EPISODE 9: TRACIE HALL & ANGELIQUE POWER  

MARY MORTEN: Hi, everyone, and welcome back to “Gathering Ground,” where with each new episode, a special guest and I explore what it looks like to thrive in the nonprofit landscape. I'm Mary Morten, president of Morten Group, LLC.

Morten Group is a national consulting firm that operates in Chicago and works with clients from coast to coast and everywhere in between. Our work is in four areas: in organizational development, research, executive placements, diversity, racial equity, and inclusion.

And don’t forget that we can now be found on iTunes! Just search “Gathering Ground” in the iTunes Store to find us. Be sure to rate us and subscribe to get a notification whenever there’s a new episode.

So I’m so excited for our next interview, since it’s the first time on “Gathering Ground,” the very first time we’ve had two guests on at the same time! You’re breaking new ground, literally! (Laughter.)

So we want to welcome Angelique Power and Tracie Hall to “Gathering Ground.”

Angelique, a Hyde Park native, is the president of Field Foundation in Chicago, a foundation that awards grants to civic, community, and cultural organizations. Prior to being appointed president of the foundation, Angelique was program director at the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. There she co-founded Enrich Chicago, a nonprofit-led movement designed to correct inequity and structural racism in the arts. She has also worked in community engagement and communications at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago and in relations — community relations at Target. She has an MFA from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and a bachelor’s degree in English from University of Michigan.

Tracie began her journey in South L.A., and she is currently the director of culture program at Joyce Foundation, whose mission it is to fund research that advances social and economic change. Before arriving at Joyce, Tracie served as deputy commissioner of the Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events — DCASE, as we like to call it — for the city of Chicago, where she oversaw the Arts and Creative Industries Division, which included the visual arts, performing arts, music industry, and the farmers’ market programs, as well as the Chicago Film Office, one of my favorite offices, I’ll just say that now. Tracie has also served as the vice president of Strategy and Organizational Development at Queens Library in New York City. She’s also served at Boeing in the Global Corporate Citizenship Division, and so many other positions that we would just take time — (laughter) — out of the show if we continued on with this.

So welcome to “Gathering Ground”! (Laughter, applause.)

TRACIE HALL: Thank you!

ANGELIQUE POWER: Thank you! Thank you for having us.

MM: So happy to have you both here. I’m telling you, it’s the first time we’ve had two guests at one time.

AP: That’s so cool. Yeah.

TH: I wouldn’t want to do it with anyone else.

AP: I feel the same.

MM: That’s what I thought! I just had a feeling this would work well. (Laughter.)

So, you know, what we always like to start with on “Gathering Ground” is hearing from both of you in terms of how you arrived at your current positions. I think it’s really interesting for our listeners to hear about your journey, and so I’m going to start with you, Tracie. Tell us how you got to the Joyce Foundation.

TH: Wow. Well, you know, as I think you read, it was a circuitous route in a lot of ways. I think a lot of my work has always been about literacy and access and community development. You know, I was an artist for a long time. I think that’s how I self-identified and how many people, even today, outside of Chicago may identify me. But it was really growing up in Watts, I would say. You know, the Watts Towers were my — was my campus. It was my playground. It was where, you know, I saw artists coming and going. It’s where I understood, I think, intrinsically the power of arts-based community development. One of the things I learned from my grandmother, because, you know, the topography of Watts when I was born was really still charred. It was like — you know, after the uprising. And I remember asking my grandmother, you know, why are the houses still standing, you know, in this area? Because there was like this whole area of burn. Right? And my grandmother said to me, you know, people stood around the Watts Towers, you know, with buckets, locked arm in arm to make sure that nobody would come and burn the towers, you know, that were built by Simon Rodia, who was an Italian immigrant who, shortly after building the towers had left, right before the uprising, the Watts uprising. So I think that, if I think about even the circuitous route that I took, it really was based on growing up and seeing the power of the arts to support community retention, community cohesion, and I think that’s what led me here ultimately.

MM: Great. And in between there, you were in Queens for a while.

TH: Yep. I’ve always been a librarian so I was trained —

MM: OK.

TH: I worked in homeless services. I’ve always been interested in homelessness. I think sometimes when you grow up in a neighborhood where there’s a lot of disinvestment like, you know, a place like Watts, then there’s certain things that just stand out to you. So homelessness stood out to me, because even though growing up, you know, we may not have had, you know, a whole lot, we had a house and that house was really a shelter for so many people, not just my family, but a lot of people would come and go. But my grandfather and grandmother were really supportive to people who were un-housed in the neighborhood. People could come in and get fresh water; they could get fresh clothes. Sometimes, when my grandfather’s old camper was in disrepair, he kitted out the camper with electricity so that people could come and go and live there. And sometimes we would know who they were and sometimes my grandmother was insistent about retaining people’s dignity. If people didn’t want to share their names or where they were from, she wouldn’t ask, but she would make sure that they had, you know, clean places to sleep. So I think just thinking about housing and the access to housing as a human right is something that really informs my practice as an arts administrator, too, and so I think that’s been a part as well, you know, of the whole journey. So I think literacy and working with homeless populations when I was young, in my 20s, directing homeless shelters, I understood that people sometimes didn’t know how to read or had had, you know, very limited, you know, school persistence. And so one of the things I’ve been really involved in is adult basic education. That goes like way back — right? — so I’m already digging in the crates! (Laughter.) But, you know, I don’t know if many people know that, but, you know, a lot of what I think about, too, is just fundamental access to things like, you know, a safe place to sleep at night.

MM: Love it. Wonderful!

All right, we’re going to come back and talk about some of those pieces of your background, because I hear some similarities, actually, in how I was raised as well. But before we do that, let’s hear from Angelique in terms of how you got to the Field Foundation.

AP: Well, as always, I’m going to take a page from Tracie’s book and start with my origin story, which is: I was born in Chicago, raised on the South Side in Bronzeville and then in Hyde Park, as you mentioned. I’m part of the first generation of the Loving Generation. My parents have both passed, but my father was black and my mother was white and Jewish. And he was a Chicago police officer and she was a Chicago Public School teacher. So we were raised, you know, really being aware of the systems that are at work in Chicago that police officers and teachers are often at the tail end of these systems, dealing with folks and being blamed by the fact that they can’t somehow change the result that the system’s dictating.

Growing up biracial, and I always joke about this, like growing up with this history — I don’t have, like, a sad biracial story, mainly because I grew up in Hyde Park, and, like, if you’re going to black and Jewish then you should grow up in Hyde Park.

MM: That’s your place to grow up, isn’t it? Seriously.

AP: (Laughs.) But also I think because at a young age we became comfortable being a part of communities and being apart from communities at the same time, and I think many of us have that experience.

MM: Absolutely.

AP: I tell that story because it led to me having a fundamental belief in how we are similar to each other, that differences are often perceptions of difference, having a deep love for the city of Chicago and a deep skepticism of the city of Chicago.

MM: And that you can hold both of those at the same time.

AP: And that you have to —

MM: Yes.

