Effective Allyship, Social Capital, and Community
Is your approach, mindset, or belief about allyship effective or affective?
Ask yourself this question:
How many people have I contributed to?
Let's say you consider yourself an ally.
How many people have felt a sense of community with you, such as during a challenging situation or period when you were there as a confidant?
How many people would confidently say that you have positively contributed to their career, personal, and/or professional growth?
How many people do you genuinely understand regarding their interests and what they want to create in the world?
How have their interests and endeavors contributed to broadening your learning, understanding, and awareness of organizational context, deepening your insights because of their perspectives?
How many people you consider you’ve allied with have opened up their networks for you to tap into, thus expanding your perspective? Even if you're senior in the organizational hierarchy, your networks can often be quite limiting.
Have those you’re an ally to benefited you or brought benefits to you due to your relationship with them?
So, is your allyship effective or affective?
I will discuss this further in a moment.
I call myself a social capitalist. A troll commented on my post on X (formerly Twitter) some years ago. I don't even remember what I posted, but it garnered much attention. It was a post I took from LinkedIn and shared on X. The person said that “being a social capitalist isn't even a thing.”
My response was, “I believe it is! 😁”. No counter-shade, just clarity about what I mean by it and why I think it is a good thing for anyone to consider themselves.
Here’s what I mean by social capitalist: if you value and cultivate relationships, build trust, and appreciate reciprocity, you might choose to call yourself a social capitalist. That’s essentially what I mean.
However, if you desire or expect reciprocity beyond the inherent return via cultivating relationships, this approach doesn't work. If you expect something in return, social capitalism doesn’t work at its highest level. A return will come; it’s causal law but non-linear. It always comes back in some way, even energetically, spiritually, and intangible, usually beyond subconscious expectations.
However, as you endeavor, for it to be a natural thing that you do because of an intrinsic desire to contribute to other’s growth, you must let go of any attachment to what you think you deserve in return. Any belief or thinking like this does not a social capitalist make. In fact, to me, it corrupts the notion. The reality is that it can result in the opposite of your expectations. If so, do you stop because of how you feel?
Global Brokers and Social Capital
Contribute to the world, and be open to the contributions from those you are in community with, then step back. Any other mindset or beliefs won't lead you where you want to be. If you set an expectation, and then that expectation is not met, it often leads to resentment, even if unarticulated.
You cannot expect anything from your contributions to your colleagues or those in your community. You simply have to be in community, and being in and with community (by bond or by bridge) is what social capital is all about.
Developing social capital is not a quid pro quo transaction. That’s not how it works. Some people think everyone operates on an economic basis, but that’s just not a complete conclusion. Even if it is partially true, in building community, you must let go long enough to allow the return to come The return on relationships is always a long-term investment, and the ROI is undoubtedly consistent. At least for me, it has been.
The notion of "social," when you think about being a social capitalist, is the obvious critical element. It’s the social ties that matter—both strong and weak ties. Weak ties are often more beneficial because they allow you to reach out to places you wouldn’t typically connect with just by proximity.
With close ties, you may start thinking like them. If you continue to take your in-group's general perspective and seek out others who think like them, you may end up with a monoculture. If you read Reconstructing Inclusion and my discussions about bananas, monocultures tend to become extinct.
I have spent significant time indirectly engaging with people throughout the organizations I have been part of as an internal practitioner and external consultant. In doing so, I have been able to clarify needs. During times when I can do walkarounds, I get to know people and hear from them in casual conversations. You can put your finger on the pulse.
If you are in a role as an external or internal consultant, you must do your best to talk to people. Again, weak ties are often better. Mindfulness about how many of your interactions are part of your smaller circle and whether or not you are drawing wider circles that you are willing to be influenced by.
If you are in a virtual situation where you are apart more than in physical proximity to most colleagues, you need to identify three, five, or even ten different people to talk to each month, depending on the size of the organization and your time with it.
If you are internal, you can do five or six. If you are external, you may only do one or two a week, but you should talk to more people. I spend a lot of time on that, and it allows me to see patterns in ways that would otherwise be blindspots. Getting your finger on the pulse is a significant part of effectively practicing inclusion.
Some of the most influential people I have met in organizations have anchored their power in social capital because they invested in making connections. It didn’t always translate into gaining something material. Again, you cannot expect anything. Your power and influence are high, and you are not using your power for self-gain. Some people might, and reasonably can, use their influence for personal gain as long as they are helping as much as benefitting and doing no harm.
However, most people I have seen who invest in relationships are mightily influential in an organizational network context. They spend time cultivating and curating relationships. They anchor their power in people and the richness of their social ties rather than their position in the organizational hierarchy.
They focus on connection, and they are not always the warm and fuzzy types. Some may appear curmudgeonly, and you might think, “Wow, this person seems a little unapproachable.” But once you start interacting with them, they can be fascinating and genuinely interested in you, even if it’s not immediately apparent.
Consider how much you go out of your way to break the ice. Sometimes, the response you receive is a curt one. I had a colleague who, for the first three months after I started talking to him, was very brief and transactional, doing the minimum not to be unreasonably antisocial. If he had his choice in another social dynamic, he might have ignored me. It wouldn’t have been personal and I would not have taken it as so.
However, after three months, we unplanned and separately sat down to read something while getting coffee. We didn’t talk much, but we nodded at each other. As we prepared to return to our respective desks, he asked what I was reading. By the time we parted, we had become fast colleagues and eventually friends, meeting for coffee regularly and going to lunch.
He worked in preclinical safety and had been doing this work for years. He became a gateway into his group, telling others they could go to me if they needed assistance because I had good insights and asked good questions.
He was genuinely interested in how his group could improve and thrive as a team. That endorsement built a level of trust with him that remains unshaken to this day. I don’t even see him anymore; I think he retired, and I moved to Switzerland.
