents – employees and customers – spanned all of them.

Instead of forming an internal team or assigning a department to define its terms, which are useful and common approaches to this task, XYZ elected to develop its language through a facilitated conversation and community listening program. Diverse XYZ constituents had been pushing for better organization-wide inclusion practices over time. Self-identified conservatives had talked more recently about feeling unwelcome. The conversation and community listening approach was designed to engage everyone, as well as to ensure representation of voices that might not always be heard. No one would be excluded from participating.

An organization-wide team guided the project. In-house facilitators were selected and trained. Group protocol and questions were designed to encourage conversation about meanings and ideas behind certain words, while putting careful boundaries around everyone’s heightened tendencies toward political rhetoric. In the end, more than 275 employees and customers from different backgrounds, cultures, identities and parts of the organization contributed. They offered a heart-stirring glimpse into some of the mystery behind the labels.

Think about your own experiences of being included for a moment and tell us what “inclusivity” means to you.

When people were asked this question, they expressed themselves with extraordinary variety and individuality. They said that inclusivity means:

While some words or phrases – like welcome, respect, freedom, safety, being yourself, openness, acceptance, opportunity and awareness – were repeated, no particular “theme” could be identified. What did link all the responses, no matter the words or the people speaking them, was a sense of fundamental human well-being. Thinking about inclusion brought out the most deeply felt expressions of comfort, contentment, security and well-being across all backgrounds, identities and affiliations.

Likewise, people described impacts of exclusion in the most strongly negative, personal and emotional terms. Some pointed to adverse effects on customer satisfaction and loyalty, employee performance and institutional functioning. Beyond that, though, participants said exclusion creates anxiety, fear, depression and “checking out,” as well as other ills like anger, self-doubt, unnecessary pain, bitterness, shame, “silo-ing,” health declines and withdrawal. Exclusion:

• “Tears down a person.”
• “Can make people feel demeaned, like their purpose is not worth anything.”
• “Can make people make choices that can devastate their hoping.”
• “Affects personal motivation, desire and willingness to be courageous, adventurous, vulnerable and take risks.”

Personal stories about exclusion’s impacts were haunting, and spoke to an extraordinary depth of pain. After one such story, the speaker said, “Exclusivity is devastating to the human soul.”

The Long Way Back to Truth

XYZ’s story is important at this place and time in history. This company took on an ambitious project in an unprecedented environment. Its leadership took a risk, despite circumstances that might suggest extreme caution. It invested deeply in the long haul because it believed in its own mission. XYZ synthesized what it heard into a strong, clear and beautiful statement to help people go below the “tip of the iceberg.” More conversations are planned as XYZ moves into next-step strategies and actions.

There are no shortcuts. But there are bridges.

XYZ may not be able to avoid challenges like having an employee write a biased missive about women in tech, for example. But it may be creating an opportunity to handle these challenges differently. Google fired its employee and perhaps opened itself up to a serious lawsuit. XYZ, just possibly, may have opened a space for critical conversations and teachable moments – for not only the employee, but also the institution as a whole.

In the XYZ project, those pushing for stronger action to protect the disenfranchised worked directly with those who were opposed to what they call special treatment. Each began to hear the “other” and to listen more deeply. Said one participant, “Conversations create community.” And solid community, based on shared understanding of a shared humanity, is the best antidote to hate and harm.

No single intervention can do it all. Some challenge the viability of DEI to address the most pressing problems of white supremacy, institutional privilege, environmental degradation and hate. As well we should. As a country, we may finally be coming to see the potentially fatal fault lines of a democracy built on four hundred years of powerful racial framing and its active exploitation by a powerful ruling elite.[3] DEI efforts cannot do everything, but they can be a tool by which we refashion times of acute despair into opportunities for befriending life, one another and ourselves.[4]

Public and private sector organizations can make a difference. And it takes work. Sometimes it takes a different paradigm – for example, a concerted effort of asking and listening, hearing and acting. Upon hearing constituents, inside and out, web-hosting companies have removed white supremacist sites,[5] resort centers have canceled white supremacist conferences[6] and other actions are being taken daily. When we build real community on real understanding, it becomes possible for individuals and institutions to draw real lines when they must be drawn.