AP: — and that skepticism is love and that if you’re not, you know, skeptical while in love — (laughs) — well, this gets into another — that’s a whole other bottle of wine! (Laughter.)

MM: I was going to say, that’s another episode! (Laughs.)

AP: Episode 2: The Skepticism of Love. (Laughter.)

TH: I’m already signing up for that. (Laughter.) Auditing.

MM: OK.

AP: So yeah. So actually, growing up, I, you know, one of the things I talk about is how the museums were free when I was coming up and so we spent a lot of time running around, you know, ragged through these museums and feeling co-ownership of them. So it’s interesting to me now when I share my history and, you know, you read I have an MFA. I don’t have an MBA. I have an MFA. I actually feel like a part of that is being raised in Chicago, raised feeling like my path through the Museum of Science and Industry and my path to the Chagall walls in the Art Institute and feeling a co-ownership of these spaces, which led me to get an MFA. While I was putting myself through grad school, I was working at Marshall Field’s in the last era that there was a Marshall Field’s.

MM: It will never be the same.

AP: It will never — I still call it Field’s.

MM: So do I.

AP: Yeah. (Laughs.)

MM: So do I, just out of, you know — (laughter) — just out of protest. (Laughs.)

AP: Just out of sheer resistance, yes, like, take me to Field’s on State Street.

MM: That’s right.

AP: But I was working in public affairs and they gave money away on behalf of the, you know, Marshall Field department stores, and they gave shopping bags and Frangos, and all of that.

So that’s the first that I actually learned about giving and it was through this corporate lens of, like, what is your responsibility as a civic citizen? That led to time at Target, which then led to the Museum of Contemporary Art, which eventually led me back to philanthropy.

Every place that I’ve worked, I’ve been very aware of how I’m sort of an anomaly in those spaces. I’m not a corporate person. Being at the MCA and sort of being charged with diversifying audiences, you know, made me really think a lot about, what are the systemic problems that aren’t allowing diverse audiences into these spaces? Being in philanthropy, you know, I started to question a lot of the systems around philanthropy itself, which we’ll probably talk about later.

MM: Yes.

AP: But skepticism in love: I think that that’s what led me to the Field Foundation.

MM: Well, that’s a very important story, I think, for our listeners to hear in terms of the skepticism part, because I think we often think it must be one or the other, and not that it can be a healthy combination of both.

When you think about your upbringing, Tracie, and you talk about the community work — I also came from a background where my mother was a community activist and our house was kind of a place where people would drop in. And that’s where I learned at a very early age that service is the rent we pay for living.

TH: Yeah.

MM: That Marian Wright Edelman quote. And how do you think that that background has continued to influence you, particularly in the work that you’re doing outside of the Joyce Foundation? Because you have a gallery.

TH: Yeah. So, you know, I definitely think that they complement each other. Right? So —

MM: And tell us about the gallery so everyone knows.

TH: Yeah. Absolutely. You know, Angelique and I — you know, one of the commonalities I think that we share is that we understand philanthropy to be a place where, you know, you can and must disrupt, you know, a discourse that power and money, you know, are to be horded. Right? And so I think a lot of the work is about radical honesty and transparency, but then just the radical sharing of power. So that’s something that, you know, I arrive at through the way in which that was demonstrated to me. So, you know, the gallery does not — Rootwork Gallery — so Rootwork Gallery is the extension of a conversation that I had with my grandmother over all the years in which I was growing up, in which my grandmother, who was a traditional medicine worker in the South — we called that a root worker — who, you know, really learned a lot about plants and root just to heal people, in a way that we’re returning to that, you know, that holistic medicine. I always say to people, it wasn’t esoteric. Everybody’s grandmother, grandfather, aunt or uncle, somebody in the family had to be a root worker if you come from almost anyplace in society where, you know, hospitals and institutions like that weren’t always open, access.

MM: That’s right, weren’t serving us.

TH: So what I’ve always been as an artist — my grandmother recognized that in me; my family did. I was very lucky to grow up in a place like Watts where there were a lot of artists who were doing work, people like Quincy Troupe and Wanda Coleman, people I got a chance to cross paths with. So I like disrupting this idea that, you know — I like to think about the fact that there’s genius everywhere and that sometimes there aren’t places that are recognized as catchments for that genius in all communities because communities are invested so differently and inequitably. But Watts was a place in which, you know, you got a chance to see a lot of artists working all the time. So by the time I was about 10, I had been into the equivalent of a lot of community galleries, so what I’m trying to create with Rootwork Gallery, which was in Pilsen up until this year — it’s almost four years old. And as Pilsen has kind of become, like, part of another income bracket —

MM: Yes.

TH: — it really was — I started to see some of the community that I served leaving, and I also saw a conversation happening about places like Pilsen. And I realized that it was time for Rootwork to move and go to a place that hopefully will be more tenable over the long run and that will be part of a place-keeping strategy, as opposing to a place-making strategy. But Rootwork has been about showing — and it’s really tantamount, in a lot of ways, to the work I’m trying to do at Joyce, which is to support artists who are really at pivotal times in their careers, artists of color, artists who are self-trained, artists who may be dealing with, you know, just negotiating being able to either buy paint or pay rent, and also artists who sometimes have been overlooked, who have a whole history and career of achievement that’s never been validated, never been recognized. So what I like is that, with Rootwork, we have an opportunity now to create and curate shows that allow people to actually get access to criticism, people writing about their work for the first time, their first interviews, you know, on the radio or in print or on TV. And so we’re going to continue to do that work.

But I think I want to go back to — because for me it isn’t either/or. What I like about being an artist and an arts administrator is that I don’t have to make a choice between the two.

MM: Right.

TH: What I like about being a community-based curator and an arts administrator at a foundation is that I don’t have to make a choice between the two. The more that I have invested and worked with and co-curated with the community, the more I think inside I’ve gained in terms of investments and planning and strategizing in philanthropy. And this idea that there is genius and wisdom in the group and we can make decisions together I think is something that I would say has guided the decision-making that I’ve made at the foundation.

When we were doing a strategic plan in 2017, it was important to me — I talked to 139 people in order to just approach the planning. So by the time we met with, you know, the planners that we had hired to take us through the paces, I had all of these notes about what the community was saying, and people were surprised about that. But I think that is the curator in me that says that I’m not going to show anybody’s work without talking to the artist about what their vision is for their work, nor will I attempt a topic without asking the community, what is it that you want to know more about?

So I think the complementarity between Rootwork and my work as program director at Joyce have complemented each other in a way that I wouldn’t know what it would be like, nor would I want to know, if I wasn’t doing both at the same time.

MM: That’s incredible. Tell us where Rootwork is actually located now.

TH: It’s actually mobile right now.

MM: OK, I love that!

TH: So we are popping up, you know —

MM: Doing the pop-up.

TH: Yes! I mean, I’m, like, trying to catch up to — you know, pop-ups are the thing now.

MM: Yes, they are.