He was a sincere human being, but you wouldn’t know it until you got to know him—not just what he did, how he looked, or how he sounded. He had a different accent than my American one. Most importantly, I got to know who he was, and he got to know who I am. As a result, we accomplished some remarkable work that positively impacted people's lives and gave me a better understanding of what was needed as the head of culture and inclusion. This understanding allowed me to ask new questions and tap into new networks. That is what allyship is.
I just described allyship, though you might not have seen it as such. It’s not just an individual thing. He became an ally to me and my career, expanding my image and exposure to people I was not regularly interacting with. Beyond his endorsement of me, another, more significant result was that we accomplished some of the best work I have done with a group—work that truly made a difference in how business gets done. You can see it in one of our case studies if you want to learn more about it.
Now, let me return to allyship more directly. The examples I provided were intentional about framing allyship as organic. And although I have witnessed a few effective allyship programs intentionally designed, too many of them are affective.
We often structure allyship asymmetrically, where someone from a predominant group or social identity becomes an ally to someone from a subordinated or racialized group. I reject those dynamics. They are counter-agentic to me. I’m not saying they are wrong; it occurs to me that such a construct may not serve us well because it reinforces a certain paternalism and suggests that one group is superior to another that needs help. I know the connotation is not the intention, but it exists even if it is implicitly so.
The U.S. foreign policy framing positions allies and quasi-allies as helpers. When they need U.S. military help, they are reminded of the conditions required for its provision. Then, with the subordinate state’s military aware of the tradeoffs, assistance is provided, allowing the U.S. to maintain its dominance. The asymmetry is what makes the agreements and transactions work.
I am simplifying this, but many relationships in allyship are structured as such. Once, I gave a talk on this topic, which was reasonably well-received, but I sensed hesitance from some in the audience. However, the preparation and In situ feedback clarified what I was trying to convey and the fundamental challenges I see in how allyship is practiced by many. My sense is that many of the senior managers sitting in the audience saw themselves in the affective category and weren’t sure what that meant.
Toward the beginning of this article, I asked: Are you practicing effective allyship or affective allyship? Effective with an "e," affective with an "a."
Affective allyship is about emotional resonance. It has its place, but many people see allyship as a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. They feel they must or should do this as their demonstation of a contribution to DEI efforts. If people don’t feel it and are hesitant, they could quickly stop, but they commit nonetheless.
This commitment often revolves around identity-ascribed asymmetries. If you are an ally to “people of color” or the “LGBTQIA+ community,” you may feel affinity to this group identity or part of its amalgamation or influence to want to help “them”. There’s nothing wrong with this, but I question its effectiveness.
Putting something tangible around affective allyship is challenging, and it is unclear what does such allyship do for the ally. It too often centers on the ally and their status (again, not intentionally) with the role of being there to help the so-called other.
For me, this translates into allyship helping “them”—those who are not white straight men. Again, there’s nothing wrong with such support. Yet, in an interdependent organization, it’s an incomplete notion to think of allyship as solely for the historically underrepresented or exposed “other.”
There’s also allyship in relation to circumstances, such as putting out fires. We saw this in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, during the ‘Me Too’ and Black Lives Matter movements following the killing of Mike Brown in Missouri. Affective allies are often more about telling than showing. They are in action, usually with verbal solidarity, which is discrete.
So what is effective allyship?
On the counter to affective allyship is effective. Effective allyship is about results and impact. These influential people acting as allies have skin in the game and clearly understand their interdependence with colleagues they seek to build relationships with.
Effective allyship considers caring, openness, safety, and trust as the foundation of why they enter into relationships. They believe in people mattering and understanding their contributions, and signaling to them and colleagues that who they are and what they do, are positively consequential.
Effective allies seek out and then prioritize articulated needs. Knowing people’s needs and sharing them with others, as my colleague did with his department as we built our relationship, contributes to the trust. You demonstrate higher levels of trust when you know people’s needs and can articulate them when they are absent.
I was conducting an interview recently with a client colleague, and they mentioned that their professional relationships outside of the office were more helpful than those in the office. “They get to know me and talk about me positively when I’m not there.” The statement reinforced one of the higher levels of trust for me, and it was beautiful to hear. The hope was for them to experience this level of connection and community in their immediate office, too.
Effective allies are power and influence brokers for equity. They seek to create conditions for people to flourish, ensuring their contributions matter as they deepen their capacity to deliver.
Let’s revisit what it takes to transition from affective to effective allyship.
The question you should ask yourself is not about a specific number but rather about finding yourself in motion. Once you do it, you want to continue doing it.
How many people have you contributed to?
How many people have you helped grow, supported through difficult situations, or contributed to their career development?
Your contributions reinforce that their contributions matter, allowing them to feel valued even when they don’t necessarily feel they belong.
They feel they matter because you contributed consistently to their capacity to make significant contributions.
Lastly, you’ve learned their interests, and they have contributed to your learning and overall understanding of the organization in ways you wouldn’t have accessed otherwise. They open their networks to you because they trust you, having built trustworthiness. That is effective allyship.
It involves having skin in the game, understanding interdependence, and being clear about that interdependence. To prioritize the needs of individuals or organizations, you must know who people are and their interests. It’s about articulated needs and interests, as well as social capital.
There’s reciprocity involved, but it is a byproduct of the superordinate “why?” You care for people, maintain openness, create a space for intellectual honesty, and build trust both when someone is present and when they are not. You understand their interests, prioritize them unambiguously, and build social capital through your networks and their–ties, both strong and weak. When you see the opportunity to use your power, you do so in a way that benefits those you are allying with.
Allyship is a two-way street. Effective allyship is the only way to achieve the desired results and impact.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