XYZ’s people remind us of the greatest truth of all. That is, our hearts are the same. We all long for peace. For love. We want to be connected.

And, in fact, we are. Under the iceberg, under the surface appearance, Tolle concludes, “everything is not only connected with everything else, but also with the Source of all life out of which it came.” Ultimately, what we do to the other, we do to ourselves. When we listen beyond the words and focus on the unfathomable depth behind them, we come to understand this.

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems and seriously improve results. Unlearning whiteness, and white supremacy, is a lifelong process for her, too. Jody builds her own knowledge and accountability by working and leading with people whose lived experience is most affected by white privilege. 

Photo (c) 2017 Jody Alyn

[1] Tolle, E. 2005. A New Earth: Awakening to Your life’s Purpose. Penguin: New York. p.25.

[2] “XYZ” represents an organization whose project is described here with permission but anonymously.

[3] Feagin, Joe. 2013. The White Racial Frame. Routledge: New York. Ch. 3.

[4] Adapted from Maria Popova, quoting Tibetan monk Pema Chödrön, in Brain Pickings, 072317.

[5] Personal communication, GoDaddy.com, 081517.

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/26/a-resort-canceled-a-white-nationalist-groups-first-ever-conference-because-of-its-views/?utm_term=.526feff299bc and http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Mayor-Suthers-responds-to-planned-VDARE-conference-in-Colorado-Springs-440537563.html, accessed 081617.

The post There Is No Shortcut first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

Inclusion’s Bare Naked Underbelly

Inclusion is the act of making someone or something part of a whole, of embracing or allowing people into a group. Inclusiveness is a set of behaviors that welcome and value people for who they are and the contributions they bring. All good, except … doesn’t this imply that one group gets to invite or include, and another group waits to be deemed includable?

We know how that has worked. People who’ve been in the majority, in power, decide who gets included. And, historically, those people are white.*

Whiteness not only influences who gets included. It influences what we think of as normal or desirable. Whiteness is largely invisible. It is built into our institutions and systems, and we absorb the values of whiteness unconsciously, whether we are white or not. Beyond the adverse effects this has on us as individuals, it also perpetuates systems of privilege and oppression.

To achieve real change, we must go beyond inclusion to accountability.

Defining Accountability

You hear a lot about accountability, especially in work settings. Accountability is sometimes used interchangeably with the word responsibility, which means being dependable. But being accountable actually comes first. It is how dependability is demonstrated. Accountability carries an expectation of account-giving. It is about being answerable to others.

Accountability means making clear agreements about what’s expected and about what happens as a result of actions we do or do not take. Within these agreements:

• Behavioral expectations need to be well defined and specific.
• People must have adequate resources and skills to accomplish what’s desired or required of them.
• Definitions and measures of success have to actually relate to the thing we say we are trying to do.
• Consequences, positive ones when we meet agreements and others when we fall short, are needed to ensure credibility and follow-through.

From Inclusion to Accountability

The work of equity and inclusion requires a certain type of accountability agreement. That is, making a commitment to behave in a specific and intentional way; to challenge the status quo and dismantle systemic privilege.

Everyone comes to this work (which goes by many names) with different levels of comfort, knowledge and ability to translate concepts into action. Therefore, people need a way to start where they are individually and their build their resources and skills from there.

Using the ideas of Lila Cabbil, president emeritus of the Rosa Parks Institute, a team at the annual White Privilege Conference has been working to bring attention to issues of accountability and to illuminate different paths to action. This team has described three levels of accountability. The personal level refers to actions we take as individuals. The organizational level includes those things we do with others as a group, community or organization. The systemic level involves coordinated action over time to create institutional and systems change.

