Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why are we afraid of conversation?

Why are we afraid of conversation?
Getty Images

Chang serves as Co-founder and CEO of GenUnity.

90% of people feel “emotionally or physically unsafe” to share their thoughts. This shocking statistic underscores an increasingly hostile culture characterized by polarization, judgment, and close-mindedness.


This pervasive fear of conversation is undermining every institution - from our democratic governments to our businesses. Conversation is the foundation of how we understand problems, exchange information, and build the trust required for collaboration. In fact, the etymology of “conversation” is the “ manner of conducting oneself in the world. ” Instead, fear substitutes integrity with obscurity, humility with insecurity, and curiosity with arrogance. And while fear in today’s environment may be well-founded, it is not a feeling we have to resign ourselves to. Conversation is a muscle and, with the right exercises, we can foster productive dialogue where we are honest about our own thinking, learn from others, and spark new ideas that strengthen our workplaces and communities.

I know this is possible because I see it everyday. Just this month, my organization, GenUnity, launched our second Health Equity program in Boston which brought 44 residents together across differences - from those experiencing health issues to employees working in cross-sector institutions like Alnylam, Blue Cross, Boston Medical Center, or Boston Healthcare for the Homeless Program. In less than an hour, with thoughtful norm setting and facilitated conversation, the energy in the room was palpable. Members described it as “relaxed”, “open”, “educational”, “moving”, “inclusive”, “vulnerable” and “intimate”. These individuals (and the organizations who invested in them to be there) recognize that opportunities to be in conversation with those closest to the problems is an invaluable source of personal and professional growth that inevitably leads to innovation. In fact, one of our members from Blue Cross is already translating their learnings into workplace impact - introducing changes to reimbursement structures to expand access to culturally competent behavioral healthcare.

Admittedly, creating these types of brave, safe spaces is hard work, and in today’s environment, the cost of failure can feel overwhelming. But, this example should also spark curiosity and courage.

At this moment, we have a choice: between inaction that will only deepen our fears and erode our future, or courage to have authentic, challenging, joyful conversations that strengthen our civic culture, businesses, and communities.

If you’re feeling called to turn conversation from a source of fear into a source of inspiration today, start by asking yourself 3 questions:

  1. Do I believe I have something to learn from someone who has a different perspective from me, especially someone who is often unheard?
  2. Am I open to engaging honestly with them in search of deeper mutual understanding?
  3. Do I want to learn how to build the skills and create the conditions to have an honest, human-to-human conversation with this person(s)?
If your answers are yes, go to GenUnity.org or join the National Week of Conversation and start learning how to realize the vision you have for yourself, workplace, or community!

Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less