• Leadership California’s Culture of Inclusion of Diverse Thoughts and Voice.

 Leadership California’s continuous focus in providing  a safe place to share and ensure inclusion of diverse thoughts and voice is important to me.  Creating a supportive and psychological safe space necessitates open and honest dialogue, empathy and the chance to learn from other’s perspectives and life experiences.  When I truly care about others,  I am able to easily accept others perspectives, even if they differ from my own perspectives or experiences.  Therefore,  in order to create such a culture, it’s important to me to understand and learn about the culture of groups and how a group culture evolves, being mindful of group dynamics.  I am using the term “group” to include teams, communities, institutions and organizations of all kinds. 

I’ve witnessed that being a member of a group and wanting to belong, actually prompts us members to behave in a way that maybe, if on our own, we would not.  This can be good or bad. A group can temper good and bad behavior or amplify good and bad behavior. I experienced how messaging  from the top leader (and its immediate leadership team) creates a way of life and a way of acting that consciously and subconsciously drives the group’s behavior and in turn, our own individual behavior, when acting as  part of the group.  I have seen the so called “mob mentality” at play, where certain moral standards and inhibitions seem to quickly disappear. On a positive note, a safe group setting can encourage some of us to speak up openly when we may not feel comfortable doing so on our own, alone, so long as the culture strongly supports and values inclusion of diverse thoughts and voice.  Within this setting,  I don’t need others to agree with me in order to make me feel included. The “code” or rules of the group impact the inclusiveness of the environment.

• My personal experiences with “culture designed by code” leading to oppressed inclusion.

 

The Professional Code, I will refer to it in this context, is a set of unwritten expectations that tells us how to be successful, advance and ultimately make it to the top of the organization. The group’s Professional Code teaches each of us when we  are expected to “shut up” and when and what we  can speak up on and even the pecking order of who can say what to whom.   I recently came to more fully understand the true impact of this Professional Code upon reflection of my past experiences in discussions with Dr. Byron Burkhalter and others and how the Professional Code creates a negative culture of “oppressed inclusion” for an organization and its members and further how my actions support this outcome.  While I focused on fighting battles that I felt mattered most, doing what I could within the organization to help others,  I see how my own choices support a culture that was not great for customers or employees, and ultimately not good for the investors i.e. shareholders.  In retrospect, how can I make a positive difference?  Let me tell you more about my experience and share my conclusions to this question.

 

I was a member of a group that was held to a higher standard than the other groups in the organization.  Sounds odd.   Upon reflection, I realized an unwritten Professional Code existed. While the overall organization had rules of conduct, for some reason my group (along with myself) applied further rules to our conduct. These rules were never actually written but rather illuded to when certain scenarios arose.  The Professional Code may have been designed to drive positive behavior and ensure my group members exemplified the strongest example of outstanding citizenship and behavior within the organization, or so I believed.  I am sure good intentions were behind this but upon reflection, it became a very effective tool for higher level leaders to control how a group (such as a legal team) with apparent authority on fairness could speak up on uncomfortable issues.  This unwritten professional code had consequences (intended or unintended) to stifle the ability to address negative issues or abuse that needed to be corrected for the benefit of the customers, employees and shareholders.  The Professional Code had the result of ensuring I and the greater team (1) get along with everyone and rise above (aka try to ignore) certain issues and controversies that the higher leadership did not deem noteworthy and (2) avoid matters that could reflect negatively in an unpopular way on our legal group, often resulting in the group being negatively labeled as the enforcers or police.  Yes I can and did politely raise issues in a positive, well cushioned manner.  However, the invoked code made it easy for some to ignore me and view my voice as a suggestion.  I also felt a strong need to go along with my group’s consensus in order to feel like I belong in my own peer group. Therefore I often did not share my personal point of view (especially if it was not duty related) when my view point differed from the peer group’s viewpoint.  This may be harmless some times. However, over time, it slowly changed my own values thresh-holds to the point that I was not upholding my own values, but rather the organization’s values.  Reflecting back, eventually my  personal measure of what is important to address changed to a different threshold. It became more focused on organizational survival scenarios, rather than (fairness) what is right or wrong for the customers, employees and shareholders.  In other words, I started to apply the organization’s values and lens over my own personal values and lens, as part of my daily duties, interactions and role focus.  The code was working as designed. I was assimilated, like the Borg in Star Trek. I forgot that I was a valuable, unique individual who deserved love, respect and acceptance, without being changed, even if my perspectives and voice were different than other peer leaders in my organization.

My experience shows me that this Professional Code stifles the ability to address certain behavioral issues head on, especially if the code is that you can’t say “no” to the executive leaders (i.e. they hear “no” if you suggest anything other than their approach) or make them uncomfortable, because it reflects badly on you and your peer group.  I was a “feelings” manager for the leaders above me.  The unwritten code was raised as circumstances required, as higher level leaders needed. I learned through trial and error how to function within the culture of this group.  Please see more on this topic in  Dr. Byron Burkhalter’s comments on the “Telling the Convict Code”.   Similarly a sub code of “work arounds” developed in response by individuals within the organization.  For example, as the members learn to not raise issues that are uncomfortable, they instead complain to trusted friends or take the issue to someone they perceive will raise it because they often raise these types of issues and are already held in contempt. Using someone else’s voice creates a shield and allows one to keep oneself safe and anonymous.

