Fighting Backlash to Racial Equity Efforts

After corporations committed to dramatically increasing their focus on racial equity in response to the killing of George Floyd in May 2020, the hard work of making the changes needed to live up to those promises began. Unsurprisingly, those changes are meeting resistance, such as negative comments posted during virtual forums about race and a lawsuit filed by a White employee claiming that diversity training created a hostile work environment.1

These responses are predictable: If you’re benefiting from the current system, you’re likely to resist changing it. In the United States, the primary beneficiaries of the existing system are White people. And if anything threatens to thwart America’s progress toward open dialogue and racial equity, it is White people’s unwillingness to engage with the idea that if others are suffering from undeserved disadvantages, it is all but certain that they themselves benefit from undeserved advantages.2

This critical understanding of systemic racism — that all of us, whether we want to or not, are participants within a system in which our racial membership has implications for important life outcomes — is antithetical to people’s desire or need to see themselves as decent, good, meritorious individuals. Our research shows that, because systemic racism suggests that White employees have benefited from a personal characteristic over which they have no control, systemic racism is difficult for many of them to acknowledge. As a result, calling out systemic racism provokes defensive behaviors that undermine efforts promoting change and make them more difficult and divisive.

Nevertheless, corporate leaders who genuinely support social change must see racism as systemic: a structural component that impacts every aspect of organizational life, from marketing to pricing, from supply chains to talent acquisition. And in order to make real progress toward racial equity within their organizations, leaders must also recognize that racial equity initiatives — just like all significant organizational changes, but with even greater emotional intensity — will face opposition and resistance. The ability to anticipate, recognize, and respond effectively to opposition will be critical to sustained success.

The key to effectively responding to resistance is leveraging that human need to think of ourselves as good, because it’s accompanied by our need to think of our systems as fair and just — and this desire to restore justice is powerful. As researchers, our work indicates that if White individuals can both come to believe that systemic racial inequity exists and also see a role for themselves in the dismantling of racist systems, they will choose to do so — even if it is at a cost to the self or group, such as supporting policies that remove White advantages.3

Just as some readers may feel uncomfortable with the ideas in this article, so too will many of your employees. These reactions fall into predictable patterns, which we and others have spent over 20 years documenting and we discuss below. Some of you may recognize your own responses among the ones we discuss. Understanding the why behind a response provides insights into ways to counter the reflexive defensiveness that the notion of systemic racism elicits from many people.

Facing Up to Whiteness

First, let’s address the elephant in the room: White identity. Is this article about White people? Yes. Are we centering the White experience over those of historically marginalized groups? Yes and no. We focus on White people not because we believe the experience of non-White groups to be less important than the experience of White people. Rather, we believe the experience of White people to be as important as the experience of those who identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), because any movement forward in racial equity will require the willing cooperation of equity-minded White people.

To recognize the reality of systemic racism, White people must first recognize themselves as having a racial identity that affects the environments that they find themselves in, how others engage with them, and how they see themselves. Indeed, the very lack of awareness of racial identity among White people is a hallmark of racial power. If Whiteness remains undiscussed, then the advantages our system offers Whiteness are also left undiscussed.

However, this very first step is where backlash often begins: Again, it can be uncomfortable for White people to think about themselves as White and to recognize that Whiteness offers benefits. Overtly racist and prejudiced responses as voiced by White nationalists are one form of backlash and relatively easy to recognize. But backlash also comes in more subtle forms that can be disguised as concerns about equity and equality. Here, we describe three broad categories of unproductive backlash responses — deny, distance, and distort — and point to a fourth kind of response that is more constructive: dismantle.

Deny. Denial is one of the most common forms of White backlash: White people simply deny that racism is a significant problem. However, such opposition can manifest in surprising and subtle ways, which can make denial harder to counteract.

Our research documents that White Americans deny racism by drawing boundaries around discussions of race. For example, many White Americans believe that merely discussing race is, in and of itself, racist.4 These responses are based on the underlying assumption that not being racist means aspiring to a world where all are treated equally and fairly regardless of race. But where racial inequality already exists, it’s impossible to make — or measure — progress in redressing inequality without talking about race or tracking racialized outcomes.

