Interview Transcript 

INTRO: 

And welcome back to CCL’s podcast, Lead With That, where we talk current events in pop culture to look at where leadership is happening and what’s happening with leadership. Maybe you’ve heard about it, maybe you’ve not, and you might not even know who the winner is, but it looks like the dust has settled for now. That’s right. This week, we talk Kendrick Lamar and Drake.

Ren:

Now, at first, I wasn’t picking sides, but maybe I am now, not for any reason related to their beef. I’ll tell you later, though, Allison. But my son surely has an opinion about who’s right and who won. And it sounds like the music industry and the world has an opinion too. Now, while you can track this beef back to 2013 in Kendrick’s verse on Big Sean’s track, “Control,” the temperature 10 years later is hotter than ever.

Who would’ve thought alluding to a Mount Rushmore of rap would cause so much hate, but Kendrick wasn’t having it. After artists J. Cole and Drake linked up for a track, “First Person Shooter,” in October last year, J. Cole alluded to he, Drake and Kendrick holding it down as the big 3. Kendrick disagreed. And this March on Future & Metro Boomin’s track “Like That,” Kendrick reminded us, “Mother blanker the big 3, people, it’s just the big me.”

Now, I’ve taken some artistic liberties with the quote, but I think you get the vibe. Kendrick was saying, “I’m the big dog, not any of you.” And so, why are we talking about something that was released in March? Because it’s still happening. And with the timeline the way it is, it might still go on. Not sure if you saw, but even Tom Hanks reached out to his sons, talking about, “Hey, man, what’s going on with this beef?”

So today, we’re probably not going to be able to read through the lyrics or explore some of these other concepts, but we will look at some big concepts that always come up between people and in leadership. Is all fair in love and war? Are there certain things one can say and do in battle? What about in leadership? What lines cannot be crossed?

And what does success look like in this whole thing? Some industry insiders suggest this rivalry is not about ego, but it’s really about pushing each other to new heights. That’s a really cruel way to do that, I think. It seems like it’s a competition, though, that’s led to some of the best music of their careers. As for who the public sees who the winner is, a lot of people are leaning towards Kendrick.

It seems like his wordplay, his challenges, have resonated with many fans, but Drake is one of the most famous and influential people in the world. So, I think the battle rages on, but we’re going to talk a little bit more about it today and how you might take some leadership ideas away from our newest cultural rap beef.

So, welcome back, everyone. I’m Ren Washington, and as usual, I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, whose side are you on?

Allison:

Ren, I’m operating as Switzerland here on this topic.

Ren:

You’re neutral?

Allison:

I’m neutral.

Ren:

You’re not neutral.

Allison:

I’m neutral.

Ren:

You’ve got to choose.

Allison:

No.

Ren:

What do you mean, no?

Allison:

I’m neutral.

Ren:

That’s hard right now.

Allison:

I know, but I laughed when you made that comment about Tom Hanks because it’s hilarious, and also I had a conversation with my friend Kelly today. So, Kelly, if you’re listening, thank you for the laugh, because you can also ask Siri and Alexa who the winner is, and collectively, they both agree that it’s Kendrick. So, what about you?

Ren:

Do they say why they agree?

Allison:

No, but I’m sure you could probably push it, I bet, and ask them why, which we didn’t do. Missed opportunity.

Ren:

Well, there’s part of me that wants to probe about why you’re trying to maintain neutrality.

Allison:

You can.

Ren:

Well then, why are you trying to maintain neutrality?

Allison:

I’m not trying. I am. I think there’s a couple of reasons. Objectively speaking, it’s a “feud” in which there are lots of people in the world who are watching and commenting. It’s probably a very smart marketing move for both of them. Regardless, you and I and the world will never know every detail of the whole truth. So, that’s the first part. I’m just never going to know the whole truth.

And then, the second part of it was, as I was preparing for this podcast, I found a little bit about the history of hip-hop and rap battles, and these battles have been existing actually before the existence of rap recordings. And so, there’s a cultural part of this as well. That’s simply that. It’s cultural. So, as far as I know and as far as I have found, this type of battle, if you will, has always been a component of music and expression specifically in the hip-hop world.

So that’s why I’m neutral about it, because it’s 2 artists who are expressing themselves … 3, if you want to count … well, there’s probably more than that, but if we’re just talking Kendrick and Drake, 2 of them.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, sadly for J. Cole, I think he’s confirmed Kendrick’s idea that, “Yeah, in fact, you’re not even in the conversation,” and it’s just Kendrick and Drake. I think I’m Team Kendrick, everybody. That’s right. @Allison; don’t @me. But I think the part of my reason is simply because I was listening to Kendrick reflect on existence the other day and just about life as an experience, and I found his reflections to be thoughtful and personally resonant and relevant for me at the time.

And so, I was like, “You know what? I’m Team Kendrick now.” Not because I’ve been tracking the songs at all or really that I care. And also, I’m not really worried about any one of the fan groups coming for me. But there’s something about, maybe, and this might speak to why people are leaning towards Kendrick and maybe some of the things that we can explore today, is this idea of perspective.

And I think Kendrick has a certain perspective that I appreciate. And so, because of that reason, Team Kendrick.

Allison:

Okay. Well, I’m curious to explore that a little bit more. And I would say there are 2 things that came up for me specifically around this story. And the first one, surprisingly, is about AI. And the other one is really around having the ability to express yourself safely, especially when it comes to conflict.

And our world of work and leadership development is not the music industry, so how can we translate that? Again, we don’t know what’s going on or has gone on behind closed doors, and the public and fans exacerbate all types of things when it comes to that industry. So, translating it to our worlds, I think it’s complicated. And part of me really wonders if the systemic nature of the workplace prevents us from effective conflict resolution. So, that’s where my brain went.

Ren:

So, is this rap feud, and the way it’s kind of slowed for now, would you consider this effective conflict resolution?

Allison:

Well, I don’t know if that was the goal.

Ren:

For whom? For those 2?

Allison:

Right. For those 2.

Ren:

Well, I think we … I actually might push back a little bit. I think both of them were pretty damn determined to end this conflict now. Was it like —

Allison:

Was it to end the conflict, or was it to be known as number 1? That’s different.

Ren:

Well, is it? Think about the pugilist society that we exist in, in any kind of sporting event, the winner stands and the loser lies defeated. So, I think, yeah, knocking out your opposition is effective conflict resolution for this group.

Allison:

Well, I don’t want to get too philosophical on you, but playing a sporting event has nothing to do with conflict. It’s a game.

Ren:

Well, let’s get philosophical. I guess, how might you define conflict?

Allison:

How might you define conflict?

Ren:

Well, I would say 2 opposing sides competing over the same thing.

Allison:

Do you think it’s competing? So, if you hurt my feelings and say something that hurts my feelings, what is the competition?

Ren:

Typically, and this is actually fun, because I’m out here in business as we know, traveling around the world, and we just had a conversation … we’re doing our Better Conversations Every Day framework and talking about this idea of discussion. And I often think people are in conflict, especially in my world, in my personal life, but also my professional life, where you and I are competing over whose perception is right.

Allison:

Interesting.

Ren:

I get stuck and I’m like, “Allison, no, this is how I’m feeling. Don’t you understand?” And think about it. I’m always trying to push my perception versus trying to gain some perspective. So, I guess in that instance, if I harm you, the competition would be naturally maybe in the human dynamic to say, “Hey, but this is why, because I was wounded. Can you understand why I do that?” So, maybe that’s my answer.

Allison:

So, I’m hard-pressed to think that Kendrick and Drake want to understand each other better. Maybe I’m wrong.

Ren:

Is that because of the way … Well, why do you think that?

Allison:

That’s a great question. Let me take it back to a more tangible example. If I feel harmed by you or whomever, it’s more about my relationship to you, and me wanting to have a healthy relationship with you. So, I don’t perceive any competition in that space. It is that I feel hurt. This is made up so it’s a little hard, but I’m feeling hurt and I want to have a good relationship with you, and how do we move forward?

It’s about both of us being able to move forward in a way that we both feel resolved. It’s not one or the other.

Ren:

And see what conjures, what that brings up for me, is I actually think these guys need to be okay with themselves.

Allison:

Ren?