TH: But I want to say, and I want to put it out there, because I want to, you know, make sure that everybody who’s listening does something that is fundamental. You know, intention is the truest form of prayer, so one of our mantras is to ask what you want. Ask for what you want, but then also be a second step, which is to go to the level of what you want, so that, you know, when you meet, it’s organic and it feels natural. So what’s really important for me is to be in a physical place because since we have closed up or sunset the first iteration of Rootwork, we’ve received no less than about 30 people asking, where’s it going to be? “Come to my neighborhood!” “Come to my neighborhood!” That’s the best compliment.

MM: It’s nice to be wanted.

TH: It’s nice to be wanted.

So we’re, like, in that process, so if anybody out there has ever been to Rootwork or you want to look it up real quick — definitely I see some hands being raised — feel free to find us, you know, like in social media and comment. Where do you think we should be? If you’re in Chicago, let us know.

MM: I love that. OK, and we’re going to make sure we put that as part of the plug for this episode. OK? Because we’d love to be part of that conversation.

So I want to turn to you, Angelique, and ask, with your interest in the arts, why was it important to initiate Enrich Chicago?

AP: So Enrich Chicago came when I was at Joyce as the culture person, and I think it was like 2011 or 2012 and we were in deep in diversity conversation, and I remember that there was a report that came out from AFTA that was about diversity in, you know —

MM: The exit interview? Is it that report?

AP: No, no, that was ABFE and that’s very good.

MM: OK.

AP: This one was really more demographic information.

MM: OK.

AP: Ninety-two percent of all art executive directors at that time were white. Eighty-six percent of all arts administrators were white. This was a time when we were in discussion about how white the Republican Party was and we were saying, like, oh, this is a problem, and I think it was like 88 percent white. But, you know, then you look at the arts and you’re seeing that there are folks that are allowed to succeed in these spaces. Well, at least that was one of the initial interrogating questions. When we got together, it was because a group of us, a small group, decided that we wanted to discuss the findings and ask ourselves questions about the state of the arts in Chicago. So it was a group of folks. ALANA is a term that you’ll hear me use on occasion, Tracie on occasion, imperfect term and many better terms, but it’s a shorthand of saying African, Latinx, Asian, Arab, Native American. So half of the organizations in the room were ALANA organizations, half were non-ALANA, or white, organizations. And then there was me, a funder of many of the organizations in the room. And it was the worst meeting, like ever happened in humankind. I think it’s actually gone down in history as like the worst.

MM: Really?

AP: The worst! And, you know, people immediately went to tactical — well, what are the pipeline and the internship and how do we share names for a job database — and just the same conversation that happens all the time —

MM: All the time.

AP: And Carlos Tortolero, you know, was in the room, who is a timid, quiet man — (laughs) —

MM: Oh, absolutely. (Laughter.) Very shy. Soft-spoken, absolutely. (Laughter.)

AP: So he, you know —

TH: Who is president of the National Museum of Mexican Art —

AP: — Museum of Mexican Art and co-founder.

MM: Yes, we need to add that, for sure.

AP: Yes. And so he, you know, just said to the room, like, well, why are we talking about a million things but we’re not talking about racism? And at this — you know, in this day and age I think we’re more used to saying, I mean, structural racism, it’s like with your latte. You’re like, “Can I have a side of structural racism?”

MM: (Laughs.)

AP: But at that point, like, people didn’t say — (laughs) — those terms, and so it was like a bomb exploded in the room and people were doing press conferences and they were very offended. It really lacked a grounding in and an understanding of history, of system analysis, of power analysis, even the power of a funder in that room, calling people together and asking to have an innocuous conversation about it. There were just so many things that were wrong, and I think that that failure actually propelled many of us in the room forward to figure out, how do we do this differently? And eventually it resulted in realizing that most of us don’t know how to talk about race in mixed company. We talk amongst ourselves about it.

MM: Absolutely. In a second.

AP: In a second! But actually, in mixed company, there are so many landmines in the race conversation, and we just weren’t equipped; we didn’t have the tools. So we started with anti-racism training and learning language, learning purpose, doing power analysis, and that led to us not focusing on the margins of change, but really, like, what does a systemic hack look like in the arts where you have race in the center, allowing for intersectionality in that space, too? And what if we all were working on it, including foundations that are often the progenitor of inequity? So what if we all are actually in it, working on ourselves as individuals, on our actual institutions and on the systems that connect us? And that’s what Enrich Chicago is.

MM: And so you helped start it and then you left.

AP: Five years later. I’m on the board. I’m one member of a very strong cohort of 50 members, I believe. There are regularized anti-racism training. There’s a community trustee model. There are seven or eight foundations that are a part of it. And there’s a queue of organizations waiting to get in. Enrich is just very thoughtful in how they let people in to the organization so that the organizing that happens in the cohort can actually be an effective part. The leader has to go through anti-racism training.

MM: Anyone who’s leading an organization that’s interested in being part of Enrich Chicago?

AP: Yes.

MM: OK.

AP: Yes. And then they have to show up and do work every six weeks to try to figure out how to change your institution. There’s some beautiful stories that have come out of it. And there are people who have lost their jobs.

MM: Yes. Yes. Because they’re doing that work.

AP: Yes.

MM: Yes. So we still have a long way to go. We have a lot of work to do, and we’ve made that transition in talking a little bit more about — let’s talk a little bit more about philanthropy and where we are with regard to just talking about racism. I mean, all of us, certainly the three of us, were involved with the Decolonizing Wealth conversations, in one way or another. Do you think — and let me just give some context for our listeners who may not have heard — my first, actually, podcast was with Edgar Villanueva.

AP: It was a great one.

MM: He wrote this incredible book about what's happening in philanthropy, or not happening, as the case may be with regard to doing an internal reflection on, to your point, how we are — how philanthropy really helps perpetuate many of the various things that we are — we say we're trying to fight against, and really getting people to look at their organizations, to have real talk about these conversations, and then to have some action. And we were very excited in Chicago to have him here. I've known Edgar for a number of years. I had heard some of the stories he told in his book before he published the book.

What do you think the impact of having those conversations has been, if there has been one? Tracie?

TH: That's a really great question. I think that, you know, like Enrich, like the work that Angelique has been a part of and, you know, has led, Decolonizing Wealth has opened up a conversation and a dialogue, has given a space for a dialogue about race and philanthropy and the racialization of decisions around, you know, money and who gets it and who doesn't and why, what the justifications are.