 

When a Professional Code discourages or punishes raising certain issues because it makes the top leaders “uncomfortable”,  I am not empowered to tell a leader that there is a better approach or how to improve the culture and in turn, the business.  I did raise my alternative suggestions in a polite and respectful way, but the code enabled strong headed leaders who did not want their ideas and directions to be questioned to simply ignore my voice  and/or question why I was not  a team player and/or point out my “otherness” as an outsider that didn’t belong in the leadership team.  When this happened,  I didn’t feel like I belonged.  Not because of any “imposter syndrome” but solely as someone who was not included because of my unique and different thoughts and perspectives.  As an individual, I did not perform as an effective advocate when the unwritten Professional Code encourages voices to be quieted for the comfort of the top leaders.  As a result, this particular set of rules or the Professional Code has the outcome, whether intentionally designed or not, to suppress the individual and all non-top level members’ voices. The impact to me as a leader, is to be an individual, standing alone. Feeling like an outsider for not complying with the code.  There were times when I knew I was not included in the inner circle and that “they” didn’t trust me to carry the message and keep quiet.  At the time, I did not know I couldn’t win standing alone.  I now believe none of us can win standing alone. Without trust and safety to raise uncomfortable topics, there is a profound lack of inclusiveness and lack of tolerance in the organization for different perspectives and voices.  This hurt me personally and also the group members, and overall the organization, in ways that may not be obvious to the top leaders who want to have the final say and not be bothered with matters that don’t directly drive the bottom line.  Comfort and egos prevailed.

 

• Self-Imposed regulations and Being an Oppressed Oppressor

 

As a human who wants to belong, I confess that I self-regulated, in order to  belong and to achieve my career goals.  I was motivated to win at the corporate game of “climbing ladders to the top”.  The self-regulation was continuously enforced with performance reviews and discussion about situations in between, where I was questioned and often taught how to be a better leader by following the unwritten Professional Code in order to succeed. That self-regulation, justified by my own sense of integrity and wanting to succeed and belong, simply upheld a system of suppression, which was carefully disguised as “career success by behaving in accordance with the Professional Code”.  I was oppressed and yet I oppressed.  While I thought I was being a good citizen of the organization, and being a leader who could help others successfully get to the top of their own ambitions, I was essentially simply complicit in the outcome of suppressing voices and not addressing bias and other uncomfortable issues.  Each time I spoke up, I was quickly taught my violation of the Professional Code and the consequences of how it was delaying my promotion.  As much as I believed and put effort into making change, in my kind and professional manner, I was not succeeding as an individual to make the changes needed. Then before I knew it, my true identity was gone and I identified with and voluntarily participated in a culture of behavior that was consistent with the dominance of the top leadership.  I wrote and gave  those same performance reviews and coached others how to succeed, based on the Professional Code.  I certainly did counsel my team members on behaviors condoned within the professional code and cautioned them on matters, with the intent to help them advance their career.  I thought I was giving them the key to success.   Unfortunately this worked to advance the ongoing code, not the individual.