Ren:

For real. Think about it. Why react? And think about yourself, too, in the leadership context, or even you, Allison, as you chuckle at the idea. But imagine if you had more peace with yourself, then what would it matter if someone said something about you? So, too, in a leadership context, and again, we were just talking about this in our Better Conversations idea, it’s like, when people give you feedback, they’re really teaching you and telling you about themselves.

I’m not condemning your character or your humanity when I give you feedback. What I’m telling you is that, “Hey, this is who I am and I need this from you.” And so, I think maybe less about how we need to make peace with each other. But maybe these guys, yeah, like you’re saying, they’re not needing to make peace with one another, but they clearly seem to be needing to make peace with themselves.

But that seemed to elicit a little chuckle from you. Tell me more. Is that too meta?

Allison:

Well, you couldn’t possibly know that. That’s, with all due respect, a very bold statement to make. That’s —

Ren:

I don’t know.

Allison:

You couldn’t possibly know what drives an artist, 2 very well respected and successful artists.

Ren:

Fair enough.

Allison:

You won’t know what’s behind that. And so, again, when I think about translating that to the workplace, that’s incredibly relevant because what you just said, if Sam and Joe don’t like each other and Sam happens to be your best friend, what happens at the workplace is that Sam is going to rally you to also not like Joe. That happens. You will not convince me that doesn’t happen.

And so, when I think again about translating it to work, how easy it is to cause an environment that is chaotic and awful when it doesn’t have to be that way.

Ren:

And I guess, even, I agree because I don’t think Sam would do that if Sam had some perspective about their experience. They wouldn’t have to rally the troops against their seen enemy.

And I think that’s so often what we experience is that, the Kendrick and Drake experience is the worst kind of workplace conflict, where conflict resolution is the absolute defeat of my enemy. It’s cruel, it’s callous. There’s no humanity. Emotional intelligence is low. And it’s like this barbs and fight and caustic conversation, real toxic stuff.

But I also think most of my experience … Now, you’re right, I can’t determine what an artist is doing, but I can tell you this. The people who I’ve seen that seem to be, like, the most resolute, the most resilient, the most grounded in themselves are the most unflappable, the most able to withstand and actually be like, “Oh, I see multiple truths and maybe I do have some space to grow.”

And so, I do think there’s some space. If you’re okay with yourself, then what incentive is it to push back to someone else’s perspective of you?

Allison:

Well, I think we’re probably accidentally minimizing what conflict means for people, because that’s one example. But there’s all types of different conflict and all types of different reasons that people may feel rattled, or upset, or in your words, you said unflappable, whatever the opposite of that is, rattled, I suppose. And I think —

Ren:

Flappable, I guess.

Allison:

Flappable. And I think that can minimize people’s experience and what their truth is. So, giving feedback is one example. You’re giving some examples, but do you think that the work world has a system that supports conflict resolution?

Ren:

Do I think the work world has a system that supports conflict resolution? No, probably not, like, a singular approach, because I don’t know if there is a singular approach to conflict.

Now, I don’t think an SBI conversation would be good for Kendrick Lamar to have and say, “Hey, when you said this in that song, it really hurt my feelings. And the impact on me is now I’m building a diss track.” I don’t know if there’s really space to have that kind of discussion.

So, I think it’s kind of right time, right place, or what does your environment call for? And maybe, too, we’ve got to look at what are we perpetuating in that space? So, it always, for me, I think most recently too, coming back to reward and incentive.

Allison:

Indeed.

Ren:

What are people rewarded or incentivized to do? Kendrick and Drake were not rewarded or incentivized to mend bridges. They’re rewarded and incentivized to have this fight, and it pays off. So, I think there’s probably not a standard conflict resolution model, but I do think people might be more aware of the way they resolve conflict in their workspace than they think. I don’t know. Does that make any sense?

Allison:

Yes. And in theory, we do expect people to come to the workplace and do their jobs. And I think a lot of times people just, generally speaking, forget that there’s a human component to it and there’s going to be conflict, period. End of story, period. And in theory, people will perceive HR as a place to go for coaching if they need it when it comes to conflict. And of course, that’s not all that HR does. So, if you’re in HR, I know that’s not all that you do.

However, the system, what I mean by system is that the system of HR can only take you so far, because HR, just like the rest of us, are beholden to legal and employment law, and at work — so, you got me thinking about this — because at work, if we do something “wrong,” depending on the context, the consequences are potentially too great to admit wrongdoing. So, you might not resolve conflict at the workplace for that reason.

Ren:

Well, what a great — actually, what a demonstration of this fight between Kendrick and Drake. The ability to admit wrongdoing is a courageous and sometimes dangerous act. Sometimes, like you’re saying, in a legal context, “Oh, gosh, we made a mistake, but we can’t admit wrong now because the suits are coming.”

But I think, often in relationships, when there is no actual legalese punishment coming your way, it’s just the punishment of maybe having to admit you’re wrong, or dealing with that expenditure of interpersonal cachet when you admit that you’re wrong, that thing is going on. And these guys too, they’re not in a position to admit wrong, and it would be dangerous to do so.

I think the way a normal person, you, me, anyone who’s listening, can take away from that, is that admitting wrongdoing is actually something that adds to your capital versus takes away. We know in the context of trust building, in the context of team building, admitting wrongdoing is a great way to forge connection.

But I think we’re so scared of the risk, and I know you were talking a little bit more legal, but I think people feel the same way. They’re like, “Yo, I can’t afford to say sorry. What does that mean about me?”

Allison:

Right. And it’s the same context, and it can make work conflict, when we’re talking about the organization, can make conflict very complicated, because workplaces have a culture of punishment for wrongdoing. And I’m not saying that’s right, wrong or bad. It’s just it is what it is. That’s across the board, regardless of industry.

And the reason we do is because of a much larger system that we’re both talking about, like legal, economics, policy, et cetera. But it just got me thinking about, this can be a reason why people take work so personally, because sometimes you might not get the resolution that you really need to move forward, based on the things that you mentioned and that I mentioned. So then, what?

Ren:

Well, forgive me, I’m going to keep going back to this well, but the reason we take things personal is because we personally identify with things. And so, in the scope of conflict, let’s say you and I have conflict about this podcast. You disagree with me or think that I’m underperforming.

If I identified, or if I was codependent in this relationship, or your opinion of me or your affirmation of me required my success, then I would have this halted, this stop, this start kind of experience. And so, I think maybe in all of this conflict space, it’s how can I just recognize that things are persistent, that maybe there is no necessary resolution. A lot of conflict, I think too, is a polarity.

It’s challenges to manage versus problems to solve, especially as it relates to complex human dynamics. I don’t know if we’re ever going to solve the problem of the ebb and flow we need to have for your needs and my needs.

Allison:

Yes. And I’m going to just take us a bit further, too, in that yes, what you are explaining is conflict. However, there are other types of intentional conflict, intentional, I mean, that really dramatically impact people’s lives.

So, here are things that I’ve heard from clients before. These are not made up stories. “My boss took credit for my work and got a promotion where I should have gotten that promotion.”

That’s not as easy to say, “Well, I identify that. That’s rainbows and butterflies. Okay, let’s just bypass. Let’s just bypass that that was an intentional effort with a consequence to that person.” That’s pretty impactful.

Ren:

I’d say let’s go both/and. I’m sticking with the polarity. I don’t want to devalue the person’s experience of having their work stolen and someone else taking credit. And I think a major source of marching forward, that person has some options.

They could shrug, they could say boo. They could rattle their sabre, shake their fist, and say, “Does anyone see the wrongdoing that’s happening to me?” And how many clients have we talked about, where that works for them?

I think there’s probably a truth that, “Hey, you aren’t this thing.” I think maybe the idea is like this thing, this person’s stealing from you. That is not representative of you or your character, because bad things happen to you or that bad thing happened to you doesn’t make you a bad person or ineffective.

And I guess the biggest elevated area, the biggest kind of stakeholding you could do is, what would it look like to take empathy for the perspective of someone you really dislike?

Allison:

Ooh, okay. I’m going to pause you because that’s interesting. I’m going to pause you if that’s okay.

Ren:

Please.

Allison:

Do you think it’s ethical to take somebody’s work and then receive the benefits of taking said person’s work?

Ren:

No. But why?

Allison:

So, you would tell a client you should have empathy for that person? Just clarifying.

Ren:

What I would tell a client is empathy is a liberator. It’s a liberator for you, and it might be a bridge builder for that. We talked conflict resolution or real trust-breaking things, like you’re talking about. Someone’s stealing your idea and then getting a promotion.