I think also, you know, for those of us who are interested in social justice, it's given us an opportunity to find out who our people are — right? — who our kin and who our allies are in this work, because I think it has opened up, you know, a space that we really have to wrestle. I mean, the whole premise of Decolonizing Wealth, it's setting. Right? And I'm not going to talk too much more about that because I want this — the librarian in me also wants this to be a book talk — (laughter) — to say that people should go out and get the book. But I think it is a provocation for the field. What, you know, it has done in a lot of ways is to make me feel more deliberate than ever and more inspired than ever to continue this track about two overlapping things that I just talked about: social justice — specifically racial equity — but then also economic justice. Right? Because the conversation often stops — we're enamored in this country with race and we love to talk about it. We like to talk about it and we like to talk about how we're feeling at our diets and then we like to talk about, you know, how we're going to do better next year. But we are content with living in a place that literally forfeits the opportunity to life and the pursuit of happiness for so many. And so one of the things that I think, you know, has happened is that it was an opportunity for our colleagues at the Joyce Foundation to come together. We all manage different portfolios, from, you know, culture to environment to democracy to education, economic mobility, gun violence prevention, and justice reform to actually come together and have a conversation about what this means for us. What it means also, too, what it's done is for us to talk about specifically around investment: investment in venues, investment in people, what risk looks like in philanthropy. And I can say so much more there. But it also, I think — and there were — some of these ideas were already in place, many of them were, but I think that one of the things that Angelique has talked about, you know, is all of the studies that talk to us about not just inequity in arts funding but the fact that the art space is one of the most inequitable of all nonprofit spaces in the U.S. — right? — in terms of both leadership and deployment of funding.

MM: Which I think people would find really surprising —

TH: But every study says that.

MM: — because we assume theater, we assume arts, you know, whatever the medium is, it's inclusive, isn't it? Look at all those different folks up on stage.

TH: Yes. We assume altruism. Right?

MM: Exactly.

TH: We assume that with creativity there is this tremendous vision that, you know, actually extends itself to how we think about and order society. But the reality is is that those are areas that we tend to control, and so one of the things that we deeply invested in is leadership and workforce development at Joyce, within the art space, so really thinking about who's not only at the table but who's actually in control of that table and the decision making. So deepening the investments there. I can talk a lot about the work that we're doing in neighborhood investment when it comes to inter-generational wealth and asset building. And I can certainly talk about cultural production, because another way that we horde power is that we pretend sometimes that other forms that are non-Western forms aren't valid or that sometimes, you know, we don't know how to criticize them so we don't. We don't know what an arts criticism of those genres would look like or forms would look like, so we don't, and we disappear them. And then they are forced into an ephemerality — right? — that other art forms are not, that they only exist, you know, when they're on the stage or they only exist, you know, at a particular moment and then they're lost.

And so I think what Villanueva's work has done is in some ways informed — I'm going to use the word a defiance, and hopefully for a younger and emerging group of philanthropers that says I am not going to be a part of business as usual. And in fact, I understand the violence of business as usual.

MM: OK.

Alright, Angelique. (Laughs.)

AP: MM, mm, mm!

TH: Just sayin'!

MM: Now, what do you have to say to that? (Laughter.)

AP: Can you hear me snapping? Do snaps come out on a podcast?

MM: Yes, yes, yes, yes. (Laughter.)

AP: Yes. Wooh! I mean, I could just write down the words that you say, my friend. Really, I should be. I should just be writing them down.

TH: What do you think these notes are right here? (Laughter.)

AP: So, first of all, I think we're at a critical moment in philanthropy that we got to because a path was laid for years and years and years. This isn't a new conversation

MM: Exactly.

AP: It's a conversation that people have had and so carried us forward, created the paths that we can stand in this moment. And so I think that's really important. I think about that a lot at Field, especially with Handy Lindsey who was there, with Aurie Pennick who was there. The only reason that we're able to do the things we've done is because of 30 years of powerful black leadership at the Field Foundation.

MM: That went before us.

AP: That went before us. So I just think that that is really important.

I also feel like we're at a moment where we are using different language, but that it's not quite clear if it's moved beyond that.

MM: When you say different language, give me an example.

AP: Racial equity has become the term du jour. Right?

MM: Yes. Oh, my goodness. Absolutely.

AP: Everywhere you go.

MM: Everywhere you go.

AP: But operationalizing it in the way that Tracie is describing, that's a rarity to actually witness. And so it almost becomes the danger of the moment is that we've substituted, you know, ideas for new ideas or for different-sounding ideas, but the fundamentals I'm not sure we're sure — I'm not sure I can say have changed yet.

At Field, we have been trying to put racial equity in the center of our foundation, and I say all the time that it's not clear whether that's an oxymoron or not. Philanthropy is about power. It's about elite people making decisions on behalf of others. The muscle memory in philanthropy is for inequity. Right? It lends itself to the fallacy of expertise being with philanthropists, with foundations, when actually the second — most of us have come from nonprofits, but the second we're not there anymore, we are not the experts. We are not the visionaries.

MM: That's right. That's right.

AP: We have proximity to capital, and the assumption is that proximity to capital makes you smarter, and that is a false assumption.

MM: Absolutely, and that the positional authority makes you smarter as well. Right?

AP: Right.

MM: Absolutely.

AP: And so it's actually like it is not a good return on investment, unless you are having folks who are the real power-holders and visionaries in spaces in community lead the design of the policy, lead the design of the grant, lead the design of the metrics. As long as foundations are creating unrealistic metrics but talking racial equity, that ain't racial equity.

MM: Disconnect.

AP: It's a disconnect. It, you know, messes with trust. It messes with the ability to actually do the work. So, first of all, I'm not even sure if racial equity in philanthropy is possible, but we're trying. Right?

MM: Right.

AP: Second of all, the devil's in the details. It's in the hoops you jump through, the language you have to use, the evaluation that you use. So all of that — I see it in more ways in motion, but that's all a part of it, too. And I think that a lot of the racial equity "wokeness" that I do run into in philanthropy is on the staff level.

MM: Absolutely. And that really is certainly what we see when we work with organizations, that the staff are always much further out on this issue than the board.

AP: Woke AF. Right?

MM: Yes.

AP: And then the board, you get into a boardroom and they're code-switching like mad.

MM: Absolutely.

AP: Right? And so how do we bring boards along?

MM: And how do we get staff to understand why it's important to bring boards along? Because there's often, I find, a discomfort with, "Well, we're just going to work on the staff and we’ll come back to the board down the road.”

AP: Right. There is an assumption that that is a sustainable plan. And I think it’s fear. I think it’s fear, because there’s such a culture of intellectual prowess that exists in foundation spaces. And especially because so many of us are folks of color that work on this, we worry that when we start putting this forward, we are damaging our view as, like, strategists and, you know, smart folks working on this. It looks like we’re pushing our personal proclivities.

MM: Because it couldn’t be both.

AP: Right. And so that’s a space for white allyship, and that’s where, you know —

TH: Absolutely.

AP: Yeah. Go on. You were going to say something.

TH: No, I was just agreeing.

MM: (Laughs.) All right. Well, keeping in mind that staff absolutely do — because they’re on the ground doing the work in a very different way than the board is. Right? So we understand that. But to your point, the disconnect between the board and the staff is one that I think organizations are going to have to address if they really are serious about operationalizing, to your point, racial equity. And that’s something that we’ve had organizations say, we want to center racial equity. We had a foundation in the Pacific Northwest say that. It wasn’t, “We want to use a racial equity lens.” It wasn’t that we need to talk about broader equity issues. We understand that race is still the number one indicator of how successful you’re going to be in this country, and that is what we want to center.

