Using Empathy and Curiosity to Overcome Differences

BRIAN KENNY: The Reverend Oliver Leon Brown was a fighter. I mean literally. He was a golden gloves champion in his youth. And in 1954, he would need to muster all the drive and determination that he showed as a boxer to take on his toughest opponent: public school segregation. Oliver Brown was the father of Linda Brown and their name is attached to the landmark case Brown versus the Board of Education. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that segregation deprived Black students of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It was a momentous victory that created the possibility for real change. But as we know all too well, those changes are hard to come by. Today’s case takes us to Raleigh Durham, North Carolina in 1971, where tensions around public school desegregation have hit a boiling point. Today on Cold Call, we’ll discuss the case entitled, “Bill Riddick and the Durham S.O.S. Charrette,” with case authors Francesca Gino and Jeff Huizinga. I’m your host, Brian Kenny, and you’re listening to Cold Call on the HBR Presents Network.

Francesca Gino’s research focuses on why people make the decisions they do at work, and how leaders and employees can have more productive, creative, and fulfilling lives. She’s also the author of, Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and in Life. Jeff Huizinga is co-author of the case and is a researcher at the school’s California Research Center, and we are thrilled to have both of you here today. Thanks for joining me.

FRANCESCA GINO: Thank you so much for having us.

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: Thank you. Nice to be here.

BRIAN KENNY: And Francesca, thanks for coming back on the show. We’ve had you on a couple of times and it’s always a pleasure to have you here. This is a different kind of case that we’re going to talk about today than some of the other cases that we’ve discussed. And I found this one particularly interesting probably for the wrong reasons. I feel like we still see a lot of the problems today that existed when the case took place in 1971. So, I think what people are going to be hearing is going to sound all too familiar and that’s unfortunate. But maybe there’s also a little ray of light that comes through here that that can help us see new ways of addressing some of the same old problems. But let me ask you to start by telling us what would your cold call be to start the class on this case?

FRANCESCA GINO: I love it to start the class by pointing out for people that there are three protagonists in the case. So the case is called Bill Riddick, but the three prominent people who stand out are: C.P. Ellis, Ann Atwater, and Bill himself. And I ask participants, or students, to tell me who they most relate to. And as I listen to their answers, I ask why. And it’s a really interesting and rich discussion. It’s actually not 100% of the people saying, “I relate the most to Bill.” Bill usually gets the majority of the votes. So around the 60, 65%, if I do an average across classes. But then there is a good chunk of people who say I relate the most to C.P. Ellis and also a good chunk of students who relate the most to Ann Atwater. And I use that cold call to drive home the idea that depending on our experiences and perspective, we get to see similarities in very different ways. And similarly at work, we may take sides because of our past and present. And often those sides become quite divisive, but they don’t have to be that way. And so it’s a great way, I think, to launch into the case discussion.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah, it really is. And people will, as we dive further into these three protagonists, they’ll understand why that is a really tough question to start off with. This could have been written by one of our faculty who’s a business historian, but it wasn’t. You chose to write this about an event that took place a long time ago. I’m wondering what prompted you to write it and how does it relate to some of the ideas that you research as a scholar?

FRANCESCA GINO: And a lot of the work that I’ve been doing in the last now few years is very much motivated by what is happening in the world and for all sorts of reasons, and I think the current pandemic made it worse, I feel we are a little bit on edge and in conversations with people who think differently or who look differently, our common reactions might be I get on the defensive because I want to show my point of view, or I avoid the conversation altogether. And so this was a case study of a beautiful, quite unlikely friendship. And I wanted to use it as a way to say, “If we approach interactions that might seem divisive or situations where we might believe there is a disagreement, with a little bit of curiosity we might end up with very surprising outcomes. And I’ve been doing research on curiosity and one of the things that I’ve found is that when we’re able to hold onto our curiosity, or when curiosity is triggered and fostered in us, we’re much more likely to have networks that are quite diverse. We are much more likely to show less bias and engage in conversations that we thought might be difficult and in fact, end up being quite enjoyable.

BRIAN KENNY: That’s great. So, Jeff, let’s bring you into the conversation here. Can you tell us: Who was Bill Riddick? What’s his background and what’s the challenge that he’s looking at as the case unfolds?

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: Yeah, he’s got a really fascinating background. Bill Riddick is African-American. He was born in North Carolina to a family of tenant farmers, and really didn’t have much as a young child. Eventually ended up in college as an agricultural engineering major. But his first job after college was trying to help other impoverished families get out of poverty and he noticed some unusual trends in behaviors in trying to help those families. And that prompted him to pursue a career in counseling, try to really help people build relationships and help build practices in their own lives that could help them. So, he came to this situation in Durham having a background in counseling and social work and had some experience leading these charrettes, but some of his other experiences were in trying to convince towns and governments not to build roads through neighborhoods and areas that would negatively impact African-American communities. So, trying to find urban planning solutions that were equitable and not going to have disproportionate negative impacts on certain groups.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah, and I think anybody who’s ever been involved in any kind of a town planning event or who has worked in local government knows how difficult and thorny these issues can become. You mentioned the charrette. I do want to talk about that now, because it’s so important to the case. What is that approach to problem-solving? Francesca, maybe you can talk about that.