Wherever one starts, however, accountability agreements require listening to the needs, ideas and solutions of people with the lived experience. This is particularly important for those who come to this work from a position of privilege.

Many white people approach the work with what Lila has called the “missionary syndrome.” By this, she means that white people come in with the good intention of “saving” a group or a community by doing what they think is best. But this approach is not based in agreement. It is rooted in hierarchy and the status quo. Results, if any, are often fleeting and may be irrelevant to those they are supposed to serve.

The shift that needs to happen is one of role and relationship. It is a shift from “doing to” or “doing for” to doing with. Accountability in this context means we shift the approach from bringing different people into existing systems to one of building partnerships and new systems, where those who know from lived experience can say, “This is what is needed,” or “This is what will work,” and “This is what success looks like.” Where there is an authentic bond and shared power and leadership, there will be different outcomes. Those outcomes will be more effective, relevant, lasting – and mutual.

Inclusion Means Dismantling Systems that Exclude

I am not ready to give up the word inclusion. The idea is generally accepted to mean engaging everyone in shared endeavors, and working better together. It is the opposite of exclusion. Organizational inclusion has its place as long as it goes hand-in-glove with accountability, with a commitment to behave in an intentional way to bring about equity. With accountability, full inclusion and full participation are made real.

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems and seriously improve results. Unlearning whiteness, and white supremacy, is a lifelong process for Jody, too. She builds her own knowledge and accountability by working with people whose experience is most affected by white privilege. In particular, relationships with Lila Cabbil; WPC Founder and Executive Director, Eddie Moore, and the 2015 WPC accountability team co-chair, Vanessa Roberts, have informed this work. Jody has co-chaired the accountability initiative for the White Privilege Conference (WPC) for the past three years. In 2016, 2900 people from all over the US and from other nations attended WPC. 

The post From Inclusion to Accountability first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

Oregon was the only state to enter the Union with an exclusion clause in its Constitution. Slavery was illegal, but black residents had to report twice a year for lashing “till they quit the territory.” Interracial marriages were illegal till 1951. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting the vote to black men was not ratified in Oregon until 1959. There’s more. But who knew? Did they talk about this on Portlandia and, because I don’t watch TV, I missed it?

There is good news, though. Businesses in so many sectors are secure and thriving. There’s a huge, world-class (and gorgeous) medical complex in Portland, as just one example. The public transportation systems are epic. And leaders in individual companies and institutions, as well as those responsible for citywide and sector-specific diversity initiatives, understand the importance of diversity for their futures. They are taking strong steps to implement fully inclusive practices in their companies, schools and communities.

Portland has the oldest continually chartered chapter of the NAACP west of the Mississippi. Planners for a new and visionary University of Oregon campus in Bend are bringing diverse, especially Latino and Native, voices into the earliest stages of the process. Among the business leaders and everyday citizens with whom I spoke, there is an unflinching honesty about history, and strong accountability and advocacy to change things. Opportunities in the Oregon of today are ripe.

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems and seriously improve results. 

The post Living Color first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

Race is a topic that lives right next to our hearts. Scratch the surface of any discussion — but especially those that include comments like “I don’t see color” or “Our employee evaluations are based on merit” — and you’ll see what I mean. Awkwardness, angst and even anger can ensue. Everyone has strong feelings about race and racism.

White people, however, can choose to walk away from these topics, to ignore these feelings. Most days, white people don’t have to confront the issue of race if they don’t want to. This can happen because so much of what is considered normal or desirable has been defined as white. White people defined things this way originally and continue to accrue certain advantages as a result.

This is where some white people will stop reading. Make defensive remarks. End the conversation.

White Fragility

Dr. Robin DiAngelo calls this behavior “white fragility.” She says, “White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment… builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering [white tolerance for] racial stress.” White fragility describes “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress [triggers] a range of defensive moves… such as outwardly displayed emotions like anger, fear and guilt.” It can also trigger behaviors like argumentation, silence and withdrawal.