Understanding that everyone can’t arrive or be in that same space, what do you think are some of the interim steps you might be able to take as an organization moves along that continuum? Because, as you all know, it’s a journey. Right? You’re not going to arrive at a destination. We always have to make sure that our partner organizations understand that. This work is ongoing.

TH: And it is about the vulnerability — right? — of staff members both at the nonprofit level and in philanthropy when they take on issues like racial equity. We can see, you know, in lots of studies, some of the studies that, you know, we might have been referencing and, you know, many more out there, that with the hierarchy being what it is in both the nonprofit and its corollary, the philanthropy space, we can see that there are very short tenures for people of color. The reason why you get to that level of 86 percent or 77 percent or 92 percent is because people have entered the pipeline, but they just haven’t stayed.

MM: No. Absolutely.

TH: I’ve been really interested in the gestation for mid- to executive-level arts administrators of color, in particular. You know, I could extend that to anybody in the nonprofit space, you know, who’s in a leadership role. And then I can also think about the average tenure of a program officer or program director in philanthropy for people of color in both spaces is incredibly short, especially when you think about the kinds of investments that need to kind of come in to get somebody ready to on-board them for those positions. It’s almost like it’s a revolving door. And so I just want to think a little bit about the fact that there is sort of a double tax. Right? It is a tax of being maybe a person of color taking up issues related to social justice in which you might have some proximity, not always all the time, but a certain level of proximity to and then being penalized for that. So I think that there is a way in which it is actually some of this work. We’re talking about racial equity today, but we could be talking about other issues tomorrow, whether it’s education, housing, et cetera, in which the people who are on the front lines of this work, you know, often are pushed out. And I just want to address that, because I think that’s also the elephant in the room.

MM: That’s real. No, that’s real. That absolutely is real.

TH: And that’s why these issues seem intractable when they’re not. It’s why they stay around and have a duration that they really don’t deserve. It isn’t that there aren’t smart people in the room. But it’s just that the people who are closest to the problem are the most vulnerable and sometimes are pushed out of these organizations.

And so — and in answer to the question that you’re asking now, we need a — we need culture change. We need culture change in philanthropy. This idea that distance is your friend — you know, I question that. Right? This idea that you need to have consultants who have never, ever — none of their lived experience — right? — has been a part of the problem that they’re addressing and somehow they’re the experts? We need to do away with that.

The idea that, you know, we ask people — we entrust people with sometimes, you know, I use this term bazillions of dollars — right? — to address issues where they have no skin in the game, and they make these incremental changes that are usually at the airplane level and they’re rewarded for that. And somebody who is on the ground tries to make change, ruffles some feathers, or maybe because they are so close to it, there’s some things that work and some things that don’t stick, and then they’re penalized for that.

MM: They lose their job.

TH: And they lose their jobs. And organizations lose their credibility. When I first came into the role of philanthropy, I remember having a lunch with one of my peers, a program officer, who is a wonderful person, but the first thing that they did was to kind of take to task an organization, a very small organization, you know, really kind of doing God’s work, if you will, and, you know, saying to me that they thought, you know, that the work was like really, you know, it was a problem and maybe it was a mess. I remember that terminology. And I said, you have one responsibility as an investor in that organization, is to uphold their reputation to someone like me who would be an investor. That’s your responsibility — right? — and just let it go there.

So I think that there has to be a massive culture shift and it’s going to start with leadership. It’s going to start with the kinds of behaviors that are rewarded. It’s going to start with board members actually holding organizations, both nonprofits and philanthropic organizations, to task for their mission. And, you know, I want to say so much more, but I’ll stop there and see what you have to say, Angelique.

AP: Yeah. I mean, agree. I think that’s very real that this isn’t a requirement, per se, of work, that you come in and do the emotional labor of being able to understand and explain to others what a lived experience is and justify your perspective. And so I think that that’s one of these really tough moments where we’re living at a time where Rome is burning and we have this moment where I think each of us are asking ourselves with the hours that we put in every day, you know, with the conversations that we have with strangers on a plane, with our colleagues at work, what are we doing? What is our personal, you know, attempt to try to repair the trauma that we are all suffering every day? And there are times that we’re going to take it on and move it forward, and there are times that we’re not.

MM: I so agree with that, and I think sometimes people are surprised to hear anyone say that it really depends on the day, what my week has been like, if I want to enter into this conversation and do this at that particular time, and sometimes I just don’t.

AP: That’s right. And that’s OK.

MM: It’s just too much.

TH: That’s real.

AP: Yeah.

MM: It’s just been too much.

So when we think about philanthropy, as we’ve been talking about philanthropy and the work that has started to happen — right? — there’s still — we have a lot of work to do — did you think when we had the conversations in Chicago you saw a light bulb go on? Did you see some indication that people were starting to pull back the onion, if you will, peel back the onion and to dig more deeply? Did you think you saw any of that? Do you think any of that has happened?

AP: The Decolonizing Wealth conversation?

MM: Right. The conversations that some people have continued in various ways.

AP: I mean, I think what stood out is that the second conversation that happened of the day for Decolonizing Wealth had to be moved to a larger venue. So there is a tremendous reaction to Edgar’s book, and not just of the usual suspects. I think that there is an openness to understanding also the indigenous perspective in this and realizing that racial-equity movements have often been really from perspectives that have left out the indigenous community, so I think that was really welcome. And I think that everyone is sort of asking themselves, like, what is my role? What is my action? What’s my opportunity? And there’s some sort of feeling that if you are not involved in the work, then you’re going to be left behind. But again, that doesn’t necessarily translate into action or change. That’s just the desire to be among those that are in this conversation. And Tracie and I were talking earlier because I feel like as someone who does this work a lot, and I know that you all understand this, what’s happening is that we’re starting to be asked to perform racial equity. Right?

MM: Right.

AP: It’s becoming a theater.

MM: Yes. Yes.

AP: And so there’s a lot of interest right now, dot dot dot.

MM: Exactly. Right. And how do we — I mean, this idea of well, that’s really interesting: perform racial equity. No, that’s real. And I think about how when you walk into a room, depending on what your position is, there are some expectations that, of course, come with it. Right? I mean, we walk into a room as black women. Right? There’s some things that just come with that. And how do we show that we are, of course, open to these conversations but to the — but, at the same time, don’t want to do the emotional labor, don’t want to lead that work? Because I was talking to a young woman, who actually I met through Decolonizing Wealth, and she made a statement during the early morning program that concerned me. She said that I feel as though I am doing all this work, as a young woman of color in my organization, and I don’t think my managers understand what it takes for me to do this work in this organization that is predominantly white. And she said that in our room of I don’t know how many people were there, 60, 70 people, and no one really responded to her. Well, actually, that’s not true. Edgar responded to her and said it might be time for you to leave if you don’t feel like you can continue that work in that manner. And I was so struck by that particular statement that I invited her out for coffee a couple weeks later —

AP: Good. Good.

