You might think your organization would never do cancel culture.
A couple of month ago, I would have told you the same- about a volunteer board I was a member of.
In the past few months, I learned first-hand how cancel culture can sweep through an organization, and what harm that can do.
A disclosure intended to improve transparency was perceived as a harm by one person, because it unintentionally revealed how they had contributed to excluding a marginalized person from leadership. Instead of taking accountability for their actions, they instead wanted the person who had disclosed the information removed from their position as a result.
Because of internal politics and existing instabilities, this one individual with social capital using the battle cry of toxic was able to build energy behind their call for heads to topple. First the individual who disclosed, and later several others who felt removal unwarranted and were painted as biased (and also toxic). The end result was 5 volunteer leads either being removed or stepping down, two weeks of upset emails flying, multiple people being harmed, and the stability of the entire organization compromised.
And this was from a group of people committed to building better culture.
Part of building healthy culture is recognizing when toxicity occurs and being willing to speak up and point it out. And so, from that standpoint, the people within that organization were moving in the right direction.
However, if we move straight from identifying something that feels toxic to removal, we risk missing what actually happened and perpetrate harm on the person removed. Giving people chances to take accountability, rather than jumping straight to cancelling, is vital to growth of individuals and communities. Inflicting further harm in response to harm continues damaging cycles.
But we also need to look closely at what toxic actually means, and avoid weaponizing the word to avoid self-reflection. When we feel wounded by someone’s actions, it might be because they did something wrong, but it also could be because they revealed uncomfortable truths that we weren’t ready to face, or triggered past wounds. If any time the word toxic is used to label another’s actions, other people pull out the tar and pitchforks, we will create conditions where people are afraid to make mistakes and will try to cover and hide the truth, instead of having curiosity- which could look like being willing to confront themselves and grow or discussing nuanced situations to better understand them.
You might be thinking- this wouldn’t happen within my organization. Perhaps you are right. But, I would have said that about this org a month ago.
What is the alternative?
I suggest, for any organization, volunteer or not, setting up structures for restorative justice- a concept focused on repairing harm, rather than inflicting additional harm through removal or ostracization for any who might take what feels like a misstep.
This process should include being willing to sit with the discomfort of looking into the supposed mis-step to better understand why it occurred, and whether it was itself actually a mistake or toxic behavior to be corrected, or whether it is something that was done differently than the norms. This could be because of neurodivergence, people trying to change culture, or a variety of reasons. Sometimes, this misstep might seemingly cause harm to one individual or group, but this perceived harm might instead be discomfort around confronting privilege.
Allow this process to be slow. Make sure all participants know this is an intentionally slow process, designed to allow people time to reflect and learn. People often feel an urgency when they feel harmed. There is some legitimacy to this- when activated we often enter flight or fight mode. But in this modern era, consequences are typically not as dire as failing to escape predators or natural disasters. Instead, if we move slowly, we can allow our nervous systems to calm and consider all perspectives.
I also suggest this process not be centered around decisions made by the same 2-3 people who have the most concentrated power within an organization. Instead, develop a process lead by others in the organization, spreading around involvement as appropriate to maximize perspectives without sacrificing confidentiality.
Finally, the process should take into account dignity, both of those harmed, and of those who harmed others. We are all humans part of a toxic culture, and we all at times harm others, often unintentionally, perhaps because of our own triggers and unhealed wounds. Offering people gentle opportunities to correct mistakes creates growth conditions and improves society overall more than justifying hurting people with sudden ostracization (and potentially impacting their ability to feed themselves and their families) because they have hurt others.
Sometimes, it may be necessary to remove people from organizations or communities. But, this should be a last resort, only after efforts to help the person grow and understand the ways in which their actions may be harming others. Restorative justice can repair harms- sometimes leading to outcomes that are perhaps, even better than what existed before the issue arose, because it opens people up to vulnerability and growth.