There is a legitimate conversation that I think is worth having about understanding why that person did it, if only in the context of The Art of War and Lao Tzu and “keep your enemies close,” and “keep your friend close and your enemy closer,” if only to encourage and expand your understanding of why someone slighted you.

But I really believe, regardless of the ethics of that decision, I know that it would be empathic and maybe compassionate to try to understand why that happened.

Allison:

Because? Tell me more, why is that important?

Ren:

Because it’s an act of empathy. Empathy is cultivating an understanding and an awareness about why that thing happened. And then even —

Allison:

Okay. So, client understands that boss, whomever, stole the work because they really wanted a promotion. That’s why.

Ren:

I think that’s … Sure, I guess if you would stop the human desire at “I just wanted a promotion.” Now, I could imagine a story where I just need a promotion because my partner just left me, or my relationship has ended with so-and-so, or maybe a parent just died and I’ve got kids, or I’ve got a mortgage, or a countless amount of infinite reasons humans do what they do. Or, like I said, why they feel wounded.

It could very well be, like you said, someone’s working in an organization for a long time, a new high performer gets in there, they’re kicking ass and the person’s like, “Oh, my God. No, I’ve been here for years and this person keeps on winning. Oh, they have this brilliant idea,” and this person takes credit for it. And the high performer’s like, “What the hell? Why should I have empathy for this person?”

And I’m not saying any of you should, but what I’m saying is, here’s my counter, Allison: without empathy, you got Kendrick and Drake.

Allison:

Ooh, that’s a bold claim.

Ren:

Do you see a lot of empathy in their conversation?

Allison:

What conversations are you seeing and hearing?

Ren:

Well, they have been going back and forth for songs for a decade, but most recently, from —

Allison:

No, what conversations, though, are you hearing and seeing between the 2 of them?

Ren:

The songs, the barbs that they’re throwing back and forth at each other, where they’re talking about, whether it’s, “Yeah, you talking this stuff or X, Y and Z.” Or, “Let me tell you who the real boss is.” Or, “Hey, why is your wife cheating on you?” Or, “Hey, you’ve had this bad relationship with your children.” Now granted, it might not be the healthiest conversation I’ve ever seen, but the idea is they’re not talking at a coffee shop, they’re exchanging messages through their music.

And so, in that conversation, they’re not demonstrating empathy. I don’t see it. They’re demonstrating a lot of hate, vitriol, pain, suffering, pride, ego … maybe some artistry, too, but it doesn’t seem like they’re having a healthy conversation.

Allison:

Well, and again, this goes back to what I said at the beginning, there’s a cultural component to this that is no comparison. It’s just no comparison to the workplace. And you don’t know. You just don’t know. You don’t know what drives them to be doing what they’re doing, and you don’t know what conversations are happening. You actually don’t. You know what music is being produced.

Ren:

Sure. And maybe they’re talking, maybe they’re having a discussion. I think that’s a good reminder though, but I would say, too, that what I do know is my experience. And as a listener, as a consumer of media, as a podcaster, as your partner on the show, I’m being impacted by their behavior. And I can only judge them on the behavior I see.

Heads up for any of you listening, it doesn’t matter what conversations are happening behind closed doors, it doesn’t matter what your intent is, if the people around you are being impacted a certain way by your behavior, then I don’t know if it’s your place to be like, “Hey, you don’t actually know what’s happening.” That might be the case, but I do know what’s happening with me.

And so, just from my point of view, I do think there are some parallels to the workspace, which is to say, conversations that lack empathy create more volatility.

Allison:

So, just feeding back to you what you mentioned a moment ago, you’re being impacted. Where can you have empathy?

Ren:

I think I practice empathy by looking at what they’re saying to each other and not judging them as the worst human beings, because they have said some very callous things to one another. And I think some of what you’re saying is right. I think there is some pushing back and forth. There is some barbs and there is some hyperbole going on, and a lot of wild stuff has been said. And maybe it’s kind of like “all is fair in love and war,” and they love their music and they’re warring with each other.

And so, I think I have an understanding of that. I think culturally, like you’ve said, I have empathy for … There’s not a lot of space for acceptance, vulnerability, admitting you’re wrong in this culture. And so, I understand why no one’s taking the higher road. You know what I mean? I get it.

Allison:

Yeah. Yeah, that’s a great point. And that’s well stated for the workplace too, exactly what you just said was what I was alluding to. It’s a question to ask yourself, if you are a leader, are you creating a space where there’s room for that vulnerability that you just mentioned, and mistake-making, and admitting wrong? We’ve talked about psychological safety. I don’t want to overdo that conversation.

However, it is inevitable that conflict’s going to happen at the workplace, period. So, it is really about, for a leader, what kind of environment you are creating, given some of the variables that I mentioned earlier around punishment, work laws, employment laws, policies, et cetera. How can you create an environment at the workplace for meaningful resolution when you have some of those barriers?

Ren:

Is that rhetorical or specific?

Allison:

Both.

Ren:

Yeah. Well, I think that’s maybe where we can start to head, is when we think about conflict resolution, and maybe that’s where this moved to for us, as a practical exploration. I think there’s probably some watch-outs for you that perspective is really important. Fighting for your perception, trying to convince someone that you’re right, at least I can say personally, tends to lead to someone else trying to convince me that they’re right.

And so, maybe in that conflict space, I’ll stick with empathy. Maybe my first answer to you would be, what are you doing to demonstrate your understanding of another person’s point of view, especially if you’re the righteously wounded party?

Because I think something we talk about in trust rebuilding is … a couple of things have to happen. One, I think really someone needs to say sorry; 2, both parties need to recognize their role in the reality; and then, 3, the person who is wounded has got to be willing to come back to the table. And so, a good way to come back to the table maybe is to practice empathy. “Why could that person have done that thing to me? Could I understand why?” That might be a first bridge back to connection.

Allison:

Yeah. And I think too, the apology is sometimes, I’d say almost always, necessary depending on the person. It just depends. Changed behavior is better. And so, it does depend on context. It certainly depends on context. So, I gave one example, you gave another example. There’s so many examples of why conflict could occur.

And, in the example of claiming that your work is yours when it was actually somebody else’s, that could look like taking ownership or giving credit where credit is due. So, I think apology, yes, and then there’s changed behavior or an action that comes with that, too. And it’s tricky because, in a perfect world, I would suggest that whomever you are having tensions with or conflict, in a perfect world, you would go to that person at the workplace.

I also understand why you wouldn’t, in some cases. So, it’s a little bit tricky. But I would say, in your perfect world scenario, if I am having conflict with you, Ren, I’m going to come to you, because we have a relationship and I know I can talk to you, versus me going to your boss, or going to HR, or telling all my friends to blacklist you or whatever it might be. It is tricky. It’s tricky.

Ren:

Well, let’s stay with the tricky, and let’s say that we’re Kendrick and Drake, or you’re in that situation. What’s a way that someone might begin to think about opening their heart to resolving conflict as the wounded party? And too often, I think we know in human dynamics, often people both feel wounded because there’s that need to prove ourselves, to keep ourselves psychologically safe, and so often we both feel hurt.

But as the righteously wounded party in an instance, what’s some advice you could give to someone in the workspace to begin to be willing to mend a relationship? So, not the person who’s like, “Hey, admit you’re wrong, and then have a tough conversation.” But being the person who’s been wronged, how can you even open yourself back up to trusting again? What would you say?

Allison:

I’m trying to think about the last time I had a conflict that was resolved, and what happened was, as the “wounded,” that feels like too strong of a word, but I’ll go with it. I’ll go with it.

Ren:

The wronged party, whatever you want to call it, the one who was wronged or something.

Allison:

It was an objective … So, first step for me was to process, and I think that’s understated and very important, because I was upset. I was very upset and angry. And with that unprocessed anger, it would be hard for me to resolve if that’s what I wanted. So, it was for me about taking the time to process before I had a conversation. And then, from there, the conversation was incredibly objective.

“When you said this, it was in an email, so it’s right here. When you put this in an email and copied 6 people on it, I felt really embarrassed and ashamed, and I wondered why you did that.” And that was the conversation. So, I think this is, too … You brought up SBI, which is situation-behavior-impact. And SBI is a great starting-off tool, but it’s not a mic drop. It’s an open door to the conversation.