White fragility puts a stop to critical conversations.

What Causes It

Several factors diminish our tolerance for tough topics. First, we learn to define racism as a problem of bad (prejudiced) individuals and their bad actions. We develop strong negative feelings about them. This individualistic viewpoint, which is augmented by powerful cultural emphasis on individualism and individual rights, lets us distance ourselves from what it means to be part of a group — particularly one with a shared history. When we’re confronted with these injustices, DiAngelo notes, we take it as a personal affront to the good individual we know ourselves to be.

We also fail to understand racism as multidimensional and adaptable. We do not grasp its systemic and cultural nature. That makes us blind to the systems of unequal power and resource distribution that are built into even our most hallowed institutions. These systems affect every one of us from even before we are born. (Think about the unequal access to prenatal care, for example.) We are socialized into these systems by, well, everything. Family. Schools. Religious institutions. And especially the media. We absorb the inherent value of whiteness unconsciously. We don’t even know it’s happening most of the time. What’s more, white people are not alone in this. It affects everyone.

Because we don’t know what we don’t know, even the very best intentioned of us can keep real progress from happening. This is why some companies and communities still struggle. Many organizations have taken good-faith steps to attract and retain a diverse workforce and to build an inclusive environment where everyone can contribute. Much like our society as a whole, though, many are also having a hard time making it happen or making it stick.

What to do about it

Horrific events have brought us to a new crossroads. Unrelenting murders of black Americans and new legal challenges to voting rights, equal opportunity and affirmative action in the U.S. are asking us to go deeper with this work: to change not just minds and hearts, but entire institutions, for lasting good.

The good news is that we can choose to NOT walk away. We can take positive action. White people can participate in the dismantling of systems — not just symbols — of oppression and inequality. We can transform white fragility into white accountability. Accountability/action categories developed for the annual, national White Privilege Conference offer some ideas of where you can start:

1. Take personal action. Seek to learn, change and act within yourself and your life. Create time and practices to improve your personal reflection and insight. Examine your own strengths and challenges, as well as the impacts of the media you choose. “Like,” “follow” and read those who dispute your assumptions. Hard as it is, welcome mistakes as an opportunity to learn. Stick with it.
2. Make a commitment with others. Tell others what you are doing and/or join with them to do it. Engage in critical conversations about dismantling systems of inequity. Attend an event, join a group or start one centered on this work. White members of the choir backing up John Legend and Common’s Oscar performance of “Glory” stood shoulder to shoulder with black singers without singing themselves, using their art to create a powerful metaphor for supporting those whose voices must be heard.
3. Take action to change institutions and systems. Critically examine the big picture of interrelated parts and contexts that support unearned advantage. Eliminate imbalances of power, privilege and pay through policy change and accountability measures. Support professional development and training curricula that incorporate equity content, no matter the subject area. Partner with and support institutions of higher education in your area that offer race and gender studies. As David Niose noted recently, “America is killing itself through its embrace and exaltation of ignorance.” Make sure your institution — your company, your community — is instead among those building systems of enlightenment for the future.

Jody Alyn is a white organizational consultant and inclusion strategist.

The post Critical Conversations for White People first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

Workplace incivility aggravates every other workplace problem. It is defined as “low intensity behaviors that violate respectful workplace norms” where the intent to harm may be unclear.  That means acting in a way that disregards the rights and feelings of others. Or, just plain being rude.

Problem behaviors range from impoliteness to bullying; from not returning emails or phone calls to fist pounding, phone slamming and public criticism or put-downs. Incivility includes undermining others’ work and failing to acknowledge their contributions. It encompasses nonverbal behavior as well as language, jokes, slurs and gossip.  And it is making our communities and workplaces toxic.