MM: — because I felt, just from what she was saying, this extraordinary sense of loneliness, and I just wanted to connect with her. And so we had coffee. We continue to stay in contact. And I think that’s happening in many places, because what I will hear from other people who want to do the work in an organization is, I can’t get the other folks to get on board because that’s not what they came here for and they don’t want to be the one who’s doing that work in this organization, so that there’s a resistance to doing it. They just — “I just want to come and do my job. I’m just going to do my job for as long as I can, and then when I can’t, I’m going to leave.” And so we do have this ongoing exodus of people from philanthropy, primarily folks of color, who feel like they just can’t take it anymore. And I wanted to — I mean, part of the reasons I wanted to reach out to this young woman was I just — my heart hurt when I heard her say that. And it was a really great conversation. She said I’m so happy you reached out because I don’t have an opportunity to talk about this in this way with someone who looks more like me than everyone else does. And I think that happens a lot, and so we’re losing the people inside the organizations that want to take the initiative because it’s just too much emotional labor. And as you know, I mean, as you say, we can launch into these conversations at the blink of an eye, and we do.

AP: Right.

MM: Often. And we do and then we move on to the next thing. (Laughs.) You know? We could be going out shopping and, by the way, we’re talking about race and then we move on. And it takes on a whole different — it’s a whole different endeavor when we’re in these mixed groups because what often happens is we’re expected to lead the conversation, to do the heavy lifting.

TH: And I want to be clear about one of the reasons why we are talking about race, one of the reasons why we are having a conversation about racial equity in particular and connecting it to, you know, other forms of social justice is because the world we live in is not tenable. Right?

MM: Right.

TH: And so if we think about something that’s near and dear to my heart, not necessarily through education but through growing up in the community that I did, is environmental justice. What I also understood is that places that would be brownfields, places that, you know, where, you know, land was compromised that became, you know, dumping grounds and those kinds of things were places that were — where there was also a lot of disinvestment. And those places were also places where food was hard to get to, and those were also places where there were questions about, you know, public safety and public health and issues and barriers to equitable education, you know, of any kind. And so just seeing the interconnectivities of all of those things has sort of in some ways reminded me that, you know, there’s a life urge that kind of keeps us waking up, you know, in the morning and, you know, sometimes without the alarm clock. Right? I think we have both a life urge and an alarm clock when it comes to racial equity, because of all of the ways in which those issues — carbon — all of those things — carbon, climate, water — all of those fundamental things — housing — right? — land, public space, which is eroding — are connected. And they’re connected in many ways because of racialized capitalism. So we’re having this conversation about money and investment. We’re having this conversation about community and what community looks like because of the interconnectivities there. So the reason why we can jump into those conversations and then keep moving, and the reason why people who are on the front lines of those conversations, often when they’re sort of disrupting the status quo, are so vulnerable, is because in some ways justice, power and money are being more horded now and centralized than ever before; people who are being deprived of access are having a conversation that is about that next breath. And when we talk about racial equity, what we understand fundamentally is that it is that next breath. It is as urgent as that next breath is for us.

AP: The idea of getting trained, like going through anti-racism training — and not a, you know, one-day, but like — Enrich does like two-and-a-half-day sessions. And Tracie and I did a session together. What I think is — I always say that those sessions are really important for white people, but they’re more important for people of color, and so I think about the woman that you mentioned and I think about women who fill my office all the time, and men, of color who work in philanthropy or in nonprofits, who feel like they’re in these situations they are supposed to solve and that there are all of these judgments and landmines in this chess game that they didn’t even know they were playing. I think it’s so important to learn how to decode micro-aggressions that show up in the workplace, how to decode when you are being used to actually prop up systemic inequity. Many folks of color in philanthropy are there to keep the status quo. That is the beginning and the end of this.

MM: That’s right. That’s right. That’s right.

AP: And so the reason that it becomes laborious is that once you get in it and you believe that you’re actually supposed to do the task, you’re going to run into some problems.

MM: Absolutely, because that is not why they want you there.

AP: That is not why they want you there. Right?

MM: That’s right.

AP: And so I think it is really important to be able to understand, have the tools, have the language, have the code-switching, have your eye on the outcomes, but also know when you are the gatekeeper, when you are the house Negro, and lo that you have the choices that you need to make on this situation. I have to say it. I just feel like that’s part of it.

MM: No, I totally agree, and I think one of the things that, to follow that, we often say in our sessions, the real work begins after the session.

AP: Yes.

MM: It’s not in the session. What are you going to do with this information now?

AP: But also, every person of color in philanthropy is making a choice.

MM: Yes.

AP: They’re saying, in the time that I’m going to be in philanthropy, I’m going to do one of three things: I’m going to move capital responsibly to where it’s going to go, and when I leave all of this responsible shepherding of capital may leave with me, but in my time there, it will change.

MM: Right.

AP: They’re not doing that, and they’re just happy to be there. Or they’re trying to move capital and also change some sort of system so that when they leave it will remain changed. Those are the — that’s the emotional labor that’s not discussed. And there’s a cost to it. For every one of us, there is a cost to it.

MM: I’m just thinking, where do we go from here?

TH: I’m just looking for my church fan.

MM: (Laughs.) Where do we go from here? I mean, I — I mean, we unfortunately have to bring this to a close and then we’ll go to our questions. But where do we go from here? What would you offer as advice to someone who is new entering into the world of philanthropy? This is their first position and they’re — you know, they’re bright-eyed and they’re thinking they’re going to go in and make some change. I hope that’s why they’re going into philanthropy. What would you offer to them as some advice on how you navigate the system?

TH: The writer in me says use your story. Use your story. You know? Also, to the person who really is interested in performance, individual performance and organizational performance, would think about what Bruce Lee said, is to have style is to crystallize it. And so I think that there is a way in which you really have to understand where your power seat is. Right? So if you’re coming into an organization, especially if you’re coming into philanthropy, is to really understand what your value proposition is. What is — how has your lived experience prepared you to see the world through a set of lens that are just different than the person who would occupy that seat maybe before you or after you or the person sitting to the left or right of you? And also, too, to actually be out in the community, listening, learning, being with and not just, you know, I’m here right now as the person who’s evaluating or observing you, but just learning with community. And then I think in terms of style, understanding — it took awhile for me to understand that, you know, a style that I have is enthusiasm, and a style that I have is a default towards sometimes honesty or a “folkness,” a way of defaulting towards, if people can default, to a way of telling you, you know, exactly the truth and asking you for your truth, a way of hugging as opposed to shaking hands, that those kinds of things felt organic to me. And I used to problematize — I used to want to be someone who was a little bit removed or a little bit aloof. But what I understand is that I see myself again and again, or the self that I want to be or desire to be, and I love the way that I am when I am in community. And so in my work I bring that in. And so I would say to somebody, the biggest thing you can do, especially to people of color, but then also to people who are trying to navigate any kind of otherness, is to understand that your story is a valid story, and be yourself; use your story as your strength and use your style as your strength.