Where is this culture originating from? I am a quiet observer by nature and I analyze what I observe.  Based on talking with my friends/colleagues, this scenario is wide spread in Silicon Valley, where I have worked as a professional since 1991.  I started out working directly within the arena I am about to describe and worked in different positions throughout my career which allowed me to observe it from different angles. This arena is cloaked in mystery and drives the romantic notion of Silicon Valley.  My working theory is that many organizations in Silicon Valley often originate as start-up companies where a particular culture and type of leader is put in place by the venture capitalists and other investors who financially back the company.  These investors are part of  a group of successful leaders and form a type of brotherhood, (sadly more often than a sisterhood) where they socialize and select leaders from within to join the companies they invest in, with the goal of protecting  and growing  their financial investments.  There is an unwritten Professional Code.  Once those leaders are in place, the leaders have a track record of bringing start-ups to success or help existing companies recover from financial down turns or mismanagement,  to increase and improve growth and revenue.  Within this particular code, there is set of play book of recognizable terminology, formulas, strategic plans, and behaviors designed to drive success, that the leader brings with them to the “target” company.  I have seen a consistent theme to the code, as I have observed the rotation of these leaders. The leaders are not typically long term. They tend to be there for a short time to collect their contractual rewards.  This top leadership team knows  what to do  to reach financial success, so they are implicitly not “ok” with hearing “no” or that there may be a better approach for a needed outcome, because they know more than the rest of us, based on their experience, proven by their track record.  It’s contagious. Silicon Valley is infected with those leaders who operate with this playbook. They are not “ok” with discomfort.  In fact, they often surround themselves with lavish comforts, ranging from private limos, planes, catered gourmet meals and other niceties, including close allies, staff and next level VPs who shield them from the mundane or uncomfortable parts of daily function.  This next level of VPs  who surround the top Leader are the protection barrier and they are conditioned to protect the top leader from uncomfortable situations and keep uncomfortable details away. All of these VPs see themselves in training for this top position. They in turn expect that same protection from their next level of leaders.  This shows up as “duty to the organization”, without thought of fairness to customers, employees or stockholders.  When I personally questioned this, I was told by a senior leader: “I am not here to do what is fair, I am here to do what is right for the Company”.  I still recall the feeling of a punch in my gut when I was told this.  Why is this not the same thing?  Why isn’t what is fair also best for the organization? This leadership group applies the Professional Code.  The assimilation is complete. It does help me to understand why middle management, aspiring to be top leaders, not fully understanding the impact of the code, believe in and want to be change makers.  Yet they know enough of the code to hesitate or be cautious about approaching top leaders, especially in the areas of DEI.  I was there and I was one of middle management.  I saw that it truly takes a unique top leader who wants to see a culture of diversity, equity and true inclusion, with open honesty, and is willing to be uncomfortable hearing what middle management believes must change for fairness and true inclusion to prevail.  See the Base Camp company story.  There are always excuses why it’s not a good idea to burden the top leader and the employees with an open and honest dialogue because it’s too messy and diverts attention from the end goal of profitability.  We know that thoughtful discussions about some topics can make people uncomfortable.  Especially when different perspectives exist.  Conflict and tension can lead to true understanding of  the true root cause of disfunction, and lead to finding appropriate solutions and positive changes, if the culture of inclusion will allow the uncomfortable process to fully unfold to is natural conclusion. 

A  culture of holding a particular group to a higher and/or different standard, which is often labeled as “Professionalism”, can work as a mechanism to control the behavior of everyone in the group, from the top pay grade level to the bottom pay grade level.  This code can be applied to all uncomfortable topics, whether it’s to look at how business practices comply with regulations or how we can improve the organization’s culture of inclusion, diversity and equity.  It works like this:  You know something is not quite right, or unfair, but in order to belong and not violate the professional code, you can only address it in a “professional way”.  This means the discussion and the actions will be designed to minimize the discomfort to the highest level leaders, if you can get past the barrier of other leaders who will determine if the issue is worthy of reaching the highest level. 

In summary, while I thought I was  doing my job, as defined for me, fulfilling my professional role, behaving professionally, living to a higher standard, sadly I was actively complicit in my participation of this oppression culture and enforcing the status quo as an oppressor.  As long as I comply with this type of professional code or any other comfort code within an organization, I cannot be an effective advocate until the organization values “advocates” and “diverse thoughts and voice”.  I experienced how the professional code focuses on each of us, as an individual, for lack of compliance with the professional code, and draws the attention away from what’s wrong with the system, organization or the overall group culture to focus on what is wrong with me, as an individual.  Acting alone, as an individual, I see how a code can and has silenced my voice and in turn, how I advance the code.  When separated out as an individual who is not acting correctly per the code, I am easier to control and silence, especially when everyone else supports that application and then so do I. 

• My Learned Lessons on Leadership and what  I can do as a Leader to advance Inclusion.

I believe that group culture is created based on the group’s agreed values, which are supported and vocalized by the top leader or leaders.  When power and revenue is most valued, then a professional code is created in order to support profitable, immediate results with a short term focus that is not questioned.  This leads to a focus on individuals and how they are not contributing enough or correctly to the bottom line. Individual leaders are divided from their group and stand alone.  When integrity and what is right or fair for the entire group or “we”  (customers, employees,  and shareholders)  is also a focus, then it’s a long term game where efforts and resources will be invested now for a longer term pay off, which may be more difficult to measure and for upper management to support.  A group with a  “we” focused value system and concern about how the community of the group will be impacted, results in more focus on our community identity and how we are perceived as an organization.  My theory illustrates how inclusive cultural values are important and supportive to an inclusive community. 

As a result of  my journey as a leader, I see leadership is not solely an individual performance matter. I take into consideration that a group’s cultural values impact my own leadership values and the entire leadership of the organization.  Organizations overwhelmingly focus on our individual qualities and leadership skills, as reflected in our performance reviews.  I see  “Leadership” as a cultural value that is important to how a group functions and requires more focus on organizational values.   As leadership is an organizational value, I now look at an organization’s culture and how it impacts its future. I can and will look closer at which organizations I personally choose to be part of and why.  Which leads me back to my question of how could I have made a more positive difference or impact.  Speaking up more and questioning the professional code makes a difference and I should feel free to be me and live my personal values.  In addition, identifying when I am solely standing alone, and recognizing that approach is a losing and exhausting approach.  I believe investing effort to find and form a group of like-minded leaders to support each other on breaking the code is a powerful and more successful approach.  If those supporters can’t be found in the organization, then ultimately it’s best to make an earlier decision of whether this is an organization I really want to be part of or whether I am attempting to prove I can win within the code. I want to be part of an organization that values me for me and my unique perspectives, skills, voice and that values honesty and relationships. Not an organization that has a code to make me into what they want me to be and rewards me for self-regulation and ultimately oppression and suppression of diverse thought and voice. 

