Lip service. It’s a phrase that frequently surfaces in discussions about organizational commitment, particularly when staff members express skepticism about their company’s dedication to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Often, employees feel that their organizations merely pay “lip service” to these crucial values.
My initial understanding of “lip service” leaned towards insincerity – saying something without meaning it. However, delving into the Lip Service Definition offered by Merriam Webster reveals a more nuanced and pertinent interpretation, especially in the context of organizational behavior:
lip service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds —usually used with pay
While the “usually used with pay” aspect might be limiting, the core of the definition powerfully resonates with what we observe in organizational settings. It’s not always about deliberate deceit. Often, organizations or individuals genuinely believe in the sentiments they express. The real issue emerges in the gap between intention and action, particularly when implementing those intentions demands effort, resources, or a shift in established norms.
This disconnect between stated commitment and tangible action is a well-documented phenomenon. However, recently, I’ve started to more deeply connect this very gap with the essence of lip service definition in practice. It’s not just empty words; it’s the failure to translate words into meaningful change.
The Initial Hurdle: Securing Buy-In
One of the most persistent challenges in advancing DEI initiatives is “getting leadership buy-in.” This concern echoed strongly among over 100 architects and designers at our recent AIA New York talk, “Transcending the Woke Wave: Creating Long-Term Change at Architectural Firms.”
By the time organizations approach us for DEI consulting, there’s usually a baseline level of leadership buy-in – enough to consider external assistance. However, even then, we often encounter a “check-the-box” mentality. Organizations frequently seek help when facing pressure – employee grievances, potential legal action, negative employee survey results, or internal grassroots movements pushing for change.
The “Mystery of What to Do” and the Paralysis of Action
Even when leaders acknowledge a problem and express a desire to address it, a significant barrier arises: “the mystery of what to do.” Despite seemingly obvious solutions or recommendations from internal staff or external consultants, organizations often struggle to understand why specific actions will effectively tackle the issues and benefit the entire organization.
Sometimes, however, the situation is even more stark. Leadership might possess a clear understanding of the necessary steps to achieve their stated goals, yet they remain unwilling to take those steps. The initial enthusiasm, the apparent commitment to listening and creating inclusive spaces, the engagement in honest dialogues, and even a stated openness to feedback – all stagnate when confronted with the need for concrete, impactful action. This is lip service definition in its most frustrating form: knowing what to do, but failing to act.
Unpacking the Roots of Paralysis: White Supremacy Culture
This paralysis isn’t universal. Intriguingly, we’ve witnessed instances of the opposite – an acceleration of change, where organizations surpass expectations in their actions and behavioral shifts, sometimes even anticipating our recommendations. These organizations break free from inertia and proactively implement changes.
Conversely, in other cases, our repeated recommendations are ignored. This leaves us and internal staff feeling unheard, undervalued, and dismissed – mirroring the very issues DEI initiatives aim to resolve.
To understand this dichotomy, I often turn to “Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture” by Tema Okun. It’s crucial to clarify that this framework isn’t about extremist groups. It describes the pervasive norms and standards of mainstream culture in the US and globally, which, because they are often unspoken and unchosen, can be damaging. These characteristics affect everyone in a white supremacy culture, regardless of race.
These cultural norms disproportionately harm people of color and other marginalized groups, but ultimately, they limit everyone. So, how does this relate to lip service definition and the intention-action gap?
Four characteristics of white supremacy culture particularly contribute to this paralysis:
Power Hoarding
This manifests as:
- Leaders feeling threatened by suggestions for change, perceiving them as criticisms of their leadership.
- Those in power assuming they know best and dismissing change advocates as uninformed or emotional.
The antidote lies in:
- Accepting change as inevitable and constructive.
- Focusing on the organization’s mission above personal power.
This relates to lip service definition because leaders who hoard power might verbally agree with DEI principles but resist any action that could redistribute power or challenge their authority. The “lip service” becomes a way to appear compliant without relinquishing control.
Fear of Open Conflict
This is characterized by:
- Blaming those who raise uncomfortable issues instead of addressing the issues themselves.
- Equating raising difficult topics with being impolite or inappropriate.
The solution is to:
- Not dictate how difficult issues are raised, especially if “tone policing” is used to avoid addressing the substance of the issue.
In the context of lip service definition, fear of conflict can lead to organizations voicing support for DEI but silencing or marginalizing those who voice concerns or demand accountability. The “lip service” is a performance to maintain a veneer of harmony while avoiding necessary but potentially uncomfortable confrontations.
Right to Comfort
This includes:
- The belief that those in power are entitled to emotional and psychological comfort.
- Scapegoating those who cause discomfort.
The antidotes are:
- Recognizing discomfort as essential for growth and learning.
- Avoiding personalizing all feedback.
Lip service definition is amplified by the “right to comfort.” Leaders may express DEI commitment but resist actions that challenge their comfort zones or require them to confront uncomfortable truths about systemic inequities. The “lip service” is a way to maintain a comfortable status quo without genuinely engaging with the challenging work of DEI.
Defensiveness
This is seen as:
- Criticism of those in power being perceived as threatening and inappropriate.
- Defensive reactions to new or challenging ideas, hindering open discussion.
The remedies include:
- Understanding the link between defensiveness and fear (of losing power, privilege, or comfort).
- Discussing how defensiveness impedes the organization’s mission.
Defensiveness directly fuels lip service definition. Leaders might verbally endorse DEI, but react defensively to any suggestion that their actions or the organization’s practices fall short. This defensiveness prevents genuine progress and reinforces the gap between words and action. The “lip service” becomes a shield against accountability and change.
Beyond Lip Service: Towards Genuine Action
Ultimately, overcoming lip service definition requires recognizing that harm to any member of a community harms the entire community, and that the community shares responsibility for addressing harm. Crucially, when the needs of those most impacted by harm are met, everyone benefits.
As Aboriginal activist Lilla Watson wisely stated:
“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”
Our collective liberation is intertwined.
Moving beyond lip service in DEI, and in any area requiring genuine commitment, demands a willingness to embrace discomfort and differentiate between feeling threatened and being truly in danger. What is truly at risk if staff feel supported and empowered to do their best work? And what stands to be gained?
Often, what needs to be relinquished are the characteristics of white supremacy culture – the ingrained tendencies to hoard power, avoid conflict, be defensive, and prioritize comfort. These are traits often mistakenly associated with success.
But how are these characteristics truly serving individuals, organizations, or their missions?
For those who genuinely aspire to be “one of the good ones” and are committed to equity and inclusion, confronting and dismantling these characteristics is essential.
There is profound joy and collective benefit in this process of transformation. While individuals from marginalized groups may sometimes find it easier to embrace these frameworks due to less ingrained socialization into entitlement, everyone stands to gain from this work, despite the inherent discomfort.
Organizations that move beyond lip service definition and embrace genuine action realize tangible benefits: increased employee engagement, improved performance, enhanced organizational impact, and greater relevance within their respective fields. This shift requires courage, vulnerability, and a commitment to bridging the gap between words and meaningful action.
Note: Explore “What kind of leadership does it take to drive equity and inclusion? for further insights.
