[ANNOUNCER]: Breaking down everyday workplace issues and diagnosing the hidden sickness, not just the obvious symptom. Our hosts, James and Coby.

[COBY]: Did we lose a patient?

[JAMES]: No, that’s just my lunch.

[COBY]: Hey, thanks for joining us. I’m Coby, he’s James. And let’s get started with a question. Equality or equity? Or is it special treatment?

[JAMES]: Yeah, this is an interesting question because I think at this point, like, I think most of our listeners have a pretty good understanding of the difference between equity and equality, especially if they’ve been, you know, kind of on this journey with us for a while now. But where I think the conversation, leads and what we end up seeing time and time again is where employees, managers, and leaders are questioning, when does an effort to provide equality or equity in the workplace actually cross into that line of special treatment? So there’s a few things that I would like to explore in our conversation. I mean, obviously we’re going to have to talk a bit about what, we mean by each of these terms, but I think it would be interesting to explore where the lines are, especially around special treatment and whether special treatment is actually inherently bad or just situationally bad.

[COBY]: Right. Yeah. And I think that this is something that may not necessarily be a question that people are looking like, are looking for specific answers or articulating specific answers kind of like actively or more of a. It’s probably a lack of clarity around these things in their mind. And, you know, so, like, when they see something like, you know, well, is that fair? Is, you know, is. And I think that that’s probably how we process that as people is like, well, that happened. Is that fair? And then. And then. So what I kind of want people to take away from this conversation is, well, let’s put fair as kind of a. As kind of having different parts. And if we’re trying to say what’s fair, well, let’s look at a few different buckets that things would fall into to kind of figure out if it is fair. And I think, is it fair? Is it equal? Is it fair, is it equitable? Or is it fair where it’s giving someone a specific leg up but for a reason? So, I kind of feel like we will hopefully give people some clarity around the question of is it fair? But also the idea of why is it that we may overly question if something’s fair, why is it that it may bother us or it may make us angry, or on the other side, why may it delay us? Why may we be hesitant to do something because we’re trying to figure out again the nuances between equality, equity, special treatment. And then we’re going to introduce kind of a, a third or a fourth bucket into that too as we talk. but I do think that getting into the, what kind of holds back the implementation acceptance of these things is probably going to be where I want the conversation to kind of get to at the end because hopefully that’ll be the biggest takeaway.

[JAMES]: And I think the perception of fairness, just to pick up on that for a second is where a lot it’s. I think that’s where from an employee perspective we, we see pushback around equity or equality initiatives because the, the perception of fairness can kind of drift into well they’re getting something that I’m not. They’re getting special treatment because of X, Y or Z. and I think it’s also why a lot of managers and leaders can be somewhat hesitant to go the route of providing accommodations in various forms. I mean medical accommodations, we are far more will to work within because there’s legislation saying that you, you have to do it. you’re forced to. So good on you for following the law. but aside from that there’s a lot of ways that we try to provide equity in the workplace around work and how people engage in work. and I think the resistance, too many of those efforts comes from a fear that it’s going to be perceived as unfair or perceived as you know, somebody receiving special treatment.

[COBY]: Yeah, absolutely. Because like the kind of the golden benchmark in a lot of people’s minds because of how concrete it is is equality. Because again equality, the core idea of equality is that everybody receives the same resources, the same opportunities, the same treatment, same approaches, the same. And that is a very concrete thing. Is that the idea of well by, because like it also is the, the impetus behind well if I do this for you, I have to do this for everybody. Right? Yeah, because everybody needs to get the exact same thing. And the thing is that that’s a very old school mentality of trying to treat people fairly because it’s so concrete, it’s so obvious, it’s so. It almost removes accountability in a lot of ways too because like well it’s just easy. We do a blanket effort and it’s just the same. And that is easy to measure, easy to see, very good optics as we are doing our job. and I’m removing my accountability of understanding the nuances and complexities because we’re doing Everything the same.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: And I think that is something, is that most people are clinging on to because of the safety of it. But I think that’s a fundamental problem that makes people that are clinging to that often part of the problem.

[JAMES]: Well, and so there’s two things that come up for me as you were talking about that. One is that it comes down to how do you define fairness? Right. and in with that particular perspective, the definition of fairness is, well, it’s unfair if I don’t give everybody the exact same thing. Right. for me, where I, and we’ll get into the actual definitions of the terms. But the way that I generally think about the relationship, between equality and equity is more in terms of method, and outcome. We, our equity initiatives should be in pursuit of equality. Equality is what we are trying to reach. We are trying to reach a point where everybody has the same access, the same opportunity to achieve outcomes. And that, and the way that we do that is going to be slightly different for different people. Right. It’s equity initiatives are generally designed to address inequalities. Right, Right. So I, I, I don’t know if that’s helpful for you as a listener to kind of help frame part of this conversation, but that’s always been kind of in the back of my head as we, we talk about these things, how I see one as a, outcome that we are striving towards and the other as the means in which we begin to achieve that outcome.