The Cost of Incivility

Researchers Christine Porath and Christine Pearson spent 14 years asking more than 14,000 workers how they are treated. An unbelievable 98% of respondents said they experienced behavior that crossed the bounds.  “In 2011 half [of workers] said they were treated rudely at least once a week—up from a quarter in 1998,” these researchers say.

In one study across 17 industries, Porath and Pearson found that, of those who experienced workplace incivility,

• 48% intentionally decreased their work effort,
• 47% intentionally decreased the time they spent at work,
• 63% lost time avoiding the offender,
• 80% lost time worrying about it,
• 66% said their performance declined and
• 87% said their commitment to the company declined.

Like other victims of abuse, those who experience incivility may adopt the behaviors they’ve experienced. Some in the study who had been treated badly took their frustration out on customers. Others left their jobs.

Porath and Pearson found additional costs in lost creativity, poor team performance and lost customer loyalty, even if customers only witness rude behavior. They say, “Incivility is expensive and few organizations recognize or take action to curtail it.” The individual companies that do talk of incivility’s costs price it in millions of dollars annually.

These findings align with the research on failures of workplace inclusion.

What You Can Do About It

Fortunately, there are things you can do to create positive cultural change.  Here are some steps you can take.

1. Pay attention. It can be tempting to avoid conflict, to make excuses or to focus on other things.  Do not ignore what’s going on: see it, name it and deal with it. Passive leadership increases both the incidence and the perception of incivility.
2. Examine your own behavior.  Take stock of what you do and how others see you.  Even simple changes, like saying “good morning” or “thank you,” can make a difference. It is important to model the behavior you want to see, because we humans consciously and unconsciously “tune” our behavior to match that of those who are important to us, like bosses and colleagues.
3. Set some ground rules. Engage your team in a conversation about how you want to work together. Agree on clear and specific expectations for civil behavior.  Communicate these expectations frequently.  One of my favorite ground rules is “presume good will.”  This creates the tone for asking questions, rather than making accusations, when challenges occur.
4. Provide opportunities to learn.  Education and training on civility will increase the new behaviors you want to encourage. People are under increased stress for so many reasons. By offering learning opportunities and feedback, you give them alternatives to manage their stress, try new things and improve their performance.
5. Give it teeth. Include a section on “civility” in company policy manuals, and make it part of performance reviews.  Frame interview questions with “civility” answers in mind for new hires and include it in new employee orientations. Make the consequences of incivility clear from the start.
6. Follow through. Catch people in the act of being civil, and compliment them. Use rewards and recognition programs to encourage the best behavior. When a problem occurs, provide swift feedback and appropriate consequences—up to and including letting an offender go. Incivility spreads quickly. Your consistent commitment will ensure your success in maintaining a positive, productive work environment.

Jody Alyn is an organizational consultant and inclusion strategist.

The post IS INCIVILITY MAKING YOUR WORKPLACE TOXIC? first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

No more.

Internet Neutrality is Dead

Internet neutrality is dead and too few people even know what that is. How could they? Those who benefit from its demise would have to tell them.

Internet neutrality “is everything we know and love about the way the Internet has always worked,” said Shana Heinricy of the Media Literacy Project (MLP) in Albuquerque, NM.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. Federal Appeals Court killed it.

The problem seems to have started in 2002 when the FCC used the wrong words and classified cable broadband as an “information service” rather than a “common carrier.”  What this means, according to MLP staffer, Alanna Offield, is that “the Internet isn’t classified as a platform for free speech.”

Say what?

So Verizon told the court that having to treat all content equally was a violation of their speech.  And they won.

“[This] ruling flies in the face of intellectual freedom.…” wrote Barbara Stripling on wired.com. “An open internet is essential to our nation’s educational achievement, freedom of speech, and economic growth.”

The Implications are Mind-boggling

Your ISP will soon begin telling you they are giving you the moon (and that they are defenders of net neutrality) at the same time as they begin slowing and blocking the content of anyone and everyone they don’t like, from small businesses they see as “competitors” to political candidates whose platforms conflict with their big business interests.