Please take time, as part of your leadership journey and growth, to reflect on the group culture and dynamics of your organizations and how you can make a difference as a leader.

• Do you recognize within your organizational culture any of the behaviors I described that are ultimately “unfair” and adversely impacts its members, especially people of color or any under-represented group?       
• Are you the individual standing alone, having the Professional Code applied to you or are you part of the Leadership that is applying the Professional Code to bring others in line with the Professional Code or are you in both situations?
• Can you relate to confusing review comments you receive or are providing to others –like you are too outspoken, yet you are too quiet, and somehow you are both?  In other words you speak about the topics we don’t want you to talk about and are not outspoken enough on the topics we want you to support.  There are always very valuable nuggets for self-improvement provided in review comments.  I have learned to look carefully at them to determine what is truly an improvement for me and what is a cultural professional code that controls me for the sake of other’s comfort.  Sometimes they are both, so how you personally apply the advice is important.

Please be thoughtful about your leadership, the organization’s leadership and please help break the code.

Click here for more information from Dr. Byron Burkhalter on these topics.

- Carol Hunter, President, Leadership California

 Read Carol Hunter's first, second, and third message regarding her journey of diversity and inclusion of thought and voice. 

“My Personal Insights”

I am checking in with you, a little further down the path of my journey.  I continue to expand my understanding on  how I can and will create a safe place for others to speak their true thoughts, in their authentic voice.  I am having meaningful and insightful conversations.  As I seek true and deep understanding of another’s diverse thought and voice, I am practicing truly listening in a way that hears what is said from the speaker’s experience and perspective.  This requires learning more about the speaker’s personal experiences.  I hope you are practicing this as well in your interactions.   I would like to share more of my learning journey in the context of  Leadership California’s Values: 

I appreciate how Leadership California’s values emphasize seeking and applying “knowledge” to make deeper “connections” and take “action” as part of our culture of diversity, equity and inclusion.  I believe that with knowledge comes an obligation to connect with others to create the momentum of action and make change happen for positive progression of diversity, equity and inclusion.  That is the sisterhood of Leadership California.

Connecting in a meaningful way in the new “Normal”.

In my further conversations with Dr. Byron Burkhalter, we talked about “othering” and “marking” and the tendency to be inclusive of only those that look, act and live like us. In doing so, this creates boundaries and a burden on those who are “others”. Click here for more information from Dr. Byron Burkhalter on this topic.  Byron has an incredible approach that creates deeper understanding. This particular linked writing will help with self-examination, which, while difficult, is so very valuable and vital to personal growth. 

I naturally want to belong and be part of the social “group”.   When included, I am simply enjoying being part of the group and I am not concerned on how “others” outside the defined group feel or experience their own world or the group itself.  At the same time, if you are an “other” then you must constantly worry,  focus and learn about the expectations, culture, and feelings of those who are not “others” – in order to navigate their world, to fit in, to survive and attempt to thrive.  I’ve learned that as part of an “other’s” double consciousness, there is a burden of understanding the defined group’s way of thinking and adapt to where non-others are.   

I have experienced feeling the strong social pressure “to go along to get along” and to “belong” in a social group setting.  As part of being in the social group setting and wanting to belong, I’ve experienced the unspoken pressure to speak up in support of the group’s social consensus opinion.  This excludes any professional legal topic where I would have a professional opinion and obligation to opine based on my professional expertise.   From my own personal set of values, in social group activities, I chose to remain silent on my personal views and not compromise myself by agreeing if I truly did not agree. If I felt safe, then I voiced a contrary view.  In these social situations, I often felt conspicuous being quiet.

Throughout the work day, social group interactions occur in a corporate and organizational office setting.  This transition between my professional activities and social activities could be very fluid.  For example, in one moment I am told I have “too much otherness” in a performance review by a male superior (not appropriate) and in another moment I am part of social bantering with my peers that often takes place before, after or during a formal professional meeting.  In the social interaction, I have had experiences where I don’t think the same as the group, experience the world the same way they do and I have different personal viewpoints based on my own experiences, that I feel I cannot safely share due to the pressure of belonging.  This feeling of being an outsider in certain group dynamics arises from my own life experiences, which are not typical of most attorneys.  I realize a version of this “other” experience is a way of life for people of color, people of different sexual orientation, or at times even females in a male dominated environment, to name a few examples.    