And then, I got perspective. I did get perspective. So, I think that’s where you start. But then, Ren, what would you say then, if the opposing person … so this person was very receptive. What would you say then if the other person’s not receptive?

Ren:

Well, this is where some of my personal philosophy around self-reliance and fierce accountability comes from, is that if I’m dealing with someone who refuses to take acceptance or accountability for their behavior, the only thing I can do is look at what I’ve done to either give them the right to wrong me or to perpetuate an environment where they can.

Now, I know that might be an oversimplification, and this is something I think you and I will continue to be able to explore, that balance between self-reliance and self-accountability versus … especially if you’re systemically righteously wronged, it’s hard to look at somebody and be like, “Well, take accountability for yourself.” But I also think that if you’re looking at a system or a person who refuses to recognize, who is unable maybe, just incapable of seeing their role in it, then maybe I’ve got to ask myself the plain question, “Why is this person still in my life?”

That could be a legit question. “Why am I still working on this project with this person knowing that they cannot see past their contribution to our experience, regardless of the feedback or the teams around them or the 360-degree assessments?” And so, maybe there’s some of this, “Well, maybe I continue to perpetuate this wrongdoing because I don’t stand up to this person, or I don’t give them better feedback.”

So, I would say if they refuse to recognize their role, then the only thing left for me is to recognize, “What am I doing to perpetuate that communication, even if it’s only just enabling them to continue to be ignorant?” Then I got to be like, “I got to stop that off.” I don’t know.

Allison:

What if it’s your boss? I hear you. You’re right, asking that question. So, let me restart what I’m saying. So, there’s punishment and then there are natural consequences. Punishment is exactly what it is. A natural consequence for wrongdoing or harming somebody very well might be, “This is unforgivable, or I’m unable to move past this because this is a pattern for you, and I will choose to not have you closely in my life,” for example.

That’s a natural consequence. Or a natural consequence is, “Please change your behavior.” Or a natural consequence is, “Can you please give me … you need to give me credit for my work if that’s actually my transcript that you turned into a book,” for example. Those are natural consequences. However, again, I don’t mean to overstate this point, but at the workplace, that becomes very complicated.

This could be your boss, and you might coach someone to then talk to a supervisor and see if you can get a new boss. There are possibilities, but then my whole point is that it becomes very complicated to do what you’re saying.

Ren:

Yeah. It’s not going to be easy. And the stuff that I’m talking about, too, people have been exploring philosophically, religiously, academically for thousands of years, this idea simply that … no one can make you feel inferior unless you give them permission. That’s an Eleanor Roosevelt quote.

And I think it’s the idea that we have a lot of control. Even in that instance — You’re my boss, I’m stuck in a job that I must have because I’ve got to take care of my family, and you keep wronging me, but I can’t go anywhere. Then at some point, you’ve got to cultivate some safety, knowing someone’s going to come knock down your walls every single day. And if you have no option but to withstand, then you’ve got to cultivate some kind of ability to withstand.

Or I think what happens to a lot of people is they start to believe that story about themselves. They start to believe that they aren’t enough, that they can’t do it, that they are this thing that this person keeps on telling them. And so, I know, it’s not easy. It’s not easy, and it sounds so Pollyanna-ish maybe, but I don’t think it is. I think it’s like a root of a lot of these ideas of real, whether it’s stoic philosophy or any idea of peace and serenity.

I think it comes from, in part, within. Especially if you can’t control your environment. But maybe you have to adjust your sails.

Allison:

Right. Yeah, and I agree with you. And last episode, we talked about controlling what you can control. We started to talk about that. And in this respect, too, if it does get this bad, if it does get to that extreme, it is asking yourself, “What can I control?” And can you control who knows what work you’re doing? Can you control your own personal brand? Can you control who you connect with? Can you control your relationships? Can you control, again, who has visibility into the work you’re doing?

This could derail us. I’m going to say it anyway. But part of what was interesting to me about this, too, is that there’s a whole new obstacle that we might have to look at, too, that’s interesting within this, is because somebody made a fake Kendrick response. I don’t know if you saw that.

And it was a short little clip and it was AI-driven. And if you didn’t look closely enough or you’re not familiar with his tone or his way of performing, you might not catch onto it. It was AI-generated. And so, there’s part of that that we do need to be aware of, too, in that someone could … not someone, AI I suppose, someone could use AI to take your ideas and spin them to your own as well.

So, again, I don’t mean to derail us, but only to say that leaders do need to be aware of that, too, from a business standpoint and from a personal protection standpoint, too, being aware that someone could very well take your personal IP and spin it to their own. And that’s conflict in a whole way, because how do you fight that?

Ren:

Well, actually, I think that’s a great segue to maybe a takeaway for anyone listening, and it is actually really resonant. You said, if you’re not aware of Kendrick, or his tone, or who he is, or his messages, then you would interpret that as truth. And that’s some of the story here. It’s like, what are you doing to make sure that — you already called it out — Who knows the value of your work?

If someone keeps stealing your work, you probably have an opportunity to expand the visibility around the work you’re doing. And that’s what happens to a lot of hard-working people who just tell me, “Dude, I just want my work to speak for itself.” Not when there’s a whole bunch of vultures out there trying to speak for your work.

And so, you got to know, shine a light on what you’re doing. And it’s not bragging, but it’s letting more people know about what you’re doing so more people know what you stand for. So, one day, if someone is sniping my voice on AI, and I’m saying a whole bunch of wild stuff about how I love corporate sabotage of people’s careers, and, “I only vote for robo emails,” if someone’s going to clip that, you got to know, “Wait a minute, that doesn’t make sense because we heard him say, on countless podcasts, that that’s not his vibe.”

And so, I actually think it’s a really smart thing in this conflict, too. Or if you feel disempowered in the face of conflict, is tell more people what you’re up to. Let more people in on your experience, your development. Show more of your work so more people know what you stand for, and then maybe they can do the cover for you.

Allison:

Right. Yeah, and I think everything that you just said … So, I won’t be repetitive because I agree with what I said and what you’ve just said, in that understanding technology — you don’t need to be an expert in technology but — a leader in the workplace … actually this is anybody, literally anybody in the world needs to understand that technology can skew things.

Technology is a blessing and a curse. A friend of mine who is in the music industry educated me that technology is almost always used in music, even in “live performances.” There’s technology in microphones to pitch correct, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But I think how that translates to the workplace is that we sometimes need to determine what’s real and what’s not real.

A lot of us use LinkedIn. A lot of us use podcasts. A lot of us use research articles, and so on and so forth. So, it’s just worth a quick revisit, as the advancement of technology is moving super rapidly, to understand that your capabilities might need to change, will need to change, rather, in the age of technology. So, understanding technical capabilities is one thing.

And I really think that learning ethics and learning them early in your career, as early as possible, will be very helpful, and media literacy. So, I know I just sort of jumped topics, but it’s all relevant because it can cause conflict if you’re not on top of those things. It can cause major conflict, and it can cause organizations’ downfall as well if we’re not on top of those things.

Ren:

Yeah. And I’ll spare the idea of whose ethics are most ethical for another conversation.

Allison:

I knew you were going to say that. I knew it, that’s why I saved it til the end.

Ren:

But I do like the idea of … I think we’re aligned. Get clear on what everyone wants to stand by and operate by. Technical savvy is going to really help you navigate these things. And then, just keep navigating yourself, people. Don’t let the barbs, don’t let the stones and rocks of other people hurt you.

I actually have a quote in my office. Maybe just like … “A strong man can build a foundation off of the rocks that others throw at them,” and it’s this idea, then, that … let them say what they have to, and I’m here to do the work that I want to do. But maybe those guys are doing that.

Allison:

Is that in your office?

Ren:

Yeah, it used to be. It’s now, I think, a quote on my LinkedIn page maybe.

Allison:

Okay. Nice. Yeah, so I guess my takeaway to reground people is back to controlling what you can control, and especially when it comes to conflict in the workplace, make sure you let people know who you are, what kind of work you’re doing. And just to remember, for those of you who are hesitant to do that, it’s simply you being honest.

So long as you’re being honest, I think a lot of people can perceive that as being show-off or self-centered. However, if you don’t tell people what you’re capable of, they will not know what you’re capable of, number 1. And number 2, you are in charge of creating your personal brand.

Ren:

So, amen that.

