PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS, CONTEXT AND CANCELLING
There is something incredibly uncomfortable about a swathe of individuals having private conversations recorded and them being saved for future use as ammunition to hinder or obliterate said individuals’ leadership tenure.
Currently, it seems anyone who dares to question the behaviours and intentions of the nation-state of Israel finds themselves on the receiving end of such actions, i.e. being labelled antisemitic (an argument that many Israeli Jews, Arabs, Druze and others have already dismantled). But this impacts many other areas of discourse in the public square.
I have been in challenging conversations with people about sexual orientation and its impact on broader society. I have challenged people who have used the term the alphabet people or despise the term CIS, and the discourse around transwomen remains a hotly debated one.
I have had tough conversations around race and ethnicity. Touching on some of the oft-forgotten tensions between, say, those of African and Asian descent. I have engaged in spirited debates about post-colonialism, model minorities and how proximity to Whiteness can hinder the collective work around racial equality.
I have had long debates about tensions in the Levant, exploring the fundamentals and extremes of this conflict. From Arab Nationalism to Revisionist Zionism to Evangelical Christianity. Discussing Ahad Ha'am, Judith Butler, and Avraham Burg. To exploring the works of Nur Masalha and Hanan Ashrawi to Saeb Erekat and everything in between.
These are just a few examples of the many conversations I’ve had over the years that, if recorded and with some clever editing, could have easily ended up with me and any of the individuals present being cancelled and doing up “apology tours” online and in the press. This is scary, considering my work in inclusive leadership requires me to have robust conversations on these topics, as well as gender equity and disability.
I say all this to say, how the heck can we have brave conversations if we cannot fully trust those invited into these spaces? And we need to have brave conversations, especially as leaders. So much of our ability to lead effectively depends not just on listening to the ideas and experiences of others but also on having our ideas and beliefs interrogated (to a degree). In my book, I make reference to Otto Scharmer and Katrin Kaufer’s concept of deep listening and dialogue:
“Deep listening involves suspending one's assumptions, judgements and preconceived notions to genuinely hear and understand others. Dialogue creates spaces for diverse perspectives to emerge, facilitating collective intelligence and creative problem-solving.”
The principles of my BRAVE conversations framework speak to this.
Having BRAVE Conversations
Love
Start conversations, no matter how challenging, with the purpose that you are there to see how everyone can win. Don't start from the guilt of negative feelings but from the place where we centre the goodness of humanity.
Language
Understand that there may be words and phrases that may mean different things to different people. Ask questions where you do not understand, and have the bandwidth to appreciate that just because something means one thing to you, it doesn't mean that it can't mean something totally different to someone else. Context is important.
Listening
Active listening is essential when the aim is to understand differing points of view. This doesn't mean that we all have to agree, but it is important to listen to understand people's perspectives. Instead of responding without thought, we can listen to understand where the other person is coming from.
Leverage
Once you have had these conversations using the love, language and listening pillars, as a group, you can see what you have learned and what further questions you want answered. Then, you can consider how you leverage that learning into something actionable.
In short, the consensus is that we are partaking in the discourse for a common purpose and will respect that process. All involved are there to offer diverse perspectives, to solve a problem, not be divisive.
Public forums are just not fit for this purpose. Nuance gets missed in public; whoever shouts the loudest wins (read as whoever has the most media clout). The “right” soundbite and all of a sudden, a conversation is phobic, an ism or anti-something. How is this helpful to anyone? The root problem remains. But now, people are scared to speak, which diminishes any hope of solving the problem or reaching some social harmony.
Trust the process
While some may argue that leaked footage is done so for the public interest, I’d posit that public interest is rarely what motivates the perpetrators in many of the cases we’ve witnessed. Edward Snowden you are not. If private conversations uncover behaviour that calls into question one's leadership, then, of course, this should be investigated, but following whatever procedure that organisation has in place at the time. But the thought of someone stripping away all context and making themself judge, jury, and executioner makes me very uncomfortable.
I won’t stop having brave conversations. And neither should you. As much as I catch myself self-editing my responses, anticipating what they may sound like out in the wild, I remind myself to trust the process and that everyone else understands how this works. And if they need a refresher, I’ll forward them this article. Feel free to do the same.