I hear some yearning for everything to go back to “normal”.  I wonder what is “normal” and how much of the desire for normal is really yearning  for the ease of not having to think about others’ perspectives?  It is my own self-created privilege to only worry about myself and my own perspective.  I look at my own “normals” to determine how it involves the convenience of not thinking about and empathizing with other’s experiences within their own existence.   It is easier for me to think “I’m educated, I am a nice person and my intent is not to make others feel bad or left out”.  It’s not uncommon to rely on “intent”  to justify actions, because it has a strong foundation  in the legal world.  It is now clearer to me how this type of  “normal” lacks inclusiveness and does not create a safe environment where one can openly share diverse experiences, thoughts and voice, regardless of good intent. 

I understand in order to create an environment where I can connect on a deeper, more meaningful level,  it’s not about intent for a safe environment, but rather the actual impact and outcome of the environment I create.  I want inclusiveness that allows each individual to feel comfortable sharing their own perspectives and thoughts in their own authentic voice. So, I will keep all this in mind as I advance and expand my thinking to ensure I include other’s perspective and  I focus on how to make the environment a safe place that naturally creates feelings of belonging by all participants. 

Taking Action and Voicing Support for Others.

In my further conversations with Dr. Byron Burkhalter, we talked about the consequences of creating comfort for those in power and women’s social obligations to do so. Click here for more information from Dr. Byron Burkhalter on this topic.  

As a woman, I confess the tendency to exercise my learned obligation to be nice and create an environment of comfort (for example as a subordinate within a power structure) where I don’t speak my own views or use my own voice if it’s going to cause discomfort.  As an advocate, I feel compelled to voice thoughts and raise issues for others, regardless of the discomfort to those in power  (although carefully worded).  Why am I less willing to do so for myself if it will create discomfort for those in power?  Yes, I have compromised my voice in this way.   I justified it by rationalizing that there is only so much “trouble” I should or can cause at a given time.  How much “trouble” can I afford?  There are only so many battles I can fight at one time.  So, in the past, if I believed I had already used my reserves of “good will” to speak up on the behalf of others, naturally I would allow injustice I felt for myself to go unvoiced.

My experience in a corporate legal department involved being told that I and my corporate legal colleagues were held to a higher standard of presenting and conducting ourselves than our peers in other departments.  That rule was susceptible to being used as a control over my individual voice and as a method to maintain the comfortable normal for others in higher power positions.  An example of this rule’s restraint is that I could only politely but firmly challenge a senior corporate leader who is blatantly falsifying information he is reporting to his senior peer leaders in a corporate meeting, after which to then walk out of the conference room together to have him voluntarily admit to me that he lied and “so what”.  Could I have called him a liar in real time, during the meeting or raise it in the next meeting that he was a liar? Not per that organization’s social rules.  Instead I exert much effort behind the scenes to successfully prevent actions taken on false information.  There is no consequence to him but I am shamed for doing my job, as the over aggressive  “enforcer” who doesn’t fit in.  After reflecting on those experiences, I am changing how I see myself and my role, as well as the standards I apply to govern my voice.  

 I have spoken up for myself.  This was rarely met with empathy but rather I was made to feel badly and  uncomfortable, as my superiors, men and women alike, were mostly unsupportive. Responses and reactions told me that I was out of line (from my usual quiet, good-natured character) and I saw and heard the dismay for sharing the way I felt.  I now look back at how convenient and comfortable it was for those in superior positions to not see my side and continue to ignore the issues raised.  Other than  from my peers and team members (behind closed doors), I rarely felt support from higher level leaders. Sometimes even well-meaning women tried to help me by shushing me, as they explained it would only hurt me more to speak up.   If this resonates with you, then you know the not so uncommon corporate culture I am describing.  Speaking up can be a very lonely endeavor and under-represented members in particular are taught it is not the way to get ahead.

I believe the world would benefit from more overt support by speaking up for those not able to speak up for themselves, and especially supporting them in the moment, when they do speak up.  It’s more often than not, very uncomfortable as an observer, based on personal experiences of being shamed or shunned for speaking up.  Sometimes we don’t notice or we shy away from the opportunities to support others in the moment.  I am learning and practicing to see opportunities and hear potentially negative impactful statements in “real time” so I can react and add support during the conversation and not only afterwards.  I do believe taking action as soon as realization sets in is important.  Even taking action afterwards, if not prepared during the moment, provides some support.  I believe it is important as a role model and a leader to build trust in my leadership by speaking up, in the moment, for others and myself.    I do ask all leaders to please practice  hearing  in “real time” so you can also provide support in the moment.   I also ask all leaders to look at whether the environment I described exists in your organization and if so, please actively change it for the betterment of your organization and every participant.

As I continue my journey, I am practicing my own awareness of the outcome and/or impact of my words and actions and not simply my intent.  I am comfortable with being uncomfortable with a conversation, as I anticipate the breakthrough of new insights.  I am seeking to improve my skills of recognizing impactful issues and speaking up in the moment for myself and others.  I hope you, as a leader, will join me in these practices to create a safe place for others to speak their true thoughts, in their authentic voice.