[COBY]: And I think that I, I value that perspective, but I, I definitely see it differently because I see equality as a firm, rigid standard, whereas I think how you’re positioning it beneficially is more of, it’s an aspirational goal. Right. But the thing is, is that I think that the idea of everybody having equal opportunity, having being put on an equal playing field is the aspirational goal that all of our efforts should be towards. But realizing that that level playing field, that equal opportunity cannot be achieved through giving everyone the same thing. and again, I think most people listening to this, they get that, they understand that conceptually those kind of pieces. But I think that it goes back to what you said about the definition of fairness because I think where the problem comes from is an antiquated definition in our own minds of what fairness is or what it looks like or those types of things. And that fairness is, needs to be simply visual, optically beneficial, clear, and equity and sorry, equal treatment is, meets that. So that, so that is the again, subconscious, default perspective of it. But, but the idea of if you are of the mind, if you have to do that for one person, do it for everybody, or that everyone be given, be given the same thing, or that equal is, is, is the right rigid approach and the optics of equal are what we need to strive for. If that is your perspective, looking at it, I think that you are operating on an antiquated view and you potentially, like I say, I think that you’re potentially being part of the problem, whether probably not actively. But your, but your, your mentality is probably part of the problems. Why these things may struggle to, to kind of grab on and be accepted and implemented into our workplaces.

[JAMES]: Yeah, and I don’t want to take us down a rabbit hole in particular, but what, what I find interesting, what I was, what came to mind as you were talking is that the definitive definition of fairness could be looked at as are we looking at fairness as an individual outcome or as a collective outcome? M. Because if we’re looking at as an individual outcome, is this fair to me that somebody else has received something that I have not, then the answer is likely going to be no. Right. Because that, that individual outcome of fairness. But if we look at the collective of is it fair in terms of you know, rectifying or creating a scenario where people with different varying needs, whatever that may be, are given individual supports in order to be able to achieve the same outcome, Is that fair? The answer may be more strongly yes. So individual versus collective is another just dynamic to consider as we kind of go through the conversation.

[COBY]: No, and that, that is, is a really good point. But so, so let’s actually like talk about a little bit more about the definition of equity. Yeah. So again, the core idea of equity is that everybody gets what they need in order to have an equal chance of success. And I like what you said before about about actions and outcomes is that the intention of equity is about achieving the successful outcome. And the path to that successful outcome is not the same for everybody. That’s the whole concept of equity is that. But to get to that outcome of success, there may need to be different paths. It’s about giving people different, with different needs within a similar scope of kind of like the reality of, you know, make sure that’s not drastically, you know, vibrantly different, but the idea of putting people on a level playing field by addressing different people’s needs so they could achieve that outcome of success with the same probability of success as anyone else working towards that outcome. And that really is kind of the reality behind equity. And the problem with that is that each of those paths are not clear and are not the same and are optically inconvenient. So I think that’s where a lot of the problems come from. Even though we all understand the value of equity, we conceptualize it quite well, it doesn’t have great optics all the time. And I think that’s one of the big roadblocks to successful implementation of equity.

[JAMES]: Yeah. And well, I mean it comes down to the, the fact that what we are trying to achieve is a collective outcome, not an individual outcome. Right. So it does create a scenario where one person or group or individuals are receiving something that other people are not receiving. So it, and this is, I mean a lot of this also how this is perceived, how this plays out and the level of pushback that you receive in your workplace, is significantly impacted by the operational culture that exists there as well. Right. the, I mean we’ll probably talk about it more but it is worth stating at this point as well that the more actively dissatisfied people are with what’s going on in the workplace, whether that is pay or consistency or job security or any of the factors that we talk about, often the more that people are upset or frustrated with those elements, the more likely they’re going to see your efforts to provide equity as an injustice or as unfair.

