The topic of this month’s blog is a pivot from the one I intended to write. But that' s the thing with intentions; it is tenuous currency at best. What's the saying, “Life is what happens when one is busy making other plans.” Well, that's the case this month when a familiar yet recalcitrant situation reared its head again, prompting a change of plan.
The issue I am raising represents a grievous repeated conference ‘misstep’ and its aftermath. For some it’s viewed as a molehill of a tale, ‘much ado about nothing.’ In contrast, others experience and/ or view it as a looming menacing mountain of an issue that demands accountability from all players - conference organizers to ensure green-lit sessions and presenters bring an informed voice that offers real value; and presenters themselves to ensure they can speak from a position of knowledge and demonstrated experience on the topic they are presenting. It took courageous voices advocating and leading the charge to have the session canceled.
Here’s a bit of the backstory. Two weeks ago, there was yet another glaringly appalling incident resurfaced, this time in the form of a signed-off, ill-conceived conference topic- you know, the 'we got you good' type session, where you get something different than what you thought you signed up for - aimed at providing insights into Leadership Challenges in tough times. How to navigate through hot messes. The session was to be delivered at the Fundraising Institute Australia (FIA) MORE GREAT in your good Conference in February 2025. Apparently, a provocatively mistitled and misdescribed session that failed to capture what the invited speakers intended to share with session attendees, traveling from near and far, and not inconsiderable expense given the fee and location.
As a conference presenter or co-presenter, I have always been asked to provide a session title and description. Therefore, I am responsible for ensuring the session title and description represent the content I intend and plan to offer. I don’t know if this is the process used by FIA, so I will refrain from making any assumptions. However, If I were a conference presenter, I would ensure that the session as described captured what I planned to share. The other thing I do is avoid topics where my voice lacks credibility and has little to offer in terms of value, deep knowledge, expertise, engagement, or lived experience.
Three things immediately emerge regarding the circumstances surrounding this and other situations that rear its head with enough regularity to signal a pattern. First, the rampant performative accountability and transparency flag-waving that goes on within the charitable sector, yet how divergent and averse key actors and associations are from the practice and behaviours indicative of those ideals. Second, the disbelief (Huh, say what!) in learning that the response to the objections to the session was to tinker around its edges instead of directly addressing the calls for immediate remedial action, and finally, the issuing of rote, cookie-cutter statements of apology that misses the mark in meeting the threshold and simplicity of an acceptable apology.
Once again, we are ‘treated’ to another case of de-centring the most appropriate voices to speak to the topic at hand, preferencing the voices on the periphery or outer edges of the issue. The first attempt at redress is what I will call the "lipstick on a pig" approach, a superficial attempt to address a fundamental flaw, with its display of responsiveness that in changing the session title, all will be well. Naturally, this attempt at ‘remedy’ did little to quell the voices of discontent. The next redress increment deployed is a commitment to change the misleading description to capture more accurately what the speakers share.
So, were the title and description frivolous decisions, then?
Indeed, mistakes and missteps happen, and none of us are immune. However, there is nothing benign or frivolous about any incident of sexual harassment and anti-Black racism, and other illegal behaviours and aggressions. We must reckon with long-standing and repeated incidents where the tap is left running on condoning and giving more space and opportunities for future harm.
So, what can we do to choose the right path in the future?
It’s important to know what not to do. First, resist the compulsion to rationalize the offending action; doing so isn’t helpful. Second, refrain from rote statements outlining your commitments and intentions. And if you can muster the courage to an apology after an infraction, intentioned or not, try this recipe: Stop. Receive. Examine. Be specific when issuing your apology, and correct your actions moving forward. In her book Allies and Advocates, Amber Cabral breaks down the content of an apology into two parts and offers the following straightforward exercise to help construct an apology:
I apologize for __________.
Moving forward I will __________.
Note the simplicity and directness of the statements are sans rationalizations or intentions.
I am all for extending grace based on the circumstances, however grace afforded does have its limits. But let’s be very clear: expectations of and demands for accountability aren’t judgments or acts lacking grace or compassion. It is the responsible and right thing to do. And take special note that repeated infractions/ apology cycles lessen the veracity of intentions and commitment statements.
Over the past four-plus years, I have relied on my agency to exercise curiosity and take the time to listen and learn what constitutes the anatomy of a genuine apology - what it must contain and what it must never attempt to do - rationalize the infraction that necessitates the apology by using one’s intention as a mask. Some folx have resisted the urge to be defensive in the wake of missteps, opting to open themselves to learning the do’s and don’ts in issuing a genuine apology. I disagree with others who feel that demands for accountability equate to being judgmental and/ or devoid of grace, and who continue to insist the simple act of using the word apology in a statement is sufficient to bring resolution, and closure and must be nicely, respectfully and automatically be accepted. End of it, let's move on.
How I wish moving on and wiping away the memories of the harm and infringements were as easy to dismiss by just moving on. We have seen many transgressions before, and if I were to place a bet that it would not happen again, I would be pained to say with immense certainty that I would possess a losing hand.
The fallout from this particular incident is not about judgment nor the lack of grace in the face of imperfection, mistakes, missteps, or deliberate behaviours. It’s about being accountable, taking responsibility and being sincere in one’s efforts to address and make amends for the offence. It’s about leaders and institutions not referring to extremely serious issues such as sexual harassment and anti-Black racism in frivolous ways such as presenting them as “hot messes.”
The result and impact of our actions and not our intentions must be the starting point of any meaningful conversation or attempt to address a wrong or series of wrongs.
If you're a conference organizer or presenter who wants to move beyond the dribble of the performative, this incident provides valuable insights. Take a moment to pause, reflect, and examine how the situation arose and was handled by everyone involved. Doing so will reveal a lot.
The question I hope you take seriously and consider is, “Moving forward, and from the outset, what will you do differently next time?” And this time, really mean it, do it and not settle for the performance of it.