FRANCESCA GINO: Yeah. What is interesting is that it’s a process that lasts 10 days in which you’re bringing together groups who think very differently about an issue and the person who is in Bill’s position serves a little bit as a moderator and tries to create conversations that likely wouldn’t happen otherwise, since we’re often unwilling to go to people who think very differently or we disagree with. And through this 10-day process, it allows for people to understand each other’s viewpoints better to try to come to a resolution. And so in the case of the charrette in 1971, the question that was being asked was about school integration. And so the two sides, and each side was led by on one side C.P. Ellis and on the other by Ann Atwater to decide whether or not they wanted to vote in favor of school integration. So, quite a hard issue to think through and I can’t think of two sides that are more divided on this issue and also quite different in their way of thinking.

BRIAN KENNY: So, tell us about C.P. Ellis and Ann Atwater, I think that’s one of the pivotal parts of the case.

FRANCESCA GINO: Yeah. It’s interesting that on one side you have a C.P. Ellis, who’s the local leader of the KKK movement. And on the other, you have Ann Atwater, who is an activist. And so again, when I think about a situation where our beliefs are not only entrenched but are opposite, I think this is a wonderful case for bringing out those differences.

BRIAN KENNY: So, you’ve got a white man who is the head of the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. And then you’ve got an African-American woman who lives in the community as well. Yeah, nothing could go wrong there, right? What could go wrong?

FRANCESCA GINO: Yeah. And Jeff and I often talk about who’s the hero here, and it’s an interesting question to ask because it’s interesting to think about how their thinking and approach to the issue of school integration changed throughout that 10 day process.

BRIAN KENNY: And the 10 days, by the way, I read the case and I thought to myself, “God, 10 days.” I think you’d have a hard time getting people to devote that much time to an issue these days. So, this relied really on people in the community to come together and devote that much time to it. And these two leaders, who I think came reluctantly to the table. The dynamic there must have been really remarkable. Jeff, any thoughts on that?

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: First of all, one thing I’d like to add is that it wasn’t just a strict, “Yes, no, should we integrate the school system?” Question that these people were dealing with. It was really about how to improve the school system overall. So integration was one part of it, but they were also looking at things like the curriculum of the school district, who the administrators of the school district were, how to discipline students that were acting out, how to solve hostility issues in schools that already were integrated, where there were a lot of fights between Black students and white students. So, it wasn’t just a yes or no question. They were really dealing with a range of issues that were quite complex. But it’s a remarkable story of coming together. I think that the African-American community in Durham really seemed to be pushing for a range of improvements. And C.P. Ellis stepped into almost a vacuum where a lot of white Durham residents weren’t as eager to get involved or to see radical changes, especially influential, powerful, more wealthy Durham residents. So C.P. Ellis stepped in to be a representative for the white community in Durham, it seems. But he learned that maybe that wasn’t exactly the community that he ought to be representing.

BRIAN KENNY: I’m just curious if you can lay out for us, Francesca, how did this go in the beginning? Was it smooth sailing?

FRANCESCA GINO: Absolutely not. There is actually a nice moment right at the start on the first night of this charrette where Bill Riddick posed the question to the audience in terms of what are some of the problems that exist in this town? And it’s almost as if people were ready for it. And at first there was this awkward silence, but then C.P. Ellis stood out and pretty much said that the problems existed because of African-American individuals living in a town. And at that point, Ann Atwater stood up, yelling herself, blaming the problem for people like, I think she said something like, “Stupid, crazy people like C.P. Ellis.” So, it wasn’t a good start. But I think what it brought out, which is interesting, is the reality of the type of conflicts, that even in situations that work, we end up being part of, that are primarily due to the fact that we have very entrenched beliefs. Some of the fascination that I had with this case study is that it goes to really, really extreme situations to prove that no matter how far apart we are in our beliefs, if we have that willingness to take a learning stance and we’re willing to help others see their common ground despite their differences, there is hope for a productive conversation and there is hope for change.

BRIAN KENNY: So, how does Bill maneuver through this? Obviously, the case describes him as being really frustrated at that at the beginning and almost walking away from it. But he decides to stick with it. What are some of the things that he does and are those things that people could apply today in the workplace?