[COBY]: Yeah, absolutely. And I mean the thing is that, and what equity looks like is not just the kind of standard of like well pay equity is pretty simple. It’s like, you know, that we want people to have fair balance compensation for, for, for the work. but the idea of like, you know, but like whether that is, you know, kind of like raising, kind of like the, the gen, the gender pay gap is, is part of the two effort, extra efforts have to be, have to be put in place to support, you know, populations to make sure that they’re able to achieve equitable pay. But also like we look at certain jobs pay scales where everyone makes the exact same isn’t always, is equal but it’s not always equitable because again differing background skill sets, the likelihood of them, of them leaving all those kinds of pieces like that too play into it when, even when you’re dealing with like disciplinary issues, some people may need more patience and more coaching than other people do. Some people may need more support, they may need more mentorship, more one on one, they may need, or some people may actually need, you know, more strict kind of clarity and you know, don’t need as soft of a Hand. But the idea is, is that it’s so situational, what a person needs for equity, for, for, for equity. That again, that’s what impacts the optics. Right. It doesn’t look good if someone’s getting something, getting something different than someone else and that person is dissatisfied or is already angry or is already feeling, you know, that they’re, you know, that they are, don’t have a safe place or they’re defensive or whatever it is. Then that, just, then that inequity or, sorry, that equity. But inequality just ramps up, just feeds. It just beats the anger, feeds the dissatisfaction, just adds to it. But because part of that though is that they’re thinking I’m getting something different than they are, that’s inherently wrong. I am right. They are wrong. This is unfair.

[JAMES]: Yep. And I think we’ve got a pretty good, understanding of equity and equality. It’s. Where does special treatment land? When does our effort to provide equity cross the line to actually being special, being providing special treatment? And I’m not sure that I have a clearly defined answer. I think about it in terms of thresholds, because from an equity standpoint, if you’re not providing, if you’re not giving everybody and tailoring your approaches for, to individuals and everybody kind of has the same opportunity for equity to get what they need in order to achieve the outcomes, then you are providing special treatment to a smaller number of people. Right. So if equity is not equal, is not equally applied, which is. Now we’re getting into wordplay and I’m going to end up confusing myself as that happens a lot. but if it’s not applied fairly equally among everybody, or at least you’re. It’s not perceived that way, then yes, you, you may be crossing the line into special treatment. And if you. So the threshold on the bottom end of the spectrum could be. That’s how I kind of view the like. It’s not reaching that bar of, providing, equity to people. There’s also an opportunity to actually surpass what is necessary. Right. It’s from an operational perspective. You are going beyond what is operationally required and giving people. And it morphs from a equity standpoint into providing perks to people, then you’ve probably crossed the line again. So I see, equity as this threshold in the middle that we are trying to hit and we can fall short of it. If we’re not being, if we’re not providing the same opportunities to everybody and we can overshoot the mark if we go too far and start Providing perks to a small number of people who again, it’s not what is required operationally. We’re going too far in one direction to another.

[COBY]: Right. I think that a way of looking at special treatment is a bit, taking a bit more of, of a longer term view and say are these actions trying to, you know, again, are they not putting everyone on, on a level playing field? Are they giving people an advantage or a pass or those types of things too? But also it’s more about are you trying to avoid an uncomfortable situation and giving in to somebody who’s a complainer or whatever like that? Or are you trying to give somebody a leg up and an advantage and convenience? And so part of it is I think kind of gets into a bit into the motives because here’s the thing, here’s the reality. It may look like equity and special treatment may actually look the same optically from the outside, not being involved in the nuanced conversations and the realities and having all the information. But part of it is are you trying to avoid a bad situation or for that person or, and for you, or are you trying to create a convenience benefit for you and that person? And it’s not. And you’re not on the level playing field. You’ve given them an advantage on the playing field. That’s when it falls into special treatment, in my opinion. So you’re either, so you’re trying to avoid a bad thing or give a good thing, but regardless you’re, you’re not giving people a level playing field to work with towards the outcome of success.

[JAMES]: Yeah. So I’m going to throw a bit of a wrench into our conversation and introduce another dynamic around targeted supports.

[COBY]: Yeah.

[JAMES]: And how do targeted supports kind of play into this middle of equality, equity, special treatment? Because like if we’re. So when we’re talking about targeted supports, we’re talking about you know, providing specific resources or adjustments to a group or individual who face a particular, maybe a particular barrier so that they can actually participate on equal footing. It is an equity, initiative, an equity seeking initiative, whatever language you want to throw, in there. But it is specifically targeting a group of people and not another group of people.

[COBY]: Right.

[JAMES]: So in my mind that hits the threshold of special treatment and I think.

