It is now well accepted that systematic racism may have a considerable negative impact. There are two distinct types of systemic racism.
Exhibiting racial prejudice in racial insults and verbal attacks on others are examples of overt racism. When "well-meaning" people who have professed an aversion to being regarded as racist behave with bias, they are engaging in "aversive racism." According to Pierce, in 1970, the word "microaggressions" was invented to describe a type of aversive racism that is difficult to ignore.
To be a victim of microaggression is to be subjected to a series of small and inconspicuous verbal, behavioral, or environmental slights and insults directed against a specific group, especially one that is culturally or racially marginalized, whether the taunts and insults are intended or not. According to Merriam-Webster, when someone makes a statement or does anything that shows a bias toward someone who belongs to a minority group, it is called a microaggression.
There are three types of microaggressions recognized by the American Psychological Association and scholars:
A slur is a "microassault" if it is a conscious and deliberate action or utterance. Discriminatory behavior includes using racist epithets or symbols, displaying swastikas, and serving white customers before black customers in restaurants.
Nonverbal comments that express rudeness and insensitivity, disparaging a person's race or ethnicity, are known as microinsults. For example, a Latino guy who is fluent in English and does not speak Spanish is addressed as "seor" by a non-Spanish speaker, implying that he was hired because of affirmative action or a quota system rather than his qualities. Examples abound.
As a third type of microinvalidation, the target person's opinions and feelings are omitted, negated, or nullified in the communication. As one example, Asian-Americans are frequently asked where they "come from," which implies that they are always outsiders in their own country.
Racism is an issue that must be discussed openly and honestly by all Americans, especially employers when it is accompanied by microaggressions and other forms of overt racism (such as the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor). Authoritative officials have long preached conflict avoidance, yet conflict avoidance only subordinates the concerns and further strengthens entrenched thinking (DeChurch et al., 2002). NOW is the moment to initiate and continue a meaningful discourse about racism with the most effective tools available.
What are some of the psychological literature's most important tips for having an open, honest conversation? Listed here are five methods and suggestions:
1. Use a customized SBAR tool to communicate.
Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (SBAR) is a four-letter acronym. In the military and subsequently, in health care, this paradigm was initially used to ensure good communication between opposing groups. For example, if two officers on a submarine had a philosophical dispute on how commands should be performed, each would submit an SBAR and work together to develop a combined proposal. The SBAR tool can be renamed Situation, Background, Acknowledgement, and Rebuilding (SBACAR) in the context of a racial dispute. If both parties were open to each other's histories and perspectives, they might reinvent the situation and establish a new strategy for moving ahead. They may not achieve their goal, but they will have put out a strong effort.
2. Modify the DESC tool to communicate.
Establish the DESC approach, which stands for Describe, Express, Specify, and Consequences (DESC Script for Assertiveness). Nurses were instructed to employ the DESC Script with abusive physicians in the early 2000s (AHRQ, 2005) to adopt a more aggressive and authoritative tone to combat the medical team's inherent prejudices.
DESC Scripts, adjusted for the workplace, should be used by employers who want to openly communicate with their employees about the nature of the racism they're dealing with and find a solution. But, again, consequences are essential than working together to find an answer since racism is utterly unacceptable from any party involved in the conversation.
3. Compare and contrast, but don't mix the two.
Human minds are hardwired to look for parallels and contrasts in everything we see, and we do it automatically. Whenever someone who has been racially abused relates their experiences, the listeners' natural reaction is to become defensive or draw connections with their own. Most people guilty of unintentional racism or microaggressions make the blunder of conflating the two terms. It's not a good idea. It is necessary for us to maintain an open mind when conversing with people. Do your best to absorb everything. Because most of us haven't experienced a mass genocide, we can't compare our experiences to those of those who have, nor can we claim to know what it's like to be in their shoes. As a result, slogans like "All Lives Matter" and "Holocaust parallels" offend black people, who have faced prejudice for almost four centuries.
4. Instead of debating, have a discussion.
HR professionals and managers need to convey that the objective of gathering is a conversation rather than dispute or disagreement. Set the rules for the discussion. It's essential to make it clear that the purpose of the meeting is to set a course for future activities to eliminate workplace racism. Indignation and a sense of invalidation might come from a discussion that goes on for too long. This is a violation of the law. Be open to the ideas of others using them to guide your future activities. Arguments based on prior understandings of a particular detail are doomed to failure.
5. Set realistic objectives and pay attention to the advice you get.
According to HR and people managers, open conversations of racism should be treated in the same manner as job performance discussions. Take responsibility for your actions rather than ascribing blame. Create an attainable but challenging target for all parties to adhere to, and if they don't, it's similar to resigning. In the same way that feedback is critical, consistent measurement is essential. Researchers have argued for the application of goal-setting theory in social situations for many years; now, HR thought leaders speak to the idea of defining a goal to eliminate discrimination. A zero-tolerance policy for racism, inequality, and bigotry in the workplace is necessary.
About Jim Woods
He has worked in global diversity and inclusion since 1998. He advocates tying strategic interventions to financial outcomes. He has written numerous leadership books and contributed to strategic diversity, inclusion, and leadership solutions. As President and CEO of Woods Kovalova Group, he has worked with Whirlpool, the US Army, Homeland Security, Deseret Bank, Seimens, and many others. Work with Jim.
Mr. Woods has a BS in management and leadership. Including an MS in organizational development and HR.