Of course, you will be able to pay for faster Internet. But if your niece can’t pay, her cat videos are toast.

Craig Aaron, of Free Press, says: “… the biggest broadband providers will race to turn the open and vibrant Web into something that looks like cable TV — where they pick and choose the channels for you. They’ll establish fast lanes for the few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve the slow lanes for everyone else.”

In other words, instead of you – or your business or your favorite nonprofit – having the choice of what to do, say and see on the open internet, the ISPs will choose for you.

Aaron also says, “This could be the end of the Internet as we know it. But it doesn’t have to be….  The ruling leaves the door wide open to a better approach. The FCC could make all this go away by simply reading the law correctly and reclaiming the authority it already has to protect Internet users for good.

“There will be serious pushback from the most powerful phone and cable companies (and an array of hired guns and front groups)…. But the FCC has … the power to resuscitate Net Neutrality.”

Changing the classification of the open internet so that it is covered as free speech is politically tough but legally clear. If it is going to happen, Aaron says, “the millions of people who have fought for Net Neutrality — [as well as those who have] rallied against Web-censorship… and the NSA’s unchecked spying and surveillance — must rise up like never before.”

If you can’t rise up, at least talk to your niece.  Maybe she can.

To learn more and hear more about what you can do, listen to this January 22 interview with Shana Heinricy and Alanna Offield on Inclusion Radio.

Sign the petition to the FCC at FreePress.net. Watch Steven Colbert change his reaction to net neutrality and see his interview with Tim Wu, the Columbia professor who came up with the term.

Then pass it on (while you can).

Jody Alyn is an organizational consultant and inclusion strategist. Her clients include small to mid-sized businesses, nonprofits, public entities and community collaborations whose operations will be affected by this ruling.

The post Read This Blog Before It Is Censored first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

Escombros, explained my driver in Spanish, are waste products from construction. The sign meant, “Don’t throw out trash or debris.”

The atmosphere is health – take care of it.

Every kilometer or so, we passed another brown sign. The messages were different but the theme was clear. “Nature is life,” said one, “care for it.”  “Water is life,” said another, “protect it.”  “Nature is our lung” was followed by “Look after the trees.”  Signs with at least a dozen different messages lined every Ecuadorian highway I traveled, from northern mountains to central coast.

I asked whether these signs had been in use for a long time. No, my driver told me. This was the work of President Rafael Correa. In his first term, Correa and his administration had rewritten the country’s constitution. Ecuador had become the first nation to constitutionally protect the rights of nature. The signs were simply part of the cultural change; of transforming words to deeds.

“En los Estados Unidos, no tenemos letreros como estos,” I said, finding my new Spanish words slowly. In the United States, we do not have signs like this. “Tenemos letreros que dicen…”

“MacBurgers!” said my driver, grinning and ending my sentence with the real name of an international fast food chain. In the United States, we have signs that say, MacBurgers!

“Y ‘Cerveza es la vida!'” I said. And beer is the life!

From Words to Action

Truth is, what we see and read every day matters. The more we are exposed to words, images or ideas, the easier it is for related words, ideas and – ultimately – behaviors to be evoked.

Our minds are “associative machines.”* Whenever we are presented with a word, image or even a partial idea, a complex set of responses occurs very quickly. This is called associative activation: ideas that have been called to mind trigger many other ideas in a cascading flow of activity in our brains. Each element is connected; it supports and strengthens the other. We don’t will it. We can’t stop it. And much of time, we’re not even aware it is happening.

Breakthroughs in measuring the mechanisms of this “associative machinery” happened only in the last few decades, but the deliberate manipulation of public consciousness rapidly accelerated around 100 years ago. Edward Bernays, a double cousin of Sigmund Freud’s, was the first to systematically use the discoveries of psychology to appeal to unconscious needs and maneuver the behavior of the public.** Bernays invented the term the “public relations” as an alternative to “propaganda.” He also developed a means of molding public opinion that he called, “the engineering of consent.”