(Please read more about Dr. Byron Burkhalter and his organization “Out of Privilege” at:  https://outofprivilege.com)

- Carol Hunter, President, Leadership California

 Read Carol Hunter's first message and second message regarding her journey of diversity and inclusion of thought and voice. 

Systemic racism has led to issues of discrimination in many areas of society, including the criminal justice system. While the jury decided to hold Derek Chauvin accountable for the murder of George Floyd, there is work to be done to truly dismantle unjust systems. We hope that this is the first step towards addressing systemic racism. 

Earlier this month we heard from several of Leadership California’s Asian, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) alumnae shared the racism and inequity that they have experienced during our Vital Conversation Series. They shared that while racism against Asian Americans dates back to the late 1800’s, it has persisted and even increased since the first cases of COVID-19 were identified in China.

The events in Atlanta have once again reminded us of the racism and violence that our AAPI friends, colleagues and neighbors continue to experience, sometimes on a daily basis. Leadership California believes in being allies to all marginalized groups and that starts with educating ourselves about issues at hand. Below please find a few resources to help you get started.

• https://anti-asianviolenceresources.carrd.co/
• Self Evident: Asian America’s Stories Podcast: https://selfevidentshow.com/
• https://www.asianamtoolkit.org/
• https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/speaking-up-against-racism-around-the-coronavirus
• https://www.purdue.edu/aaarcc/documents/AAARCC-Teach-In-Resources-COVID-19-4.pdf
• https://asianresource.indiana.edu/resources/covid--19-ways-to-fight-racism.html
• https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/covid19
• Bystander Intervention: How to Intervene when someone is being harassed: https://www.afsc.org/bystanderintervention

Sincerely, 

Carol Hunter, President
Jen Brydges, Executive Director

I see myself as a life-long student and learner. As part of that process, I seek to understand the experiences, opinions and learned lessons of others.  I also seek out experts who are scholars of the subject in question.  An expert that has helped me on my path is Dr. Byron Burkhalter.  Dr. Byron Burkhalter is a Sociologist of Race, Ethnicity and Interaction in Detail.  My personal thanks to Byron for helping me on my journey.  Please read more about Dr. Byron Burkhalter and his organization “Out of Privilege” at: https://outofprivilege.com

After conversations with Dr. Burkhalter and with other colleagues and trusted advisors, I am expanding my understanding of experiences different than mine, through the eyes of others.  My personal learnings may resonate with you, as I share a couple of my thoughts:

• Intent vs Effect (outcome and unintended consequences).

I am a person who is focused on achieving my goals and I am outcome driven.  As I set out to accomplish my goals, I think through and set specific intentions on what I want to accomplish.  I am also familiar with the concept of “unintended consequences”.  That concern has driven me to think through “how” I achieve my goals very carefully.  What I have learned is that even if one acts or speaks with the best of intentions, the effect (or outcome) on others who have lived a very different experience than mine can be an adverse effect or outcome.  Clearly unintended consequences that have very real effects or impacts on others.  This makes my “listening to learn” and “seeking to understand” even more important.  Without an expanded awareness from other’s perspectives, good intent can have a damaging effect and outcome.  Realizing the words that I choose will have meanings and impact to others, I want to become more knowledgeable about the words I use.  While some may choose words purposely because they intend a negative impact on others, those who unknowingly chose words can seek to learn the meanings of certain words (and thus the impact on) various ethnic communities.   Some words have institutionally racist use and origins.  Some words are designed to maintain “order” over “justice”.  This leads me into my next shared thoughts.

 

• The weapon of comfort and tone policing – a “safe” or “civil” place.

In my first writing, I talked about creating a safe place and having civil conversations.  My intent in using those words is to make it comfortable for others so that they may speak more openly and freely.  Yes, I am not against enjoying a “comfortable” conversation, as well. Given my legal line of profession and my own personal experiences, I am ok with discomfort and that may make me less sensitive to my own discomfort.  I don’t seek out discomfort, but I can certainly handle it.  I do share with you my new found appreciation for the fact that comfort and tone policing does not allow some to speak freely.  I can relate to this example: If you believe a situation is unfair, you may not speak of it openly to your supervisor or any higher leader, such as the president of your organization.  In the balance of power, you have a lot more to lose.  If that leader becomes unhappy with your openly shared thoughts and/or voice on the matter, guess who’s career will be least impacted? The person with the power.  If you try to ensure your leader is “comfortable”, then you will watch your “tone” and “words” and likely not fully speak your truth or viewpoint.  Ok, so the balance of power, actual and perceived, will impact your ability to feel safe and/or cause you to modify what you say.  All resulting in the inability to speak freely and have your concerns/issues addressed.  I more fully appreciate that this dynamic creates an outcome of maintaining order (civil conversations for the comfort of others) over justice. So, I welcome uncomfortable conversations which may not sound civil, as the words will be filled with well-founded emotion based on the personal experiences. Socially, women in particular are more likely to be taught to maintain and provide for the comfort of others.  Inadvertently, the norm we as women may seek also has the outcome of maintaining order over justice.  Therefore, I seek to understand situations and welcome hearing someone’s experience over my and others’ comfort.   I know that Leadership California provides a “safe” place to have these conversations.  I appeal to leaders in other organizations to also provide a “safe” place to have uncomfortable conversations so that we enable justice over order.