The denial response pattern is often found among White people who are most opposed to racial equity. In our research, we found that this group is most likely to voice the view that race should not be a focus of discussion or public policy, and to oppose the collection of racial data, particularly when they see the position of the White racial group as being threatened.5 In addition, White people who are opposed to racial equity are more likely to endorse colorblindness, or the idea that race does not matter and should not be acknowledged.6 Multiculturalism, on the other hand, which is typically favored by employees of color, takes the view that differences should be acknowledged and celebrated.7

Distance. It is often deeply uncomfortable for White Americans to perceive that they benefit from their race. As a result, even when they acknowledge that employees of color are disadvantaged, they still distance themselves from this problem by distancing themselves psychologically from the White racial identity.

One common distancing response is to emphasize personal uniqueness (“Not all White people are the same” or “I’m not like those other White people”).8 Another is to focus on a subcategory of Whiteness, usually by highlighting one’s European background (“I’m Italian-American”); raising the point that one’s own social group has also faced historical discrimination; or even emphasizing a nonracial identity that can subject one to discrimination (“I’m a woman”). A similar strategy is to point to personal hardships (“I’ve struggled with addiction” or “I’m a child of divorce”) as evidence that the individual has not personally benefited from racial advantages.9

These objections illustrate a confusion that many White people have regarding how systemic racism works. For a group to have advantages does not mean that they do not also, as individuals, experience personal tragedies, suffering, and nonracial discrimination or need to engage in hard work. Yet, pointing to hardship or claiming that one deserves what one has due to hard work overlooks the reality that many non-White individuals have worked just as hard but without commensurate outcomes — and does not change the value that having White skin provides in society at this moment.

Distort. A growing category of backlash tactics fall under what we call distortion, or strategies wherein White people recognize the existence of racism but distort the nature of racial inequity to protect their own good feelings.

For instance, our research finds that to avoid the possibility that they are embedded in a social system in which their group is advantaged, some who are White hew to an individualistic view of racism, in which racism refers primarily to actions taken by individuals.10 This allows people to avoid the consideration that racist systems, in which they participate, may have benefited them. Seeing racism as largely an issue of individual behavior is also problematic because it focuses efforts on remedies that do not address the systemic nature of racism. Consider, for example, the popularity of implicit or unconscious bias training, which has been steadily growing since the 1980s. Notably, companies increasingly invest in implicit bias training despite growing evidence that it has either neutral or negative effects on people’s attitudes toward BIPOC colleagues and diversity efforts more generally — possibly because mandatory training is more likely to provoke resistance and anger from attendees.11

Critically, distortion not only leads White people to disengage from racial equity efforts but also to lash out at training or new procedures that may affect them. Indeed, a nontrivial percentage of White Americans (33%) perceive themselves to have been discriminated against on the basis of race.12 Moreover, 20% believe that being Black is advantageous to people’s ability to get ahead in the U.S., particularly in the realm of employment.13 These findings align with observations from our consulting work, where we often hear from clients that they struggle with employees who believe that changes in hiring and promotion processes that are designed to remedy systemic racism will work against them.

Choosing the Alternative Path: Dismantle

While the research we describe above demonstrates how White people often respond defensively to racial equity efforts, we have also identified when and why they sometimes cope with their discomfort by choosing a fourth responsive strategy that is more productive: embracing the urge to dismantle unjust systems. Critically, this response is most likely when White people both acknowledge systemic racism and see a role for themselves in restoring justice. So how can we bring employees to this point? Here, we provide three positive actions designed to counter the three defensive responses and increase the likelihood of the more productive response.

1. Countering denial and distortion with data disclosure. One promising trend we have observed is that more and more organizations are disclosing demographic data regarding recruitment, hiring, promotion, leadership, and retention. Public disclosure of data works in direct opposition to the denial strategy by providing evidence of racial disparities. Such disclosures also directly counter the distortion strategy by making plain who is advantaged and who is disadvantaged and by which practices (including those that may seem good, such as recruiting primarily from elite universities).

Sometimes this disclosure is voluntary, but organizations are increasingly being required to provide the data. For example, Nasdaq has proposed requiring companies to report on board diversity in order to be listed on the exchange. In the United Kingdom, large companies must provide nonfinancial information regarding their activities relating to employee and board diversity. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has said it will ask companies to provide demographic data on their workforces and boards and will vote against directors who don’t comply.