[COBY]: That’S the point and can go back to what you said in your intro. Is special treatment always a bad thing? And I, and I would say in it’s not because you’re right, targeted supports are technically qualified special treatment. But it’s the Idea of is the extra advantage being given to them about putting them on a level playing field or is that, or is it being given them, or, or is the extra advantage being given to them about, about balancing the playing field? That’s really kind of what it falls, what it falls back to in my opinion is that, I mean again, when you see people like we talk about this a lot with, with like accessibility or we talk about it a lot. So here’s, here’s the thing. We talk about this a lot. we’ve talked about this more recently with some of the work we’ve done in the nonprofit sector around trauma informed practices.

[JAMES]: Right.

[COBY]: So the way that I use that language and can learn from the work that we’ve been doing and talk about trauma informed. I talk about it, I talk about it. As far as that trauma informed, practices are getting context of someone’s background and the trauma that they may have experienced. Whether that’s from institutional betrayal, it’s from personal pieces, if it’s from again like, you know, like whatever it might be, what has shaped their current mindset situation and then using that information to provide equity and giving them what they need. The idea is that the bulk of people probably need very close degrees, of equitable treatment. So like maybe a little bit more here, a little bit less there. It’s kind of on a similar path. But some people who have a higher need, whether that’s they’ve experienced significant trauma, they have more accessibility issues or those types of things, they’re going to need above and beyond the kind of like typical range of, of of equitable seeking actions to be able to kind of pull up to that level playing field. And that’s something that you know, we again is, is a kind of reality and trauma, and trauma informed approaches. But it’s also something that is about trying to give certain groups certain, you know, certain justifiable advantages, special treatment that will give them that ability to operate on the same playing field. It’s not convenience, is not about avoiding uncomfortable ah, situations. It’s about just giving them extra so they could actually compete at the same level.

[JAMES]: It’s interesting. I’m going to try to summarize this with a example, warning. It could be really dumb.

[COBY]: But classic James example.

[JAMES]: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean at least I’m consistent, right?

[COBY]: That’s right.

[JAMES]: so let’s look at this in terms of a, There’s a high shelf in a supply closet and this, the top shelf is where we keep all of the best tools, the best resources, the best, the best file folders. I don’t know. it’s where, it’s where all the best stuff is kept. If we don’t provide anything at all, we could actually say that’s equality because everybody actually has the same nothing to help them out.

[COBY]: Like you mean to like reach the shelf.

[JAMES]: To reach the shelf. Right.

[COBY]: Okay. so just the floor. Everyone has the same chance to reach the floor.

[JAMES]: The, the height is the height. The shelves came pre manufactured. We didn’t create the shelf intentionally high.

[COBY]: off the shelf. It has to stay on the top shelf.

[JAMES]: Okay. everybody has the same floor. Floor to start off, right?

[COBY]: Yeah.

[JAMES]: If we put a stool in the in as a way of trying to help people to reach the top shelf, we could look at that as an effort towards equity. Right. It’s something that not everybody will need.

[COBY]: Right.

[JAMES]: But is available. everybody has the equal opportunity to use this stool, in order to try to reach the top shelf. Okay. If we create a plan or a accommodation or a ramp or something to help folks who maybe they have a mobility issue or they’re in a wheelchair to be able to access the top shelf. A targeted support because it is specifically looking at one demographic that is not necessarily being served by the equity, initiative that we put in place. But the effort again is in order to achieve the same operational outcome of everybody needs to be able to resort reach the top shelf to get the best resources.

[COBY]: Right. So something like they could would request the stuff ahead of time. It would be provided to them at a shelf that they could reach at type of thing that would be like.

[JAMES]: Yeah, something like that. But we’ve created a scenario that specifically provides a different level of support to a targeted group because there’s been an identified barrier in them achieving the same outcomes as everybody else. And then I think this is where we cross into kind of the not great side of special treatment is if we create a rule for an individual who has complained about how high the shelves are, or they are friends with the boss and complain that they don’t want to go, ah, have to get up on the stool and reach the resources on the top shelf. So we create a scenario where we get somebody else to bring the office supplies to them. That’s special treatment. And that’s not, that is going to nine times out of ten if not every time tick off the rest of this staff.

[COBY]: Right.

[JAMES]: Bring up issues around it, being unfair and really undercut everything else that you do around equity because people are seeing the special treatment.

[COBY]: No, actually, I’m gonna, I’m gonna give that to you as a very good example, because you, because you’re right. A floor is equal. Everyone walks on the same floor, but taller people have an advantage.

[JAMES]: It’s equal, but not sufficient. Right. If we’re, if let’s, let’s. You bring in some of our common, language.

[COBY]: Yeah, you’re right. Yeah. Whereas a stool is equitable. It’s also something no one’s going to argue against. Right. So it happens to be the kind of equity that has good optics.