Click here to read Carol Hunter's first message regarding her journey of diversity and inclusion of thought and voice. 

- Carol Hunter, President, Leadership California

Events in 2020 unfortunately highlighted areas of deep bias in race and ethnicity that have not been successfully addressed.  My writing is not designed to solve the deep-rooted discrimination, hatred and violence, as real experts have written very insightful pieces.  I encourage you to please educate yourself and read what the experts have to say. I am not so naïve to think that conversations alone can cure discrimination and hate.  I am speaking and focusing on the break-down of productive and civil daily communications in communities and organizations. I am focusing on what we can practice as leaders to help drive a more productive civil discourse so we can make progress on what is important to our organizations and communities. 

How can I (and other leaders) make a difference in 2021 to create a greater level of diversity and inclusion of thought and voice, in both our personal and professional lives, so we can communicate with each other better?  How can we consciously and actively improve our approach to diversity and inclusion in the area of thought and voice?  Sometimes when we witness moments of discrimination or bias in conversations, we find ourselves frozen and unprepared to constructively respond or lead a productive conversation to address the issues. I, like others, have found myself often staying silent due to not wanting to say the wrong words, I don’t react at all for fear of further verbal/physical attack and/or being socially excluded or react with anger and say something that isn’t productive. After that moment passes, I find myself thinking, “I wish I would have said this instead!” I plan to be more prepared in 2021 to react in a way that positively impacts diversity and inclusion of thought and voice within organizations and community.

Truly Listening With the Goal of Understanding Thought and Voice

I believe, by preparing my approach and words in advance, it allows for focus and energy on the courage and calmness needed to respond and create a productive interaction.  As I ponder these situations in my own life, I’ve concluded that gaining a clear understanding of the other person’s viewpoint is important to ensure I am not presuming what the other person means.  As legendary leadership expert Dr. Steven Covey taught, “Seek first to understand then to be understood.”  It is easy to hear something and internally equate it to our own experiences, automatically assuming intentions and meaning, before we have fully explored the other person’s thinking. We may not be understanding each other’s chosen words, as we often have our own meanings attributed to words, based on our own life experiences. If after discussion, I believe I am compelled to provide my personal version of enlightenment, I find “labeling, embarrassing or confrontational reactions” does not lead to such. I need to stand ready to have a private discussion and to control my own reaction and behavior. After all, I believe the only thing we really can control in life is our own reactions and behaviors. With a very calm, open approach, I will seek to understand the other person with empathy and not jump to judging. This necessitates showing respect and active listening, while truly seeking to understand. How do we do this when no one seems to be listening to each other?  I will patiently let the other person talk first and ask questions that are only designed to expand my understanding. I will withhold my inner judgment; feel true empathy and I won’t apply popular or my own made labels. This is a big ask for all of us who are busy thinking ahead of what we will say next, rather than truly listening to the other person. 

Being Comfortable with Ambiguity

I recently listened to an interview by Brene’ Brown with President Obama on Leadership, Family and Service.  When faced with the paradox of opposites, President Obama chose to believe that both viewpoints can be correct. After contemplation, I realized our viewpoints are a product of our own personal experiences and perceptions. We often take positions after we overlay our personal values and how they are impacted.   Rather than taking a narrow approach on who is right or wrong, President Obama says he gets comfortable with “ambiguity.”  To hold the discomfort of paradox requires an open mind and letting go of needing to be right. President Obama also talked about constantly questioning one’s own motivations.  I like this approach in determining if I am truly seeking to understand or am I working to convince the other person what is right. Opposing viewpoints can both be true and contain truth at the same time.  I seek to appreciate that. How can we as leaders seek to understand and respect opposing viewpoints and find joint solutions to address both positions? A well thought out approach is needed today more than ever, especially in the current heated political arena and for the resolution of troubling community issues.

Join Me and Leadership California on Our Diversity and Inclusion Journey

I see an opportunity in 2021 for myself and for the Leadership California community to move to a new level where we truly listen and seek to understand the other person’s viewpoint in order to promote diversity and inclusion of thought and voice.  With understanding comes respect and appreciation that the other person’s life experiences are unique and result in their seeing the world differently.

Please join me on my personal journey in practicing being mindful of my own implicit bias (aka unconscious bias) in the areas of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, affinity (gravitating towards people like ourselves), ageism, gender, religion, disability, etc. and how that clouds our viewpoints.   Inclusion is derived from “respecting and appreciating” what makes us different.  Let’s all practice together “not judging” and not labeling “different” as “bad or wrong”.