What is noteworthy about the present push is its aim at asking companies not just for aggregate data about the demographic breakdown of their workforces but for disaggregated data in particular. This distinction is important: If companies are composed of 14% Black or African Americans (a percentage consistent with their representation in the broader U.S. population), but 75% of them are employed at lower-level jobs, this would meet the standard of diversity of racial representation, but not a standard of racial equity. This is why Coca-Cola has focused on the demographics of its leadership team; even though it has managed to increase the demographic diversity of its new hires, the executive team does not mirror the demographics of its largest markets. And even data on, say, the executive team is not necessarily helpful in aggregate: Studies on gender diversity on boards have found that even though there are increasing numbers of women on boards, they are often relegated to roles with relatively little influence.14 Organizations must push themselves to collect and understand better and more meaningful data in order to accurately track their progress.

2. Countering distancing and distortion through collaboration. One of the ways in which distancing harms racial equity is by allowing White people to think that efforts toward racial equity need not involve them. But building a shared understanding of inequity as a characteristic of systems in which all people, regardless of race, are enmeshed entails inviting White people to participate in more active ways than the ubiquitous courageous conversation or listening tour. In an example of a lost opportunity, many calls in support of racial equity last summer were clear on their acknowledgment of racial discrimination against minorities, but relatively less was said regarding the role that White people can play in reforming the system. A notable exception came from one leader, who acknowledged in a letter the “anguish and trauma” that many members of the organizational community were feeling but also urged all stakeholders, especially the majority, who are White, to consider how to actively engage with racism. This second component is noteworthy; by explicitly calling on White Americans to participate in this endeavor, this leader made it clear that White people have a seat at the table and an obligation to be part of the solution. And, in fact, research shows that explicitly inviting majority-group members to act on equity increases their support for and engagement with equity initiatives.15

The lack of explicit expectations for White people’s participation in many equity efforts historically may be why most initiatives die on the vine once they move past the C-suite.16 Here, we would suggest leaders not only encourage White employees to participate but also highlight those who do. We advise this not to diminish the value of the work that BIPOC pioneers are doing to push these efforts forward but because people are more likely to change their minds — and their behavior — when they see that others similar to themselves hold particular attitudes and beliefs. In the parlance of organizational culture, the individuals who are held up as “heroes” in the organization provide a cue to others about what behaviors are valued. In this way, inviting broad participation and highlighting how specific behaviors are consistent with the core value of equity will reinforce their importance in the pantheon of organizational values.

Collaboration also requires that leaders engage seriously with White employees’ fears of being penalized while they are still in the phase of learning. In our consulting work, we often hear from White workers who are equity-curious but fearful of doing the wrong thing or causing unintentional harm. However, making mistakes, receiving feedback, and adjusting behavior in response is the very definition of learning. For this reason, we stress the importance of creating spaces where White employees can practice talking about racism. To be clear, we do not mean spaces for White people to espouse hateful speech. We mean formally designated spaces where they should expect to be uncomfortable and challenged but also know that if they make a mistake, they won’t suddenly be sanctioned. In this way, fears that inhibit White employees from talking about racism — and that inhibit learning — can be mitigated. Small group workshops are ideal for this purpose, as long as they are led by a skilled facilitator who sets the expectation that mistakes are likely and ensures that immediate constructive feedback is provided. The idea here is not to give people the opportunity to say offensive things; the expectation is that they can test ways of talking about race and change their behavior as they receive feedback.

Another way to manage these fears is to have well-defined rules and procedures to address offensive behaviors when they inevitably occur and to communicate these policies unambiguously. A combination of safe learning spaces for White employees and clear guidelines regarding shared expectations for behavior can help to reassure all employees that learning is valued and that violations are treated both fairly and seriously.

3. Countering distortion with a vision grounded in justice. Distortion tactics can be especially difficult to counter because they essentially try to change the terms of the discussion and alter its goals. Countering this tactic requires that leaders be especially clear when setting the vision and specifying the goal of racial equity.