Allison:

Well, this episode went a direction that I didn’t think it would, and I’m glad for that. I always love our conversations, Ren. So, thank you. And to our team at CCL who works behind the scenes, also a big thank you for helping us to make these podcasts happen. To our listeners, find us on LinkedIn. You can respond to any part of this that you want.

You want to tell us who won between Kendrick and Drake? Great. Do you want to tell us what you think about conflict resolution? We’d love to hear that too, as well as AI. You can also let us know what you want us to talk about next. And you can find all of our show notes and podcast episodes on ccl.org. And we will look forward to tuning in next time. Thanks, everyone.

Ren:

Thanks, everyone. Yeah. Do me a favor. Just email CCL or just LinkedIn them one word, Kendrick or Drake. That’s it. Just do that for me, because they’re very, very particular about professional only, but just hit them up with Kendrick or Drake. Thanks, Allison. I appreciate it. Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you next time. Find Allison on TikTok. She picks Kendrick, by the way.

Interview Transcript

INTRO: 

Welcome back to CCL’s podcast, Lead With That, where we talk current events and pop culture to look at where leadership is happening and what’s happening with leadership.

Ren Washington:

Who would’ve thought the Oscars would’ve adorned our show 2 times in a row, but it is award season after all. And with “the slap heard around the world” still being discussed, could you expect any less? But Will wasn’t the only one throwing hands out there. For some, Jane Campion’s comments at the Critic’s Choice Awards was a slap in the face to the Williams sisters and Black women across America. But really, aren’t these just Hollywood problems for Hollywood people?

Maybe, but maybe these 2 things (and many more) are just emblematic of what people experience in the workplace every day. I mean, there’s plenty we can glean from this experience about professionalism in the workplace and about emotional intelligence.

So today, we’re going to explore some of the events over the course of this award season, and talk about how to manage inappropriate conduct, leading through conflict, and even learn more about your role in leading people through these things as a leader or a teammate. I’m Ren Washington, and as usual I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, what’s the worst workplace conflict you’ve ever been a part of?

Allison Barr:

Oh, I was not prepared for this question. Do you mean like I was involved in the conflict or saw it or-

Ren Washington:

Where you were directly involved.

Allison Barr:

Oh my gosh.

Ren Washington:

A conflict involving Allison Barr.

Allison Barr:

Oh, oh, I got it. I got it. Okay.

Ren Washington:

We got one.

Allison Barr:

This was way back in the day when I was… Well, I don’t want to give away people who probably don’t want me to talk about them on a podcast, so I’ll be vague about what my job was. I was a manager. Let’s put it that way.

Ren Washington:

Okay. Yep.

Allison Barr:

And our clients were deeply attached to somebody who I had to fire.

Ren Washington:

Wow.

Allison Barr:

And so I got many, many phone calls and many, many phone calls from the person I had to fire as well. And it was very uncomfortable because there are certain things I, of course can’t share with our clients as to why this person was fired, but she was fired for stealing and so I can’t share that. Right. It was a masterclass on, I suppose, having to be politically savvy, which at the time I was not. But now looking back, it was a good lesson.

Ren Washington:

Okay. So the conflict was, I guess, twofold. One of the conflicts could have been with the person who stole something, and then the other conflict was managing it, or managing the conflict with, the client.

Allison Barr:

Right. Yes, managing the client. Yes. Who threatened to take away business and that sort of thing. And it’s just such an awkward territory where you have to say, “We wouldn’t fire somebody without good reason. I can assure you of that. And I understand how much you loved her. And we loved her too. However, X, Y, Z.”

Ren Washington:

Well, when we maybe shift to the person about that they loved who got caught stealing, is it hard to keep your cool in situations like that?

Allison Barr:

When she was caught stealing?

Ren Washington:

Yeah. Or when you found out about it or when you had to have the conversation?

Allison Barr:

No, not from me. No.

Ren Washington:

No? Is that just personal to Allison Barr or just the stakes weren’t high enough?

Allison Barr:

I think it was not that hard of a decision and I was not personally invested in that at the time. Now, if it was you that I had to fire, I would be terrible because I know you better, right. I consider you a friend and a colleague and this person, we didn’t have any sort of particular relationship aside from me being the boss.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. Well, I’m so glad you said that, because it’s interesting and maybe I’m going to just… I know there’s a couple of things we can talk about. I think we’re going to talk about Will Smith first here. And-

Allison Barr:

You are.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. Well I think we’re going to explore some of what happened. Yes. And I think too, gosh, I want to talk more about what you just said there. Maybe we will actually. So what do you mean? So you said I will, and I think we talked about something that was really interesting when we were thinking about what we could explore with some of this. And I think this topic came up and I think it’s worth exploring. And so I said, “We’re going to talk about Will Smith.” And you said, “Well, you are.” Can you give us some insight into what you mean or what’s behind that?

Allison Barr:

Yes. I’ll give you insight into what’s behind that.

Ren Washington:

Sweet.

Allison Barr:

So as you’ve already stated, we pull our topics from popular culture and news and what’s happening in the world. And I, full transparency, did not watch the Oscars, but I did see the clips of exactly what you mentioned. And I also follow some anti-racist Black women educators who have advised White people to keep their voices out of this conversation. So I am going to do that.

Ren Washington:

And out of what part of the conversation, just so I think this is important to, and maybe explore some of why you think it’s important, but what parts of the conversation are you keeping out of exactly?

Allison Barr:

The whole thing.

Ren Washington:

The whole thing.

Allison Barr:

I mean, the situation that you’ve mentioned already, which was that Will Smith slapped Chris Rock and that entire conversation, it’s not appropriate for me to give my perspective on.

Ren Washington:

And why not?

Allison Barr:

Because I follow anti-racist Black women educators who advised not to. It’s complex. There’s a lot to be learned in that scenario that as a White person, I have never experienced. And I am a woman. Yes. But I’m not a Black woman and I’m not a Black woman with a disability like Jada has. It’s not my lane.

Ren Washington:

Right. So that’s the why maybe the suggestion is to stay out of it is, that these are lived experiences and maybe it’s not really your place to have a point of view around how she should feel or anyone should feel about it. Is that what you’re staying out of?

Allison Barr:

Yes.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. I think that’s really interesting and it reminds me, I was just doing this wonderful award-winning program. I can’t take any credit for the awards. I see you chuckling out there. It was built by one of our predecessors who since retired, but it was transitioned to me. And it’s a program designed for primarily underrepresented groups who don’t maybe normally get access. Yeah.

Allison Barr:

You have to tell us the name of the program. I’m on baited breath here.

Ren Washington:

That’s very true. Well, it’s called… And I can tell you because it is award-winning… It’s called our Merck Diverse Leader Program.

Allison Barr:

Thank you.

Ren Washington:

So we’ve been a long partner client with them and we just finished our seventh cohort, super proud, but we just finished our first intensive week and one of our colleagues, Angel Nick, shout out to Angel Nick, she’s a superhero. Allison, do you know Angel?

Allison Barr:

I do know Angel. She’s a superhero.

Ren Washington:

She’s fun… I can’t even imagine how she does all the things that she’s able to accomplish. So shout out to her. But we were having this really interesting conversation around a woman that she knows, and we were just talking about allyship and it was a woman that she knows. And she said, she sent out a tweet that says, “When Black women are talking, I shut up and listen.” And it reminds me, I think, what you were talking about here, that if we were to talk about Will Smith and maybe the context for which the slap happened or the historical pressure of Black women and discussion around their hair. If we were going to explore that, maybe that’s not your place here. And I thought that was just an interesting perspective and I think one that a lot of people probably appreciate, so I thought it was worth digging into.

But one thing I think, Allison, that I want to talk about for Will Smith that I think we can talk about and I think safely. You said to me earlier if you were firing me, it would be a little bit different than when you were firing this other person, because you weren’t so connected. And I think we saw that happen with Will Smith in the moment where, I don’t know if you since read about it. But the Oscars said that they firmly told the publicists of Will Smith that he should leave, which I think is hilarious. They told his publicist-

Allison Barr:

They firmly told, okay.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. They firmly told his publicist that he should leave and they had police on standby if Chris was ready to press charges and I guess Will Smith said, “No, I’m not leaving.” And then as we saw, I guess not only he said to the Academy, “No, I’m not leaving,” but then at the end he gets an award to a standing ovation. And so it’s such an interesting exploration of maybe favoritism, or maybe, “Well we know Will, and we’re not going to address the thing that just happened.” I mean, what’s your interpretation of that?

