Why Blacks Leave

Leadership, Racial Dialogue and Employee Retention

Paper Delivered to the Mayor’s Leadership Forum
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, May 14, 2003

We see color, but we do not speak about it. Much of our reaction to racism has been to cleanse from our language any negative or potentially negative reference to color. But the effect has been to leave us severely handicapped in our communication. There is a lack of words. There exists no language in which to discuss “it”—and it is the biggest “it” in America. Even the word ‘racism’ itself is no longer effective as describing the dilemma we face. Paradoxically, this lack of language is what allows racism to flourish, mostly unchecked.

A Leader’s Dilemma
Leaders in every type of institution are faced with a common dilemma: How to create a climate that is not unacceptably alien, or even hostile, to one race or the other. So far, the data seems to suggest it cannot be done. And therein lies the dilemma: Such a failure is not acceptable to any organization looking toward the future.

Leaders, even those schooled in diversity, are stumped as to what they should do personally, on a daily basis, to promote an inclusive environment. The best most leaders have been able to achieve is a superficial overlay of inclusion, which offers the invitation to “fit in.” Those who are different are required to learn the “language” of the dominant culture, while all the time longing (and looking) for a place that feels more like “home.” Time and time again the best and the brightest opt to leave—they leave the business, the church, the association, the relationship.

And the leader is left wondering, “What was it they wanted from me?’
It is an important question, one we need to ask in all our significant relationships. “What is it you want from me?” But when it comes to whites and people of color—and especially African Americans—the communication becomes distorted, garbled, inflamed and assumptions often overwhelm fact.

Putting Diversity into Action
Leaders, even those who understand white privilege, who actively try to bring racial diversity to their team, and who take pains to eliminate blatant acts of discrimination, are stumped as to what more they can do. “What else do they expect from me?’ they ask. “I put all the diversity practices into effect. I enforce the rules. I’ve even taken a public stand against discrimination.”
But still people choose to leave. And if you want to know why, don’t depend on data from exit interviews. It is notoriously unreliable.

No one wants to burn their bridges. Studies show that what people of color say off the company record is quite different. They often cite “the way they were treated” as the defining reason they quit. Sometimes this means they perceive a lack of opportunity to advance. They complain about a lack of high-profile opportunities to demonstrate what they are capable of. They get the feeling they are treated with a hint of distrust, as being the outsider. It boils down to this—people of color, specifically African Americans, leave because they feel:

Hired but not let in.
Paid but not supported.
Placed but not bet on.

So the retention and promotion numbers come back and mystify us. “Why can’t we get more black employees to stay long enough to rise in the organization?” we ask,

The Real Problem of Retention
When it comes to race, the major leadership problem is not color blindness, but color muteness. Managers see color, but they do not know how to talk about color. To put it bluntly, the average white leader does not have the working conversational tools to cultivate healthy, authentic relationships with those who are racially different—especially African Americans. They don’t’ have the words.

At great expense, a large insurance company recently implemented a mentoring program. White executives (a term that was redundant in this particular company) were paired with minority employees. At the end of the year, the program was assessed. It was given extremely high marks by the executives. They said it was not nearly as difficult to relate to their “mentorees” as they had expected. They said they even learned some things themselves. The minority employees thought it was pretty much a waste of time. The reason? The executives were unwilling to talk about race and did everything to avoid it.

Organizations teach their managers what not to say, how to stay out of trouble, and how to avoid the issue of race. These are important things to know. But it doesn’t go far enough. Especially when race happens to be the issue at hand.

For example, the typical conscientious white manger will enter into a black-white relationship very attentive to not offending, trying his best not to make a mistake, working hard to remember the “rules”. Out of this concern, he may appear overly cautious, too careful with his words, distant and thereby interpreted as not trusting or not valuing the employee. Whereas that same employee notices that co-workers who are similar to the boss, get the benefit of more relaxed encounters, which are interpreted as positive or even preferential treatment.

Of course this should be expected. There is a familiarity with those who are like us. There exists a culturally based shorthand that provides a fluency in our interpersonal relationships. We have all experienced that easy closeness in which much of our communication can go unspoken. There exists an authenticity that allows a synergy of thought and action.

On the other hand, it’s a lot of work being different and spending time together. That is neither right nor wrong, it is just fact. It can feel unnatural, stilted, strained. But what makes it worse is to act like nothing is wrong! The message to minorities is loud and clear. The leader is too easily embarrassed into silence by something they themselves are forced to deal with countless times a day. How can such a place ever feel like home? How can one find safety in an organization where such a large part of their experience is an “embarrassment” to those in power?

Again, the problem is not that this discomfort exists. The problem is that it has not been the “politically correct” thing to admit, to discuss, and to work with. When race becomes the issue, managers often freeze up. There are no easy words.
Instead, a flashing light goes on in their heads: Don’t Screw This Up. And they do their best to make the issue about anything except race.