[JAMES]: Yeah. I mean, it’s there. It’s available to people if they need it, and it is there with the effort of helping people all achieve the same outcome.

[COBY]: Right. But a stool isn’t going to help somebody in a wheelchair.

[JAMES]: Right.

[COBY]: So a special plan to allow for the people in the wheelchair to still have access to the, you know, to the tub on the top shelf. That’s, that’s different than everybody else’s is a targeted support for just them. And I think that nobody would have an issue with that. You’re right. But someone, that just complains, wants a convenience, and then there and then the boss, maybe, to avoid having to say no to this person that they’re friends with, make a special rule for them that gives them an advantage. They don’t even have to go into the supply closet at all. They can just have it to be delivered to them. Is special treatment is like the negative side of special treatment. I think that. I think that does kind of clarify that quite well.

[JAMES]: I just want to identify, for my own records and for our listeners, that I was just told that I was right three times in under a minute.

[COBY]: I actually think I was saying it wasn’t that bad and I had no corrections. But I don’t want to go that far.

[JAMES]: So I’m, I’m gonna, I’m gonna make a clip of this episode and just play it back to you on repeat. It’s gonna become my new, notification on my phone. Just, ah, you repeating. You know what? You’re right. Over and over again.

[COBY]: All right, I feel dirty now.

[JAMES]: My work here is done.

[COBY]: All right, moving on. so I think that we should, again, I think we did a pretty decent job kind of clarifying the difference between equity, equality, treatment, and also targeted supports. so that’s good. But let’s get into why these definitions. Again, I think we’ve given some clarity, but why is that clarity not going to necessarily Last in the workplace and be accepted in the workplace and be easy to implement in the workplace. And then it goes back to what you said earlier about job dissatisfaction, satisfaction. If the facts of the workplace like we talk about all the time, you know, consistency and pay and conditions and all those types of things are, are not competitive, sufficient and equitable, then we, we end up creating this data set. This, this has this satisfaction, this anger, this frustration, this you know, sense of like protectiveness, defensiveness that ends up kind of existing in our workplaces. And then we view the equity pieces that don’t have the really easy optics, like a stool in our workplaces as special treatment. We classify them that because they’re not equal. Maybe we cling to the equality piece tighter than we should even though we know better because it kind of justifies our anger and it almost feeds it a little bit. Going back to, we talked about in this, in the, you know what, going back to what we talked about in the psychology for the work workplace episode last time we did, we talked about the halo effect and the Horn effect.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: I think that there’s a reality here where if we’re, if we’re angry and defensive and dissatisfied and we see equitable treatment that we don’t fully understand and the optics are not clear, I think then we get the Horn effect in there and we paint everything with that negative view and we look to justify that negative view and it’s that bias that is in us is probably where that lives.

[JAMES]: Yeah, that’s interesting. I think there’s, there’s so many places where this can come from, but it’s all rooted in some form of either, some form of institutional betrayal.

[COBY]: Yeah.

[JAMES]: Because we can even say like if there’s been long standing issues with factors of the workplace that can be classified as institutional pre trail. Right. The, the, the, the company, the institution has a track record of failing to meet the expectations, failing. You know, wages are consistently, insufficient. You know, maybe they’re not competitive, maybe they’re not even equitable, you know, along with any of the other factors. But I mean, I don’t, I think the factors of the workplace and job dissatisfaction have a huge, huge role to play. But I don’t want to limit our discussion to that because I think there’s a lot of other elements and personality elements that can come into this as well. we can get in like, I think there’s a lot of even like personal dynamics between the people, the person who may be upset by this and the relationship that they have with the person who has received the particular, benefit, whether it’s, equity, targeted support, whatever that framework we’re using. Yeah. I think a lot of it, there’s a lot of emotions tied into this conversation as well. which I, I prefer to. I, I always keep going back to, the language of. While you can’t logic your way out of an emotional response m. Which is the failing that I have from time to time is I, I tend to be a bit too analytical, but that. I don’t think we can underestimate the emotions that are already present in the workplace and how those influence the perceptions of fairness and the, the. The optics. Because it’s. It’s really. It’s really easy to put something in place that everybody hates.

[COBY]: Right. Well, the other thing too is like, okay, we talk a lot about with the Factors of workplace. 1 we. The 1 we always bring up the most, the one that we say has the biggest impact is consistent.

[JAMES]: See.

[COBY]: Right. And if somebody is already dissatisfied and they’re already angry and they’re already defensive and they see the, you know, the, the less optically beneficial version of equity, they could see that as inconsistency feeding into the job dissatisfaction. Right.

[JAMES]: Yes. Yeah, that’s a good point.