Allison Barr:

Well, it’s a hard parallel to make. Like I said, this is not my lived experience. However, we’re focusing on me having to fire you versus me having to fire this woman. If it was literally the same behavior, I would… Let me be clear. I would still fire you.

Ren Washington:

Oh, that hurts.

Allison Barr:

It would be terrible. It would just be terrible. I wouldn’t want to, I would feel badly about it. I would want to know why you did that. And I would want to not have to do that. Firing people’s never fun. However, the consequence needs to be the same. In the scenario that I’m talking about, of 2 people stealing…

Ren Washington:

Well, let’s take Will out of it and go into this situation where, what if I punch someone? What if I hit one of our colleagues?

Allison Barr:

First of all, I have a very hard time with that. Even if you all have never met Ren, it’s very hard to believe that you would ever punch somebody in the face at the workplace. If you punch somebody and I witnessed it, I’m not… Let me clarify too. I’m not Ren’s boss. He and I are equals at the workplace. If I witnessed you, I would leave that space.

Ren Washington:

You would leave?

Allison Barr:

Let’s just pretend it’s in the cafeteria, right, for drama’s sake. We’re having lunch and you slap somebody that we work with. My response would be to exit that space.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. Well, I want to explore that there. I want to explore some of the feelings that would come up. So why would you leave? What would some of the feelings that would come up if I did something that was out of hand, like I’d slap someone in the face. Why would you leave?

Allison Barr:

Well with physical, with that kind of physical violence… I have, it scares me. Violence scares me and I don’t know why it’s happening and I don’t know what could escalate. And so I would want to exit that scenario. Because I could never, I mean, I could never see you doing that. Not that it would make it any better if I could, or any safer, but I just wouldn’t want to be in that immediate area.

Ren Washington:

Right. And I’d like to think that I wouldn’t slap anyone in the workspace either, but don’t test me, world. I’m just kidding everyone. I’m just joking. But what if I did something that. Can you think of something that a nonviolent behavior that would elicit the same kind of responses from you where you would say like, “I need to get out of here,” or where it would be like that elevated?

Allison Barr:

No. Physical violence to me… And that’s interesting what you said about violence, because verbal violence is also a thing. And so if I was a witness you mean, and not a recipient? No, I don’t think I would have the same response.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. What would be some of the things that you might do if you saw me not slap someone, but maybe verbally slap someone?

Allison Barr:

If you and Joe Schmo got into it and you verbally slapped someone in the cafeteria-

Ren Washington:

As like, Joe, smack, smack.

Allison Barr:

Smack, smack. It’s not my place to step in. I don’t know that I would do. I wouldn’t leave the space out of fear. However, I might just sit there. I wouldn’t intervene if that’s what you’re asking. I wouldn’t say anything.

Ren Washington:

Well, I wonder. I look at a room full of people who just saw a man slap another man. And it was, I guess, shocking, but then just moments later, there was no intervention and then celebration. Now, I don’t know if in this scenario that we’re creating after I slap someone in the cafeteria, we’re then going to go celebrate me in our own training room, but I’d love to hear a little bit more around you say, it’s not your role, it wasn’t your role to intervene, or why not?

Allison Barr:

It just really depends, Ren. It’s hard to play this hypothetical because if you deeply marginalized somebody, then I might. But there’s still a way that you handle that. Right? I would check after that conversation was had, I would probably check with that person and say, ‘This is how I experienced this situation. Are you okay?” I’d be happy to say something to Ren. “Would you like me to? Here’s what I’m thinking. Does that work for you? I want to support you. How can I support you?”

Ren Washington:

So yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, I think part of the work that we do too is around interpersonal savvy and a component of interpersonal savvy is reading and adjusting to the environment. And so I think I can empathize with that. If you saw that in a public space, maybe the first reaction for you would be to see how you could help the other person. I think that’s a great takeaway. What is it someone’s role to step in though? I’m curious.

Allison Barr:

Again, it depends. You brought up Jane Campion as well in this conversation. And for those of you who maybe didn’t follow that story, she won an award and during her acceptance speech, she said, and I’m quoting her here, she said literally, “Venus and Serena, you are such marvels. However, you don’t play against the guys like I have to.” If a White woman at the workplace made a similar comment to a Black woman at the workplace, I would absolutely… And again, this is how I experienced what you just said. I mean, she used that moment for no reason to slight Venus and Serena because they don’t play on the tennis court with men, which they do by the way. They do in mixed doubles and they’ve won handily and they usually do, which is a whole other podcast.

Allison Barr:

You know how I feel, Serena Williams is the greatest athlete of all times. There we go. I plugged it. Also, women, Black women especially, have to compete with men in other ways off the court. So insinuating that they don’t have the same barriers as her is a really unnecessary drag. And they’re forced every day to exist in a historically White and racist industry in the tennis world and I think her behavior points to the White feminist ideology, that in theory, focuses on women reclaiming their power without considering the distribution of that power. And so your original question, I’m going way off track was — when would I step in? — and I might then.

Ren Washington:

So who else would it be appropriate to step into that scenario? So you’d step into for Jane. Is that because she’s a White woman. You’re a White woman, or like, could I tell something to Jane? I’m curious. What would be appropriate?

Allison Barr:

Well, what do you want to say to Jane?

Ren Washington:

So, okay. It would matter about the context upon what I would have to say less about who the person is saying-

Allison Barr:

No, no, I literally want to know.

Ren Washington:

Oh.

Allison Barr:

I actually want to know.

Ren Washington:

I heard about Jane doing that, and then I read an article. I read a very impassioned article about casual racism and this being an example of a throwaway, like when a woman in America who experiences what a woman in America experiences has got this award and she has a chance to celebrate, the first thing she does is slight another group of women in America who have to go through what they do in America and plus they’re Black. And so I thought that was interesting. And I think I would like to really sit down with Jane over a cup of tea and just ask her, “What were you trying to communicate?” Because she since let out an apology. I haven’t read it, but I have to imagine it’s a manicured apology, like many more.

So that’s a great question. I haven’t really thought about what I would say to Jane. I’d really like to start with just hearing a little bit more around what she meant, because I don’t know if she woke up that morning was like, “When I win this award, you know who’s going to get it? Venus and Serena, they going to get it from me.” But I think maybe that goes to something, what you and I talk about all the time that I can imagine Jane being a champion for people who have had a tough go of it and maybe she just needs to know why what she said was kind of strange. And then we could explore the real discussion around why we’re habitualized to say things like that. But now I digress.

Allison Barr:

Yeah. I think what’s interesting is there are a lot of people who would say, and have said, that that comment from her was relatively harmless and she didn’t mean it. And that’s what I mean by saying words can be violent sometimes and have a similar, painful impact. And what caused her to say that? I would imagine it was a reaction and perhaps she was up there being nervous. However, she still said it and it came out of her mouth, and again, she apologized. You’re right and hopefully she will learn from it perhaps. However, it does highlight the overlapping of this notion of White feminism with White supremacy and transphobia and ableism and so on and so on because it upholds the same structure that tears down other marginalized groups. So she slighted Black women on a topic that has nothing to do with why she’s standing up there in the first place.

So feminism at its core, by the way, doesn’t mean just equality with men. So I think it’s just something that White women need to investigate. And I am a White woman for those of you who don’t know me, it’s something that I investigate too. And I know I’ve made mistakes, but it’s important that White women understand how they also uphold these exclusionary structures.

Ren Washington:

Well, I see that as a little bit of a bridge to our last conversation or one of our last conversations where we were talking about “cancel culture” and this idea of the importance of helping people navigate through a mistake. And as you’re saying that, I think it’s important to create the environment for us to have these conversations about these mistakes that we might make so we can then start to be intentional about remedying them. I mean, I do think it’s interesting if that can happen with Jane, I wonder what other kind of things happen so easily and flippantly in the workplace. If you’re in a meeting, how many times have you, Allison, had an idea that someone else took credit for, or how many times has someone or one of our other colleagues who has just been directly ignored for an opportunity or a role or a part in the conversation, and maybe it’s these kind of casual things where someone can say, “Oh, that wasn’t my intent. I’m really sorry,” but then keep on keeping on.

And so one of the big things, I think my takeaway for Jane in this role of how we manage and lead conflict is to present the idea potentially that kind of behavior, that kind of, “Well, I’m sorry,” and then you’ve been forgiven, is a big part of the problem. And so I wonder, investigating in the workspace where these casual statements of undermining, how can we win together, as opposed to when I’m winning, I’m on stage, I kind of say, “Now I’m here and I’m going to make sure everyone else is thrown under the bus.”