AP: I would say get a bench outside of that space. Fill it with elders who have been there before and seen a lot of stuff. Fill it with co-conspirators that come in all shapes and backgrounds. Don’t believe your own hype. Philanthropy is all about believing your own hype, and check yourself in that. And study. Study the systems around you. Study the questions that you’re asking. Study the use of those things. Study the books that have been written. And know your story.

TH: Know your story. Be rigorous. I want to definitely agree with you around studying. Be rigorous in your study. Be insatiable. There is no — there is never too much information. Read everything. Ask children for their opinions. When you go out, ask children — I love children because children will tell you the truth.

MM: Yes, they will.

AP: Yes, I have a nine-year-old. (Laughter.) That is a problem. Yes. That is a problem.

MM: Sometimes too much truth. (Laughter.)

All right. All right. Well, we’re going to leave it there. There’s so much more, and there may be a part two. We may just have to bring the both of you back to continue this conversation because it was wonderful and deep and rich, and there’s so much more to say.

TH: The bench.

AP: Yes, the —

MM: I love the bench.

TH: That’s the book.

AP: The Bench, yeah.

TH: That’s the book.

MM: The Bench! That is really good! (Laughs.)

TH: Angelique talks about the bench in her work. And she does that. You know, she is — I used to call it a wisdom council when I used to be, you know, like, really working in community and community organizing. I used to talk about with organizations all the time, you know, who’s your wisdom council? I think this idea of the bench is something that we need to unpack and explore, because one of the aspects of vulnerability that we haven’t been able to hit on is too many people are going it alone. Right? They’re going it alone. And that makes you really vulnerable. And so I think this idea of having the bench — the bench will support you. The bench will call you in. Right? Not — as opposed to call you out. They’ll call you in. And the bench will support you. And people will sometimes think twice about messing with you too much —

AP: Oh, that’s right.

TH: — if you have a deep bench.

MM: Yes. Yes.

TH: So I think we have to talk about that —

MM: Yes.

TH: — because there’s a lot of people who think that progress — you know the African proverb, it says, if you want to go fast, go alone —

MM: That’s right.

TH: — but if you want to go far, go together.

MM: That’s right.

TH: Going together is about building that bench.

MM: I love that imagery.

AP: Episode 3! The Bench.

MM: Absolutely.

AP: I love it.

MM: I love it. It really is a wonderful title, and we often talk in our workshops about calling people in and not calling them out —

AP: That’s right.

MM: — because we know once we shut down conversation, we can’t move the needle. Right? So shaming someone is not going to get us very far.

AP: Right.

MM: Right?

TH: It’s an “ender.”

MM: Absolutely.

TH: It’s a relationship-ender.

MM: Exactly. That’s absolutely right.

Well, we’re going to take a short break and then we’re going to be back. You’re listening to “Gathering Ground” with Angelique Power and Tracie Hall. And we’re back in a moment.

Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for joining me on “Gathering Ground.” We want to hear from you. If you have any questions about your work in nonprofits or any of the topics that we’ve covered here on “Gathering Ground,” send them on in. Send them to mary@gatheringgroundpodcast.com. That’s mary@gatheringgroundpodcast — all one word — dot com. We look forward to hearing from you.

So welcome back, everyone. You’re listening to “Gathering Ground.” This is Mary Morten and our guests this week — for the first time ever, we have two guests: Angelique Power and Tracie Hall. And we are going to move to one of our favorite parts of our podcast: Questions From The Audience.

AP: (Sings.) “Delilah.” (Laughter.)

MM: So we’re going to start with a question from Louise.

“I’m a fairly new CEO and I’m realizing that I’m feeling a little lonely. I’ve heard that this can be an issue. It makes sense since I’m the only person at my job level in the organization. What advice do you have for executives who are feeling a lack of camaraderie? Sometimes you just want to commiserate with someone who knows what you’re going through.”

AP: Yeah. So I started at the Field Foundation three years ago and I remember being told that from a lot of people when I entered, like, “It’s lonely, it’s lonely.” And as someone who’s always been like the unofficial social chair of other organizations where I’ve worked, it definitely is a shift. I described being the president as a form of “The Truman Show,” where, you know, every room you enter, the play begins — (laughter) — and you’re like, uh! It’s stressful on them —

MM: Right.

AP: — you know. But the reality is is that that’s your job, that is your responsibility. And it is not appropriate to have that camaraderie with your staff while you can still have a really connected, engaged, warm relationship with staff. It is a different responsibility. You get that elsewhere. There are a lot of CEOs who feel the same way as Louise feels. There are a lot of women who feel this way —

MM: In particular.

AP: There are a lot of women of color. And so there are networks and spaces where people can come together. In Chicago, they’re endless. They’re formal and informal. So I would say, like, dinner party immediately.

MM: And maybe you have to initiate that yourself.

AP: You probably do.

MM: You have to build your bench.

AP: But I guarantee you that there are going to be people who will readily accept that invitation, and the agenda for the evening will write itself.

MM: Exactly. Exactly. So just, Louise, look around. Talk to some of your friends, your colleagues. I think to Angelique’s point, there are many other people who feel the same way and would love to connect with you. And so if you don’t have one of those groups readily available, start one. Start one.

Want to add anything to that?

TH: No. I mean, I think that idea about building the bench — right? — I think you need to do that at every level. And certainly, I think, you know, CEO — there’s a lot around confidentiality —

MM: Exactly.

TH: — you know, and just understanding your own power. And so Angelique being a foundation president, you know, that is — I think you’re speaking from a point of view that few people will have. So I thank you for that.

MM: You know, I would just add that when I was the interim executive director at the foundation, I had some of those similar feelings and was coming into a period that was somewhat difficult for the organization in terms of transitions, and it was a place, I think, that certainly women of color will find themselves, in terms of having to go in and do some cleanup, having to correct — do some course correction, if you will. (Laughs.) And I remember, quite honestly, going in to my office and closing the door and having a good cry, because I had to. You know, I just had to. And I would talk to people outside of Chicago most often, to your point about confidentiality and what you can share, and some of the informal networks that you’ve referenced I think have come to be, since I was in that role, but I think there was always — there were always a group of women that I could turn to, and I just had to reach out. And I think part of that, too, is being willing to be vulnerable enough to say, “I need some help.”

AP: Yeah.

TH: Yep.

MM: “I can’t really do this by myself.” And that was a lesson that I certainly had to learn.

So, Louise, there are many opportunities out there, and we hope you will, if you can’t find one, that you will start one.

So moving on to Anne: “I am supervising someone right now who I would call,” in quotes, “‘good on paper.’ They meet their deadlines, exceed performance expectations, and bring great ideas to the table. However, I recently found out” — uh-oh — “that they were bad-mouthing the organization and me and my co-director, specifically at a restaurant near our office. I later came to find out that they’ve been sharing these sentiments on more than one occasion, including more than one mildly confidential item. I feel like I’m in a hard place. I don’t want to lose this staff person because they produce great work, but I also know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Any thoughts?”