[COBY]: So, so, so again, so there is. So there. It isn’t just that these things are as analytical and kind of clear as we, as we. As we often talk about them. Because again, you and I look at more the operational, organizational, infrastructural pieces. Right. But maybe we need to bring in an idea from one of our partners, Jody, Bach, who we work with all the time. We love Jody showed up to Jody. Jody’s the best. Check out her podcast.

[JAMES]: I think it’s. If you’re looking for. If you’re even interested at all in leadership coaching, she’s a great person to connect with. We’ve got a bunch of, phenomenal leadership coaches that we have worked with, over the years and we have, partnerships with, We’ve referenced this on the podcast before. We’re going to show to Jody.

[COBY]: Yeah, yeah. And yes, she’s her own podcast. It’s, Get Real with Jodi Bach. I think it’s one of the, like, recommended ones underneath ours or whatever that. Yeah, definitely. Check that out. She’s. She’s amazing, but she always talks about when the work that we do. Again, she works with the people more so than we do. We work with the infrastructural pieces. That’s how. That’s kind of how we work with her. But she talks. But she’s a firm believer in the conscious leadership approach. And she’s always talking about above and below the line.

[JAMES]: Right.

[COBY]: So, this is a concept that I know she finds super helpful and we find really helpful when we’re working with new, with new teams too, is the idea of where are you, you know, as a person right now in this moment? Are you above the line, which means you are open, you are conscious, or you’re curious and you are committed to learning? Or are you below the line where you’re closed, you’re defensive and you’re committed to being right? And the thing is, is that that is a really great reflective point for us to be, at. Because the idea of being closed off, looking for things to be defensive and looking to justify your opinion and needing to win, needing to be right is one of those mindsets that’s probably, the prerequisite for why you’re looking for special treatment in, optically ambiguous, equity actions. Right.

[JAMES]: Yeah. Because if you are curious and open, then you’re going to ask questions, you’re going to be seeking information. Right. And so if you’re seeing something that kind of sparks this idea of, well, is this fair or not? If you’re above the line, in kind of that vernacular, then you’re, you’re more likely to seek out an explanation. Right. Whereas seeing that exact same scenario unfold, if you are below the line, if you are closed and committed it to being right, especially if you already have, strong opinions or feelings around the level of fairness in the organization, you’re more likely to have your mind made up, less likely to seek out new information, and more likely to have a negative impression, of that, scenario, whatever that may be.

[COBY]: Yeah. And like, to be honest, like, there’s some really nice psychology with the above and below the line. Because, and we’ve talked about this with things like around self sabotage and kind of and self preservation, like part of our, like three deaths of the modern leader. We talk about a little bit too, where it’s when you are in a state that you are like you are programmed as a human being, your brain is programmed to always look out for threats, always to look out for things that are, that are coming at you and your brain gets flooded with kind of the chemicals like cortisol, stuff like that, that really makes you almost like built to become defensive. It’s a, it’s a, it’s an evolutionary part of it’s like what psychologists call it, like the lizard brain response. It’s everything. And so it is something you’re kind of hardwired to kind of have as, as a reaction. And it’s an easy to be in a default and when you feel, when you’re stressed, when you feel like you know, like ah, attacked or you have a lot going on or you like well geez, like how often do we work with organizations that are going through massive change, right? It is, it is something that I think it’s a natural thing for someone to fall into a below the line mindset, to be close, to be defensive and committed to being right just based on the stressful times that we’re in right now, but also just kind of what the realities. And going back to things you mentioned before, institutional betrayal or those other kind of pieces like that too. Or if you have interpersonal conflict with somebody and they’ve totally set you off and you are closed and you’re below the line whenever they’re around, more so than when they’re not around. I mean there’s all kinds of different dynamics. But if you remain defensive, everything that you think of is coming from a defensive piece and you are committed to your defensive view is the right view. And you are looking, you have that horn effect on. You are looking for every unconscious, you’re looking for every parts of your unconscious bias to be validated and justified. And any, again optically ambiguous equity effort can be easily seen as special treatment and unfair and something that you have the right to be defensive and angry about.

[JAMES]: Yeah, I, I’m, I know that the psychology is more in your lane expertise. I but I do find it interesting around the the idea or the evolutionary brain and how like everything that you just described around you know, getting defensive and being committed to being right is a, is your brain responding to perceived threats from an evolution evolutionary standpoint, it’s from what I understand of this whole lizard brain whatever, development developmental piece our brains on an evolutionary scale, the lack of physical threats is a relatively new piece. Right. Our brains are high, are hardwired to perceive threats in that fight, or flight survival, physical danger mentality. But we, we can perceive a lot of threats that are not of a physical nature. Right. Threats to our safety and security can now come from perceptions around unfairness or inequality in the workplace. And but it, even though the, the nature of those threats are vastly different, the way our brains respond still defaults to that physical threat fight, or flight Mentality. which is why the. The initial response tends to be so, So almost automatic and to, The negative.