Allison Barr:

Right. And you and I talked about if you got into an altercation with somebody in the cafeteria, as an example, right, and then later our organization gave you an award, those 2 things can exist at the same time. You can make a mistake and also be incredible at your job and be deserving of that award. And so I think it’s about understanding and focusing on the problem at hand and not necessarily addressing that problem to the whole person. However, at the same time, understanding the difference between intention and impact. Sometimes interpersonal conflict has an impact that is life-changing for people. And so it’s tricky. It’s very tricky. How do you resolve that?

You and I also talked about centering and I think  in any conflict, even if I’m having a conflict with another White woman, and I say, “Susan, when you said X, I felt devastated.” If Susan centers herself, that could sound like, “Well, I’m devastated too,” and then it takes away from the person who was hurt in that moment. And that happens in all kinds of conversations. And it gets very, very complex when you’re starting to talk about conversations of sexism, racism, homophobia, all of those.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. And thanks for that. And I think it’d be important too, for folks to hear a little bit more around this concept of centering. And if you could explain it for someone who might be hearing it for the first time or might have heard it by another term, could you round that out for us? I think that’d be really helpful.

Allison Barr:

Sure. Did you say you want me to do it?

Ren Washington:

Yeah.

Allison Barr:

Yeah. Explain it. Okay. And then you chime in, of course, if I’ve missed something.

Ren Washington:

For sure.

Allison Barr:

Centering means that instead of listening to understand somebody else, we become defensive and derail that conversation by sharing either our own perspective or our own hurt. This can also happen without being defensive, by the way. It’s an attempt to protect our privilege and make ourselves feel comfortable when talking to someone in a marginalized community, for example. For me, it could sound like, “Well, I’m a woman too. I’m also marginalized.” But in comparison to someone like Serena Williams, the obstacles that I face are pale in comparison. So anyhow, centering gives a clear indication that you are not in fact listening — however, upholding the same exact structure that marginalizes people in the first place.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. Thank you. No, nail on the head. I just thought it would be important for those who maybe are less familiar as we think too and we see it all the time. I love the intent versus impact. It’s one of my favorite things that we talk about in our programs around this idea that what you intended to do is one thing and the impact of your actions and others is an entirely different thing. And how often we, as people, just judge ourselves on our intent. And I think that’s the root of centering. I think immediately after Will Smith, the thing happened with him, whether or not he was doing some centering, there seemed to be some centering around the reasons of why. Around, why he did that, and why maybe he stood up in the event that he did or the way that he did.

And very quickly to me, it seemed like the impact got lost of the situation where a man stood up, walked on stage, hit another person, walked off stage in that scenario and almost in an area where there was no reprisal too. I was listening to someone say he turned his back on a person that he just hit and rarely in any kind of conflict situation that elevated would you turn your back on someone that you just struck. But I mean, it was on the stage in the Oscars. What’s Chris Rock going to do? I guess, really play into an already amplified stereotype?

So anyway, it was just interesting. I think this proclivity, this rush to defend ourselves and maybe too, when we’re trying to manage people through elevated conflict, or if I’m verbally yelling at someone or demeaning someone in the workspace, helping me understand the impact of my behaviors, as opposed to debating its validity or its righteousness, I think is really important, because there’s plenty of people I think who would look at Will’s Smith’s behavior and be like, “Well, he’s defending his wife. He was doing what men do in America,” or something. I don’t know. It seems awfully archaic in the behavior, but whether or not, I don’t want to get in an argument about the validity of it. I want to get in the argument around the impact of the behavior and to inform how we might have a different behavior.

Allison Barr:

Yeah. And I think we also need to understand that sometimes asking the recipient to explain why it was harmful is also centering. I don’t think that’s what you meant in what you just said. However, it’s important to talk about that too. If I harm a Black woman, and then ask her to explain to me why what I did was harmful, again, I’m upholding that structure of centering the White person, right? It would be my job to educate myself and ask maybe an ally or somebody else who has education in this space to help me understand it. It’s my job to apologize. And then a proper apology comes with changed behavior. And that’s how you rebuild trust with changed behavior.

Ren Washington:

Well, I want to explore that with you a little bit because it could sound like you would suggest never to ask someone why something bothered them.

Allison Barr:

Well, I didn’t say never.

Ren Washington:

Yes, fair. You didn’t say never.

Allison Barr:

Oh gosh. It depends. I hate that I keep saying that.

Ren Washington:

That’s our favorite thing here though. It does depend.

Allison Barr:

I know it does. Here’s the thing. If I harmed you and I said, “I’m so sorry,” and you said to me, “I want you to understand this deeper,” I would be all ears, and I’m talking about if I microagressed you, I would never expect you to explain that to me. And if you wanted to, I would listen, a thousand percent. And you and I have an established, I think, relationship where we do have trust. And I think the conversation might look a little different than if I were your manager or you were my manager for that matter and we didn’t have a friendly rapport.

Ren Washington:

And are you saying that you wouldn’t broach the topic that way because of who you are? Or if you just saying generally that would be your advice for someone, let’s say someone who’s less maybe, less familiar with the education around this topic. I feel like you probably have a lifted onus on your shoulders, because you’re more aware. Let’s say someone who’s a little bit less aware, like someone who doesn’t understand the emotional implications of, “Wow, your hair looks nice today,” to a Black woman or, “Can I touch your hair?” to a Black woman, right. Let’s say they don’t really understand the implications of that. Is there ever space for that person to seek education or seek explanation from that person? Or maybe like you said, maybe the job is to actually go do some of your research, then come back and say, “Hey, I realize now what I did, how it could have impacted you. Can you help me understand now?” I don’t know. Where do you fall on that continuum?

Allison Barr:

Where I fall on that continuum is, if I’ve marginalized somebody in a different marginalized community, like you just said. I’m a woman. I technically am in a marginalized community, if you want to get technical here. However, Black women experience deeper layers of marginalization. And so, if I harm or oppress a Black woman, I personally would never ask them to explain it to me. I am saying never. I would never ask them to explain it to me.

Ren Washington:

As a representative of another marginalized group?

Allison Barr:

Correct.

Ren Washington:

Okay.

Allison Barr:

Yeah.

Ren Washington:

Because-

Allison Barr:

Because then it furthers the focus on the White… It centers the White person’s feelings, it centers my feelings, and not that woman, when I did the harm. I did the harm and so the focus should be on me repairing the harm, and that could look like me educating myself, but not by way of their energy.

Ren Washington:

Right. So the focus should be repairing the harm, rather than the issue as opposed to seeking explanation about why it’s an issue.

Allison Barr:

Exactly.

Ren Washington:

Seeking explanation about why it’s an issue first is maybe is like, that is the centering behavior.

Allison Barr:

Yes.

Ren Washington:

Even though it could be veiled as something that would be like air quoting here, “thoughtful” or “right,” you’re like, “Oh, well I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to…” Help you understand why, when actually maybe it should be more of a, just like you say, try to address the issue, as opposed to learning more about why it’s a problem.

Allison Barr:

Exactly. And I just want to be clear. I am absolutely saying that you should apologize while you’re at it. I’m not saying skirt away from that as quickly as you can and go educate yourself. I am saying, apologize, educate yourself, and change your behavior. Changed behavior is the best thing you can do and we’re talking about conversations around marginalized communities.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. Perfect. I’m curious what happens on a tighter timeline.

Allison Barr:

What do mean?

Ren Washington:

You used an example earlier around so if I slap someone in the cafeteria but they were going to give me an award later, there’d be complexity. Both things can happen at the same time. I could be deserving of the reward, and I could have also done that poor behavior. But what if I was getting a reward that day or literally 30 minutes later. Let’s put ourselves into the Academy’s shoes or to the Critics Choice Awards’ shoes for Jane Campion, or whatever, or an any system or person or manager or structure that has to hold people accountable for their behavior. What do you think the leaders of the Academy should have done after that event happened? Is that a fair question? We’re not really getting into territory of it, I’m just asking, what do you think the Academy should have done after one of their members struck another one of their members?

Allison Barr:

Okay. Ren, with all the love in my heart, I don’t think I’m the right person to be commenting on that. So let’s turn it back.

Ren Washington:

Okay.