Can we blame them? After all, most of their diversity training has been focused in three areas:
• Censoring prejudiced messages they have absorbed in their lifetime
• Practicing non-offensive ways of behaving around minorities
• Learning how to avoid lawsuits resulting from infractions of workplace policies and practices.

What has been lacking is a coherent language to deal with matters of color where they count: on the job, in the relationship, when they arise.

Is there a Solution?
What goes unspoken has great power. It becomes the elephant in the room that distracts and creates tension and distrust. And this is especially true in matters of race. Leaders need to become fluent at crossover language, a kind of communication that bridges the racial gap and is flexible enough to be applied to an ongoing array of dilemmas. The challenge is that a crossover language cannot be learned from a white-to-black dictionary nor taught in a packaged program. The only way to develop fluency is through active participation with those you need to connect with.

It’s hard work. The illusion that a relationship is good if it is easy needs to be dispelled. The best, most productive work relationships, the ones that lead to breakthrough results, are often the most challenging. A few of the qualities the leader needs to strive for in these authentic interactions are as follows:

There is an honest, open give and take, non-defensive dialogue: This may sound obvious, but a lot can go wrong when you are trying to prove you are not a racist, intolerant or even mildly prejudiced. Let it go. Defending your credentials deflects attention from the issue at hand.

The emphasis is not getting it right, just on getting it: You have to step out of the “right or wrong” dilemma. The point is not to agree or debate, or to win, but to understand. This takes an entirely different type of listening. Questions are vital, but they are asked out of sincere interest, not as a means to control, interrogate, embarrass or win a point.

There is a high tolerance for discomfort, especially your own: The more you try to act like you know what you are doing, the less likely you are to connect authentically. Don’t feign certainty to cover up ignorance. You cheat yourself out of learning.

There is a distrust of quick fixes that smooth over the issue of race: Problems that get fixed with “I think we are saying the same thing,” or “It’s only semantics,” or “let’s just agree to disagree,” or “lets focus on our similarities,” will not stay fixed.

The language you use is personal, not corporate-speak or diversity-polite; There is a willingness to speak to the moment, instead of using safe, tested scripts: People can tell when you are handing them a line or being patronizing. It is necessary to address the person and the issue with the freshness and curiosity and the vulnerability of a first-time experience. The only way people will risk telling you their truths is when you are willing to share yours.

You have to be willing to work harder than the other person: Don’t expect tit-for-tat or immediate reciprocity or overwhelming gratitude. That’s not the way history is undone. You may have to risk going first many, many times before people take you at your word.

The other person can’t take on the task of teaching you: “Just tell me what you want,” is translated into, “You are too difficult to figure out and not worth my time. Give me the Cliff Notes” It’s not far from there to, “If you would do it our way, things wouldn’t be so difficult (for me).” From what we have discovered, many blacks are ready to give up on white people ever coming around. Why continually bare your soul to someone who refuses to “get it”.

There has to be unqualified acceptance that the other person is the expert on the way they see things: You will save tons of time and frustration by not trying to convince the other person that their reality is faulty, that if they would be rational, they would take your word for how things are. “Let me see if I can understand how you see it,” are magical words.

It’s ok not to get it and admit it: Understanding takes work. Pretending to understand, when you don’t, for the sake of your image, is the final contract for losers. “Since we aren’t up to the work, let’s just say we did it and go home.”

There is a tolerance for “button pushing”: There are certain loaded phrases that can make us give up on each other and immediately bring a halt to the conversation, i.e. “You people,” “typical white male.” Don’t let them. Hang in there and get beneath them. Forgive each other in advance. Learn to be interested in why the other person would react so strongly to your use of certain phrases rather than defending your choice to use them.

There is no assumption that because you are a leader, you should already be good at this: Give up the illusion that you are going to role model perfection. This only gives you and everybody else an ulcer. Your team will be much more productive if you role model recovering from mistakes rather than how to never make them.

There is no permanent fix: Sorry, there is no final answer. Diversity is not a problem to be solved, but an ongoing set of challenges. Success is the ability to respond authentically to each one as they arise. You will never stop adding to your took kit.

Authentic Dialogue is a Process
• Can this language be taught? No, not really.
• Can learning this language be taught? Yes, definitely.
• Are there tools and skills that can support this endeavor? Again, yes.

The language of authentic dialogue is learned the same way children learn to speak—by speaking, being spoken to, overhearing others speak, and receiving some coaching along the way. And they never get it totally right. At a few months of age kids sign on to this great experiment and never ever graduate.

Margaret Mead once said that the health of a society can be determined by the quality
of its conversation. The same observation can be applied to organizations. In our own work, we have seen retention rates for people of color rise significantly when the organization became deliberate about creating forums in which members can sign on to the conversation and improve the quality of dialogue. These organizations give their leaders and employees a safe place to develop their own comfort levels around speaking what they have been taught to keep silent. And when they leave these forums, they keep the conversation alive, creating greater understanding as they go.