[COBY]: Yes. And. But also so intense. Yeah, because, I mean, like, you needed an intense, you know, like. Like flushing, of adrenaline and cortisol in your brain to be able to handle when the tiger is potentially, you know, when you see the.

[JAMES]: When you see the, the predator coming at you.

[COBY]: Yeah. Or the leaves.

[JAMES]: Actual predator.

[COBY]: Yes. Yeah. But it’s like. It’s like processing the rustling of leaves, and hear the sound of a predatory animal. You need that rush to be able to function. But as our brains have evolved, we’ve evolved almost like layers. So it’s smart. So our lizard brain is kind of like deep, deep, deep in. Kind of next to our brainstem. And then we’ve kind of expanded out as we go. But the reality is to live open, curious, committed to learning is the highest brain function, is the oldest, the newest part of our brain. And to live there requires, again, a lot of intention, a lot of focus, a lot of commitment. To maintain that open, curious and committed learning approach is something that really does require a real effort. Because again, we are programmed, hardwired for a default to be closed, offensive, and committed to being right. So part of it is, is that we have to again, understand or identify when we’re doing it, going back to our things, that this is what’s happening to us, understand where it’s coming from and what we have to do in order to move past it and then resolve to move beyond it and to try to course correct our own thinking and our own actions. So this doesn’t define us.

[JAMES]: Yeah. And I know the question, you know, whenever this idea, of above and below the line comes up in our conversations with Jody, the question she always uses as that prompt is, where are you right now?

[COBY]: Yeah, right.

[JAMES]: Where are you right now? Are you above the line or are you below the line? And it’s funny, I hope she’s not listening to this at the moment. But, I mean, the first. When I first heard it, I was like, oh, yeah, that’s interesting. Okay, whatever. Yeah, right. Because, it’s not the frame of reference that I was used to, but the more that I’ve actually seen it play out in leadership discussions in the way that, managers and employees interact and the way in the. The, you know, whether it’s with, you know, clients or in some of our other work, it is a very. Once you understand, I mean, creating that common, Having that common language to Be able to talk with people about is incredibly powerful. And just having those prompts of where are you? Right where are. Where am I right now as I’m responding to this situation? Or where are you? If you were going from a coaching perspective with leaders, and managers, the. This can be. It’s a, It’s a simple tool, but it can be a very effective tool in reminding ourselves to take stock of am I responding to this because I am angry and I’m committed to being right, or am I responding this way from a place of curiosity and openness?

[COBY]: Yeah, I know that for me personally, again, like, you know, we walk into intention. We intentionally walk into extremely stressful situations as our, every day.

[JAMES]: Well, we don’t get hired when the ship’s sailing smoothly. Right.

[COBY]: I wish for once we would. That would just be it. That’d just be a nice.

[JAMES]: Yeah. If you’ve got a profitable company and everything’s going right, put us on retainer. We would love to work with you.

[COBY]: But I mean, again. And the thing is that when you and I go into organizations, especially when the, the more direct, impact and authority we have on the, on the operations of that, the reality is we make a lot of mistakes. I mean, we, you know, because like, again, we’re always in uncharted waters. We’re always in situations where we’re trying to figure out the best case scenario in impossible situations. and we like it. But the reason why we like it is because we always try to take a step back and be like, okay, I probably made a mistake here, but I’m open to hearing other people’s perspectives and I’m curious about what it is that we may have. That we could have done better and, and how. How other people view, view what a potential outcome could look like. We always try to come into an organization to a situation open to being wrong and curious about how we could have done it better. And I know for me, I don’t know about you, but I always have that fairly intentional in my thinking when I’m hearing something, especially when like, I know I’ve screwed up and I’m like, okay, I could feel bad about it, or I could be open to the fact that I am wrong, or I could be curious about how I could have done it better. And that allows me a bit more, to be able to handle these stressful situations so much easier. And it just becomes something that is. You have to practice to do and you have to have some level of intentionality because if you’re Not. It’s very easy to close off, kind of like circle the wagons and, and kind of get defensive and then committed to just justifying yourself so that it. To make the argument that you are right. It’s so easy to do that. But you really have to have some kind of intentional thought to avoid that. So those are two things that, and.