A good deal of the literature aimed at managers makes the business case for diversity, no doubt reflecting in part the long-held — but now much-disputed — assumption that business leaders’ primary allegiance is to shareholders and that any initiative they undertake must contribute to the bottom line. And, indeed, there are many instances in which greater demographic diversity does provide dividends to organizations.17 But using improved organizational performance as the rationale for equity efforts can support an argument against diversity if it does not produce the anticipated gains.18 It can also prompt more negative beliefs about dissimilar others. For example, recent research shows that when people who believe in the business case for diversity are on a diverse team that underperforms, they have more negative attitudes toward members of other social groups.19 In addition, research finds that a focus on the business case for diversity can actually undermine BIPOC employees by marking them as merely useful tokens.20 Thus, only highlighting the business case for diversity has some critical and potentially negative consequences.

We urge organizational leaders to instead base their case on widely held moral values of fairness and equity, with justice as their goal. Framing their vision in these terms allows leaders to acknowledge the reality that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts require companies to prioritize long-term equity and organizational justice over the psychological discomfort of some employees and the possibility of short-term losses. Our research shows that openly recognizing this discomfort ahead of time can reduce White backlash, making White employees less likely to distance themselves and more likely to accept the reality of systemic racism. And we have found that when their hard work is acknowledged, White employees can become less prone to backlash and more likely to recognize racial privilege.21

Establishing justice and equity as the basis for DEI efforts also enables leaders to communicate the psychological benefit that comes from working in a truly meritocratic environment. For example, after Coca-Cola settled a $192.5 million race-discrimination class-action lawsuit in 2000, the newly appointed director of workplace fairness, Steve Bucherati, recalled, “In the days after the lawsuit, White males were walking on eggshells. … The White guys would come in and talk to me and say, ‘This is about everyone but me.’ I said, ‘No, it’s not. We’re not here to invalidate you, your contribution, or your opportunity to advance. We’re just here to validate everyone, and not everyone has been validated at work.’” He stressed that the changes were meant to improve meritocracy at the company.22 In this way, Coca-Cola’s leaders acknowledged the discomfort that White employees had with the changes. At the same time, it emphasized that the efforts would not only benefit minority employees, who could gain confidence that their good performance would not be overlooked due to their race; the efforts would also have benefits for White employees, who could gain confidence that their career gains were the result of their hard work rather than their race.

When Backlash Persists

It may be that not everyone in your organization is moved by the techniques for overcoming resistance to equity initiatives that we’ve described. Ultimately, if backlash cannot be overcome, it must be removed — or else it risks establishing backlash as tacitly acceptable. Employees — both White and BIPOC — evaluate how committed organizations are to change initiatives by watching how leadership responds to opposition and resistance. For this reason, leaders must not only be explicit about what they will and will not tolerate but also act upon those statements. For example, following inappropriate behavior by employees during an all-hands meeting, Cisco announced a $5 million donation to anti-racism groups, stated that the company “will not tolerate racism,” and fired several employees because of their conduct.23

But regardless of where the line is drawn, the important point is that there is one: Employees make sense of their organizational culture by observing who and what is rewarded and what is penalized. While a lack of training or knowledge explains some opposition, leaders need to treat employees’ resistance to institutional changes designed to address systemic racism with the same determination with which they treat any opposition to a strategic organizational change: Identify and educate those who need more guidance and can be persuaded, and let go those who are unwilling to participate in the vision.

Leaders committed to making the changes necessary to advance meaningfully toward racial equity in their organizations must be prepared for some degree of internal opposition, most likely from White employees, who may variously feel discomfort, guilt, and/or threats to the existing system and their sense of self. As we have seen, these reactions are predictable and can be addressed systemically and intentionally — if not necessarily easily — just as with opposition to any other major strategic change that leaders spearhead.

Among the many challenges embedded in organizational changes related to racial equity is that corporate leaders must speak to two internal constituent groups: BIPOC employees and their allies, and White employees who do not believe in the existence of structural racism. To effectively communicate the urgency of the need for change, leaders need to acknowledge the deep harm that systemic racism has wrought on communities and employees of color, and connect their efforts at repairing this damage to deeply held social values and corporate purpose. Yet they must do this while simultaneously balancing those statements of solidarity with the possibility that such statements will put their non-ally White employees on the defensive and elicit the opposition that we described above. Our hope is that being prepared for this opposition will let organizational leaders preempt the many backlash tactics that have been and will be made against racial equity work. And by successfully countering such backlash, leaders and organizations will be better positioned to do the hard work of transformational change needed to dismantle current systems of racism and achieve racial equity.