Allison Barr:

Can we turn it back to you? Use this hypothetical of you?

Ren Washington:

Yes.

Allison Barr:

I would, first, if you slap Joe Schmo in the cafeteria, first, don’t expect Joe Schmo to be giving you a standing ovation, right? But seriously, allow him to be fully not in your corner around that. And this would be a case of something that was probably decided a while ago based on your performance. And we wouldn’t take that away from you necessarily in the moment. However, if it were me in charge, I would then want to talk to Joe Schmo and be like, “What would make you feel good? Tell me. What do you think would remedy this and let’s have a conversation about it.” I’m not agreeing to anything that he says. But it is like, “What would repair this for you? What would repair this for you?” And he might say something like, “I just need Ren to apologize.” And that’s great. We can, well maybe we can do that.

Ren Washington:

Yeah. Who knows? But I might be throwing more hands.

Allison Barr:

Maybe. I don’t know.

Ren Washington:

I don’t know if I… That one’s tough for me. When I saw the whole thing going down, I thought to myself, “Well, wow, all right, getting an award and everyone’s clapping.” And I thought, “Okay, let’s see if I was in those shoes, would I even have gone up to accept the award?” I wonder now of course, I could have this faux piety now because we’re just having this conversation over the internet. But I wonder maybe the response isn’t just to pretend like nothing happened. In fact, I would say using our scenario, if I did that, there would have to be some kind of an immediate, an addressing of it. And I think if you were in a situation like that as a manager or a leader where if someone did something way off-base where someone did something that maybe they’re not hitting people in the workspace, but where someone did something that’s really against our employee guidebook or against the norms that we set as a team, I don’t know if I could just let that thing slide until we rebound from the shock and maybe that’s where I’m getting at.

I think that I love the idea of talking to Joe and asking him how he feels and what he thinks. I love the idea of just considering it in the plan for what’s next. But I think sometimes behaviors like that warrant some kind of an indefinite pause. Yes, you still get the reward, but you get to accept it in front of a room full of people who are going to then… I don’t know, applaud like saying that it was okay with what happened?

Allison Barr:

Yeah. I mean, I think those are all important things to consider and I would like you to consider that. Okay. So excluding physical violence because that feels a little bit more obvious to me. But these kinds of verbal violence lights happen at the workplace every day, every single day. And literally nothing’s done about it. So it’s, again, people need to understand, you’ve said this before Ren, the weight that words have and the impact that can come from that. And just because somebody doesn’t speak up about it, does not mean that harm hasn’t happened.

Ren Washington:

Well, maybe as you say, these verbal slights and abuses happen in the workplace all the time. Maybe it’s because they’re not addressed. Maybe it’s because people stand in rooms, hand people awards, and they applaud them. And then that person’s looks around and goes, “Well, my behavior seems to be working.” It’s like when we don’t give anyone feedback. Then it’s reasonable for them to look around at their behavior and say, “Well, I don’t know. Am I doing a good job? Well, Allison hasn’t told me I’m not doing a good job. So maybe I am.” And I wonder then if these verbal slights or these verbal abuses are the things that feed into conflict, not just a disagreement or a perceived disagreement on ideas, for that in interpersonal conflict that rots a team or really starts to hurt people interpersonally.

Maybe the opportunity is, if I’m a manager or a person and I hear someone bash a team member or belittle them, that there is some kind of reprisal and maybe that has to come down with the social contract. We have to agree what interpersonal conflict looks like and then what happens when we cross that line?

Allison Barr:

Yeah. I feel like, honestly, feel like we should do a part 2 to this because there’s so much more to talk about because, gosh, in some levels you’d want your team to be able to rectify interpersonal conflict on their own in theory, right. Again, depending on severity, you and I should be able to remedy conflict because you and I have the same position and in theory we wouldn’t have to pull in the bigger bus. But however, if it’s severe and one of us is creating a hostile environment for the other, then that’s very different. You can’t expect your workers to address that. It’s unrealistic and it’s unfair. And so there’s varying levels. And so I think you’re right. Agreeing on conflict is important. I used to work for a company where it was a very clear policy that you do not gossip about your peers. And if you do, you will be terminated and people were terminated for that.

Ren Washington:

Terminated.

Allison Barr:

Terminated.

Ren Washington:

Okay.

Allison Barr:

Yep.

Ren Washington:

I guess you had to sign that employee contract when you came in?

Allison Barr:

I don’t remember signing it, but I’m sure I did. And so then it comes down to, “Well, define gossip.” It’s so tricky, right? Again, I’m getting a little bit into the weeds here, but gossip is when you’re sharing details about somebody’s life that are private and et cetera, et cetera, or slandering them. But gossip is not like, “Hey, I talked to Ren today and he is tired.” I don’t know. That’s not gossip. So conflict is something that I suppose needs to be defined, but also understood that there are varying levels. So how do you create continuity around how you address it? That’s hard.

Ren Washington:

I think you’re right. And I think maybe we do have to have one of these topic-specific episodes where if we really dig into some of the nuance around conflict, because I think I love the idea of defining it now. I think of it, “Geez, gossip and I’m fired. I mean, I don’t even get a strike.” To me that’s a little harsh, but if I read the paperwork and I’m told that that’s what I’m signing up for, then I think if I agree to that, there’s something to be warranted. And maybe that puts me to my major takeaway of all of this stuff.

When I think about award season and whether it be Jane or Will or anyone, I think… We were talking about this the other day, like resilient organizations. Organizations that stand the test of time that go through all of these pain points. They tend to have something in common, which is they identify potential challenges and they identify the next bad thing that’s going to happen. And then they put redundancies in place for when that bad thing happens.

So when something happens, it’s not really like the shock and then the quick reaction. It’s the shock and then, “Okay, let’s deploy our plan.” I think the same thing has to be true for conflict management or professionalism or when we have these situations come up, it’s how can you as a team member or a leader be prepared? Have conversations around, “What is our response going to be if Ren is cursing someone out in the cafeteria?” Well, I don’t like this image. I’m really generous and kind to everybody, but what happens if Ren is cursing out the student in the cafeteria? Okay, well we know that we have these redundancies in place or these are the things that have to happen and being ready and prepared for more people get into the conversation. And we talk a lot around how can we democratize leadership development? How can we get more people into the conversation, get more people access to our content?

Well, as more people get involved, we have to have more plans about how to deal with inevitable conflict points. And so be prepared, have those systems of what to do when we butt heads? How are we supposed to operate? I think that’s crucial for general leadership effectiveness and managing these kind of things.

Allison Barr:

Yeah. I would agree. I don’t want to be too repetitive about what you just said. And I would add that you and I talked about this the other day too. We expect adults to come to the workplace and act professionally. And what does professional even mean? And we’re human beings. Human beings are going to have conflict. And again, there’s varying levels of conflict. And so to your point, it’s important to acknowledge the perhaps more extreme levels of conflict and have a plan in place for how you’re going to navigate those. And for the more subtle conflicts that happen, and I am addressing my fellow White women here, as a White woman, myself, really important to expand your advocacy to include all women from all different types of backgrounds. So I’m really big on educating yourself. And I’ll give you a couple of my favorite educators too, in that space, but there’s a whole plea and a movement to support women at the workplace.

There’s amazing research around what happens at organizations when women are elevated. However, we need to make sure we’re including all women in that, and understanding all backgrounds. So a couple of my favorite educators there are Rachel Cargill, Bell Hooks is a must-read, Mikki Kendall’s a must-read, Blair Imani, also a must-read, and there’s probably a thousand more. But sometimes that interpersonal conflict can be in the form of a quick statement in a meeting that has a tremendous impact. So I would say understanding impact, the difference between intention and impact can be really very important as well. And so, I think when, again, like, I feel like this is a topic we could talk about for another hour and a half. So perhaps we’ll do a part 2 or something. Either way, I appreciate you. And I appreciate this conversation and-

Ren Washington:

Yeah, it was great to see you again.

Allison Barr:

To our listeners, you can find all of the links to our podcast, our show notes on ccl.org. You can also find us on LinkedIn. Let us know what you want us to talk about. Do you want an episode on conflict?

And a special thanks to the marketing team, and Ryan, and Emily, who is in another country supporting us, and Allyson, who’s doing a lot of work behind the scenes to make this happen. And we’ll look forward to talking next time.

Ren Washington:

That’s right. Thanks Allison. See you next time.