I believe that if we truly learn to listen with respect and accept that diverse viewpoints do and will exist, we can more fully demonstrate that we value and appreciate the other person. With greater inclusion, we also create a sense of belonging which is an important psychological need and critical to community. My hope for 2021 is that we build a community that works together to find joint solutions, rather than leading to division and silent or not so silent resentment and hate. I look forward to sharing my learnings with you throughout the year and to hearing from you about your own insights and practices. Please watch for our updated diversity, equity and inclusion statements to be posted in the near future.

- Carol Hunter, President, Leadership California

During unprecedented times like what we are facing today, strong leadership is more important than ever.  Women leaders aremaking a difference right now all over the world on the front lines of healthcare, food and medical supply, government and other public service. 

We at Leadership California applaud everyone leading us through this pandemic and are proud of the example that the women of the world and our home state have set during this very trying time. 

• Every doctor, nurse, store worker, delivery driver and all essential workers who are putting themselves at risk to ensure we are all able to continue with our lives in a safe manner.
• San Francisco mayor London Breed was the first to issue a shelter in place order before the virus decimated the community.
  
• Santa Clara County Medical Officer, Dr. Sara Cody, has continued to investigate the outbreak to provide additional intelligence to those tracking the spread of the virus to ensure an accurate understanding of its trajectory.
• Speaker of the House and CA State Representative, Nancy Pelosi, has been leading the effort to ensure that small businesses and individuals throughout the state and country have the resources they need to survive this period.
• CA State Senator Kamala Harris who is fighting to ensure citizens have access to the healthcare resources and food they need -- especially if they are in an at risk category.
• There are many women leaders, in California and around the country and world, of all political affiliations, who have provided strong leadership during this difficult time. Unfortunately we are unable to list them all here. Please note below our request for stories to share so that we can highlight more great leadership examples.
  

As you know, Leadership California is focused on motivating and inspiring women to have the knowledge, confidence and connections necessary to act in ways that improve California’s future. With the shelter-in-place order, we are working to creatively shift our programming so that we can continue to safely engage and empower women throughout the state to make a difference. When major events create unexpected challenges for leaders, we pivot and deliver in an innovative way.  Therefore, the CIT II session will be presented virtually throughout the months of June and July to ensure we continue to deliver on our mission and advance our participants' knowledge, connections, and influence across the state of California. As things continue to change daily around COVID-19, we are monitoring the impact to our events in July and October and will be providing more frequent communications around those events and the virtual CIT program.

• Here is a listing of our upcoming virtual events planned so far. We will continue to add more, so stay tuned for more information! We appreciate your support and participation. 

• Also, each of us has an expertise that the Leadership California network can benefit from.  We would like to give you a platform to share your expertise at one of our virtual events. Please let us know if there is a topic you would be open to sharing with the broader Leadership California network. This will help us continue to provide valuable programming for our network and help us evolve the Leadership California offering.
• Finally, we also would like to invite you to share any stories of extraordinary leadership during this period that you think should be celebrated. We are planning to amplify these stories with our network and on our social media channels and would love to feature stories about how you and your organization are demonstrating leadership during this challenging time.

We would also like to thank our sponsors and the individuals who have continued to support us and participate in our California Issues and Trends Program.  While each of us may be touched by the pandemic in very different ways, many in the non-profit community are working to pivot and maintain the value they add to their networks as well as the funding required to keep them going. As we shift our approach, there are plenty of opportunities for both organizations and individuals to foster the next generation of California’s leaders.

Strong leadership has never been more critical as the state, the country and the world face unprecedented challenges. Leaders are required in government, healthcare and across every industry in the public and private sectors. As a community, we must continue to invest in training leaders with the skills they need to meet the challenges of today and those we can’t even imagine tomorrow.

Our hearts go out to those who are currently struggling with the varied impacts of the pandemic and those who have lost loved ones as a result. This is a difficult period, but we have faith in the leadership across the state to ensure that we emerge from this in a position of strength.

Thank you again for your continued support.

Best wishes,

Carol Hunter
President of Leadership California

Dr. Margie Wheeler
Leadership California Board President

As we look to 2019, we are focused on key initiatives including:

 

• Launch of an all-new Leadership California website to better tell LC’s story, interact with those interested in advancing women, and showcasing our alumnae and partners.
  
 

• Honoring a slate of outstanding leaders at the 2019 Legacy of Leadership Awards on Monday, May 6, which will be announced later this month.
  
   
• The new 2019 Class for California Issues & Trends which kicks off on March 3 in Sacramento. (There are still a few openings available)
  
   
• The bi-annual LC to DC event (Leadership California goes to Washington, D.C.) set for Sept. 22-25. (Registration is open and space is limited)
  
   
• Alumnae engagement activities including opportunities to participate during a segment of the CIT program and special events.
  

President Dr. Margie Wheeler