[JAMES]: It’S not necessarily wrong if like, so I can usually get. I, I always get there. I always get to the point of the self reflective. you know, am I, am I be actually being open or defensive? I will admit it’s not usually my default mode. or it’s not always my default mode. I would like to be generous with myself and say it’s not. Not always. but it is a, it’s also, it’s. It’s funny to me how, you know, making a decision being I’m, I recognize that not everybody’s going to agree with every decision that I make. That’s fine. I don’t, I don’t need people to. And from a leadership perspective, if you’re just trying to find a solution that everybody agrees with, you’re, you’re, yeah, doing something wrong. so there’s always that element to it. But whenever you receive pushback or criticism, of a decision, taking a second to like ask questions, to be curious makes a big difference. And even if it’s not your natural default, if you default to being a bit more defensive and then, you know, you go away from that conversation and then you are realizing, you know what? I don’t think I handled that quite in the way that I want it to. Going back and having that open conversation afterwards. It can be an incredible relationship builder going like being able to admit that you may have made a mistake or you know what, I was acting defensively in this moment and, But I’m curious now. I want your opinion. I’m looking for more information. Like it’s, it’s not necessarily an easy thing to do as a leader because it shows, a level of vulnerability that we’re not always comfortable with. But from a relationship tool, from an authenticity standpoint like it, it can be a really effective way of breaking down barriers as well if you have some of those, relational challenges with your teams.

[COBY]: No, that’s, that’s well said. That’s good. All right. I think I’ll just run into a bit of a summary. Anything else you want to say before I do?

[JAMES]: no, I think I’m good.

[COBY]: Okay. So again, our question was equality or equity or special treatment? It is kind of tough to know kind of the subtle nuances, especially around, around equity, because sometimes it isn’t things that are, that are, are as overtly clear and consistent as what equality is. Because when everything is the same, it’s easy to see. It has good optics. and, and it’s, and it’s pretty, it’s pretty conceptually, you know, simple. Equity is not that way. Equity is about trying to understand again, individual situations, individual and giving everybody an equal chance of being successful. And that may look different for different people. And that looking different makes it sometimes again, as I said before, it makes it, optically inconvenient or optically ambiguous. And that can be easily interpreted as being special treatment. But special treatment is about giving advantages to people that aren’t tied to need or tied to fairness. It’s about providing convenience or it’s about providing or avoiding, an uncomfortable situation. We also need to consider what another form of special treatment, which is targeted support. This is actually more an extended specific resource or adjustment to a specific person or specific group that has a particular and usually larger barrier so that they can get back to equal footing. James is an example of the supply clause that I think actually worked quite well, where it’s the idea of, you know, high shelf in a supply closet giving no stool. That’s equality. Giving a stool as an effort, to. Is getting a stool as an effort towards, equity. having a plan in place for folks with a, in a wheelchair is a targeted support. And then creating a rule for someone who complained about the high shelf or is friends with the boss, to give, have the supplies brought to them a special treatment. And I think that does, is a good breakdown. But the question is, sorry, but the fact is, what really holds back the implementation Acceptance of equity in the workplace tends to often be the mindset that people are bringing into it. It is the job dissatisfaction. It is these operating below the line where they are angry and they are frustrated and they are defensive and they are committed to being right. And usually that comes from somewhere. It comes from negative interaction. It comes from systemic issues of institutional betrayal. That comes from their own past trauma where they’ve seen this pattern before, they know what it is, and they read too much into it. And these are all things that put us again below the line and looking to be right and to have our, the horn effect of our preconceived negative emotion or, negative notions and views and perspectives validated. So we’re looking for that validation and looking to be right when we villainize someone or an action or a decision because we just want to be right and have our horn effect, be backed up. But there’s a lot we can learn about this. And, we suggest you again, look into things like our job satisfaction material from our past episodes. follow our friend Jody Bach and her podcast, get, Real with Jody Bach. There’s lots of great content there. Or look into conscious leadership and above and below the line. There’s a lot there that can help you on your, on your journey, that can help you with your leadership, that can help you better understand your situation. Because a question you always need looking at yourself in every moment when you’re thinking that you’re hitting a crossroads is where am I right now? Am I above or below the line? All right, that does it for us. For a fuller archive of the podcast and access to video version hosted on our YouTube channel, visit Roman3.ca/podcast. Thanks for joining us.

[ANNOUNCER]: For more information on topics like these, don’t forget to Visit us at Roman.3ca. Side effects of this podcast may include improved retention, high productivity, increased market share, employees breaking out in spontaneous dance, dry mouth, aversion to the sound of James voice, desire to find a better podcast…