Back in the U.S. at a recent conference, I spoke about these processes and about structuring the workplace, community environment or social movement to evoke and support the behaviors one wants to see. An audience member questioned whether it was “fair” for organizations or employers to influence thinking and behavior this way.

Fair has nothing to do with it. It is how the human mind works. The more we know about the workings of the mind, the more of ourselves we can bring under our own conscious control and the more safeguards we can put in place where conscious control is not possible. The real question is, do we want to ignore what is known about human cognition and behavior – and be subject to manipulation of biases and vulnerabilities in our automatic ways of thinking?  Or will we embrace this knowledge and make use of its power?

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems and seriously improve results. She is pictured here with some trees in Machalilla National Park, near Puerto Lopez.  Contact

This is the fifth post in a series.  Read previous posts

* See Daniel Kahneman’s complete discussion of  “the associative machine” and priming in his 2011 book, Thinking: Fast and Slow.
** http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

The post Signs Along the Road first appeared on Alyn Consulting.

I was with my Spanish teacher on a crowded bus in Quito. I strained to both hear and understand him as we conversed en español.

Every bus ride in Ecuador had a sound track. On the coast, we rumbled along to the beats of Columbian cumbia, to the boleros and valses of Julio Jaramillo or to the sounds of current Latin artists, depending on the driver’s tastes. In the big city, it was the rhythms of voices in a language just becoming familiar to me.

Alberto had broad knowledge of Ecuadorean history and culture as well as a talent for speaking Spanish in ways a beginner could understand. He was offering options for the next day’s lesson when, in mid-sentence, he stopped talking. His eyes went far away and his attention elsewhere.

“Did you hear that?” he asked. He looked at me with wide eyes. “Hugo Chávez is dead. They just said it on the radio.”

The news was on, but I had missed it. To me, it was just another voice in the background that I did not understand.

I watched Alberto’s face closely. Success at language learning depended at least as much on the attention paid to nonverbal cues and context as to vocabulary or grammar. Alberto’s face showed pain and incredulity.

He said again, “Hugo Chávez is dead. I cannot believe it.”  He motioned for silence while he listened. Then he repeated what he heard on the radio. There would be an election in thirty days.

As we rode to our stop, Alberto talked about Chávez’ vision for a more united Latin America, and about two organizations Chávez founded to encourage action toward this end; he talked about the free public health clinics Chávez established with oil revenues, and about the oil pricing strategies Chávez put in place to benefit developing nations. Every few minutes, Alberto would interrupt himself and say, “No puedo creer que Hugo Chávez está muerto.”

To certain U.S. interests, Chávez was a long-time persona non grata. U.S. media of all stripes portrayed him in death as they had in life: either as a bombastic buffoon or as ineffectual. In fact, Chávez often played to this role. But over fourteen years, he had formed – then led – a more inclusive government; he had built new international alliances and improved the lives of his citizens. To many informed and engaged people in Latin America, Chávez was a trusted leader with a vision of a different future. Chávez’ death for them was like the death of a Teddy Kennedy or Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Not unexpected, but profound.

I might have missed this but for a choice to learn from someone who was different than me, someone for whom my background music was a main performance.

Fast Forward

Thirty days have now passed. Venezuela held its election and Chávez’ successor won by a surprisingly small margin. Tensions are rising; chaos and violence appear to be gaining the upper hand. The outcome is uncertain.

Meanwhile, many people in the U.S. strain to hear and understand what’s even being said in our own country, community, organization or family. We assume that everything else is just another voice on the bus that we do not, and do not need to, understand. Sometimes, though, that stuff in the background can lead to new understanding and new ways of thinking. And we can all use more of that.

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems effectively and improve results. This is the fourth post in a series. Contact

The post Thinking Differently first appeared on Alyn Consulting.