TH: Well, I’m a big believer of using conflict as a space for information-gathering. Right? So I think the confidentiality, if it’s something that is, you know, really confidential to the organization, I think that’s one thing. But I think that if an employee — because there’s a lot of information there. The employee is delivering good results. You know, the employee exceeds, you know, job performance and those kinds of things. There is an opportunity to have a conversation with that employee because it could be that that sentiment is shared really widely, and especially if the person feels like they can share that widely. I think that before jumping to any other kinds of steps or, you know, other types of measures, it would be to call that employee in and really to learn from them. How are you experiencing this organization? How are you experiencing the leadership of this organization? How, in spite of that, or why, do you continue to perform in a way, obviously, that we both agree actually forwards the work of this organization? So I would do some information-gathering there, because, actually, what has happened is that this person has been given some really useful information, and it’s going to be up to them to really manage that knowledge effectively. But I wouldn’t discard the employee, nor would I, you know, just have my ire up. I would use it as an opportunity, because from this, you may be able to find out some things that would have been — remained hidden to you, if this hadn’t come to light.

MM: So don’t assume the worst —

TH: Don’t assume the worst.

MM: — and do your due diligence in terms of really figuring out what’s happening and why.

TH: Yeah. And use this for information-gathering.

MM: OK.

TH: Absolutely.

MM: OK.

TH: Because you know how they say, where there is a question — one question in the room, there are actually a hundred people —

MM: Absolutely.

TH: — who would be willing to — really wanting to ask it, but may not.

MM: OK. Would you add anything to that?

AP: Before or after I fire them?

MM: OK! OK!

AP: I’m just kidding. I would not fire them.

MM: OK! (Laughs.) Well, completely — (laughter) — let’s just go in a totally different direction there. (Laughter.)

AP: I just had to throw that out there.

No, I would not fire them. I think that Tracie is a hundred percent right, and we had a conversation about this, that, you know, one of the hardest things to get right is internal culture and that, I think, often that this is a gift, that you found out that a high-performing staff member has some issues. I do think at some point you’ll have to share with the staff member that they may think that they’re having private conversations but that it is getting back to you, and so that they may want to practice more discretion, really just in their career, for things that they may be talking about that other people are hearing. But I would unlock the part about complaints about me as a supervisor with complaints about the organization, and I would try to get to the bottom of it.

MM: OK, so do some investigation, if you will, get to the bottom of it, use this as an opportunity to gather information that will help the organization overall and certainly your relationship with this particular staff person.

AP: Yes.

TH: Yeah. Be direct.

MM: Be direct.

AP: Be direct.

TH: Be direct.

MM: Be direct. And that’s something that I think we in general have a hard time with, and as somebody who is fairly direct, people — “Well, you’re so direct.” Yes —

AP: That’s a good thing.

MM: — and that cuts down on a lot of back and forth.

AP: Yeah.

MM: (Laughs.) Let’s just get right to it.

AP: That’s right.

MM: All right. And our last question is from Alexander. Alexander identifies as Latinx and works in an office where “I am” — he says: “I am one of the few people of color. One of our executives has referred to me as ‘homey’” — homey — “more than once. I don’t interface with this individual much, so I don’t know if they’re using that word to talk to my white coworkers, but I do know that I don’t like it. Aside from the fact that the language is problematic, I absolutely do not know her like that.” (Laughter.) “I am fairly new” — OK. (Laughter.) “I do not know her like that. I am fairly new to the organization and hold an associate role, so I am a little worried about making waves. How do you recommend I deal with this?”

What do you think, Tracie?

TH: I think I would ask, you know — we talked about being direct.

MM: Yes. Yes.

TH: I would — you know, next time they did it — right? — I’d ask, you know, “Hey, I want to ask you a question. I’ve been thinking about this for a while. What does the term ‘homey’ mean to you, and why do you refer to me as homey?” And just let them unpack it —

MM: Yes. Yes.

TH: — because I think sometimes shining a light — right? — they say that sunlight is the strongest disinfectant.

MM: (Laughs.) Oh, no, I have not heard that before, Tracie!

TH: And so I’d just shine a light on it and let them respond.

MM: I love it. I love it. I love it.

Say that again.

TH: Sunlight is the strongest disinfectant.

MM: OK. (Laughs.)

TH: Sometimes shining a light, you know, will sometimes, you know, help people to release things.

MM: What are we going to do with these pearls of wisdom? (Laughs.)

AP: I know! I gotta write that down.

MM: OK. All right. (Laughs.)

AP: I don’t know. I mean, there’s a part of me that feels like this is the beginning of a “Saturday Night Live” sketch. (Laughter.) You know?

MM: It could be! It could be! I’m open to that. (Laughs.)

AP: But, taking our conversation —

MM: Yes. Yes.

AP: — you know, one thing that this new — it’s really tough, because he’s new —

MM: Yes. Yes.

AP: — in his position, and so he doesn’t know the company like that —

MM: Exactly.

AP: — so he doesn’t know how they feel and what they’re going to do. But I —

MM: And he doesn’t know her like that either. (Laughs.)

AP: And he doesn’t know her like that. But I might, you know, use it as an opportunity to ask about, like, what is the conversation about race and all of the things? Like, this is a moment that we’re in where people are trying to get better. It feels like it could be just this individual, or it could be an opportunity to say, like, “Hey, should we try to do some work on ourselves?” You know? And that could be a risk he doesn’t want to take. He could deal with it directly with the person, as Tracie recommended, or he could try to lead a revolution of culture change.

MM: All options for him to consider.

TH: Both options.

MM: Yes. Yes. Many options. And what we hope, I’m just going to say, is that he just doesn’t leave. Right?

AP: Right.

MM: You know, sort of throw in the towel and say I’m just not going to deal with it, and it’s just not this but maybe it’s accumulation of micro-aggressions —

AP: Right.

MM: — that could push someone out the door.

So — well, there’s so much more we can talk about, and we will have to continue this. There’s going to have to be a part two, I’m telling you. This is so much better than I even expected. (Laughs.)

AP: Mary, can we just say thank you to you?

MM: Oh, absolutely.

TH: Yes.

AP: You create this, like, really warm space for this conversation that could be a really tough conversation, and we’re, you know, huddled in this room, this soundproof room, and, you know, it feels like we are sitting at a dinner table just talking to friends. So thank you for doing this.

TH: Yeah, thank you very much.

MM: Absolutely. I’m so happy to — that this worked and that we could get together. And we have to do it again. Really. We have to do it again. This is wonderful.

TH: And one time for our engineer!

MM: All right! Yay, Andy! OK! Who heard a lot this evening! (Laughs.)

So again, this is “Gathering Ground.” I’m Mary Morten. We want to thank our guests, Angelique Power and Tracie Hall. And we will see you next time.

TH: Bye-bye.

AP: Bye!

MM: Bye.

AP: (Sings.) “Delilah.”

MM: We are so pleased to let you know that you can now find “Gathering Ground” on iTunes, in addition to SoundCloud, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Breaker, and Radio Public, and at gatheringgroundpodcast.com. I’m Mary Morten, and this has been another episode of “Gathering Ground.”