FRANCESCA GINO: Absolutely. So, the first one, which I think is incredibly important, is that at the outset, since he is a person who grew up on a peanut farm and in a sense his family was mistreated by white individuals, you could imagine him relating to Atwater more easily. And he didn’t. Right up front, he did not show up with bias. He almost took this neutral stance. I think that that is truly important. He also created a lot of the opportunities for C.P. Ellis and Atwater to work together on very small tasks and he did that very intentionally so that they could feel a sense of cooperation despite their differences on very hard topics. He also created opportunities for them to see themselves as human beings. Again, they’re quite different in their beliefs, but they’re both parents. They care about their kids and so they have something in common and that process and his intentionality in that process allowed them to see just that.

BRIAN KENNY: Jeff, I would also ask you, is there something about the process of the charrette that helps this? As I was reading about the characteristics of the charrette, I thought of design thinking, which is a pretty common approach to problem solving that we use these days. Or hack-a-thons is another thing that you hear about. Do you think there was something inherent in the way that bill approached the process that helped them to work through their issues?

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: What Francesca mentioned in giving them little tasks along the way that led towards the completion of a larger task, certainly helped them along the way. Also, in terms of the charrette, I think such a big component of that process is coming up with a solution at the end. It’s like, “There’s going to be a deadline and you’re going to have to hand something in, even if you don’t think it’s perfect.” Combined with this idea that you’re going to have to present that solution. So I think that there’s something built into that process that pushes participants towards progress, if not success.

BRIAN KENNY: Francesca, there was one key moment in the case that stood out to me as a turning point in the relationship between C.P. Ellis and Ann Atwater. I’m thinking about the moment where, you had mentioned it before, they both realized that they had children and both of those children were facing what felt very much to both of them like discrimination. How does that help them to change the balance of their relationship with each other?

FRANCESCA GINO: What I love about that moment is that, to me, like for you, it’s a central moment where you get to see that despite these differences that we seem to have in our values, in our beliefs, we are both parents who truly care about our children. And so right there, you discover that you have something in common that is pretty important. From the perspective of Atwater, her daughter might’ve faced some discriminations from others because of the very fact that she was Black. And when it came to C.P. Ellis, one of his kids was disabled and so the discrimination that he received was due to that. And so all of a sudden the differences, they don’t disappear, but they don’t seem as important of light of the fact that we have something very deep in common. And to me, again, it’s a point that makes me think about a lot of our relationships at work, where it’s our differences that become the focus of attention, instead of figuring something that, no matter how small or obvious, we actually have in common. And focusing our attentions, at least a little bit, on that allows for us to have a very different conversation and a very different way of how to best interact with one another.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. And I would take it even further and say that it reminded me of the current climate in the country. A lot of the acrimony that exists between two groups that are deeply entrenched. If you dig deep enough, you find that probably we all have a lot of the same kinds of problems and we’re just coming at them from different life perspectives. So, it was eye-opening from that standpoint too. One of the things that I was going to ask about was, just in terms of the central figures in the case, can you describe as they were leading up to their final presentation, I guess you would call it, that last night where they had to reveal the solution that they had come up with? How did it go preparing for that and then how did it go delivering that message?

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: I think it was pretty disorganized in some ways leading up to that final discussion. I think that there was so much healing to be done and so many obstacles to overcome on a personal standpoint from the beginning of this process, that Ellis and Atwater had to overcome. But in some sense, they almost didn’t really get to the meat of this problem of how to improve the Durham schools. So, it was a day before the end of this process and Riddick had observed the changes in Ellis and Atwater in terms of how they were working with one another and treating one another and engaging with one another. But they hadn’t really solved all the problems. So, he essentially asked Atwater and Ellis if they wanted to prepare a statement for this final presentation. And they said, “No, we’ll just wing it.”

BRIAN KENNY: Always a good idea. But there’s a real surprise that plays out there. So, spoiler alert, I think you should share what Ellis did at that final presentation.

FRANCESCA GINO: C.P. Ellis ended up tearing up his membership card to the KKK movement and it’s just an incredible signal of what he was committed to do. And in addition to tearing up his card, he also voted for school integration. So, it’s a really remarkable moment that shows that getting to know each other at a different level made C.P. Ellis realize that, again, despite the fact that there were a lot of differences, there was a something in front of them that could lead to a big change for everyone involved. And by leaving some of those initial bad feelings that they had for each other to the side and focusing on the bigger questions in front of them, he was able to truly make a choice that ended up being quite meaningful. And the story continues even after that vote. The two of them actually became quite good friends to the point that when C.P. Ellis died, Ann Atwater was the one who had a speech about him. And so it’s an amazing story to me of a very unlikely friendship that happened in a context where I think we might least expect it.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. It sounds like it could be a screenplay for a movie.

FRANCESCA GINO: Now that you say it, there is a fantastic movie on this story that came out of a book called, The Best of Enemies. So, I think you have it right in terms of your intuition.

BRIAN KENNY: Oh, I had it right I’m just a little bit late to the party as usual. That’s good to know for our listeners anyway. Do you feel like this case reveals, not to try and take it to places where you didn’t intend to, but does it reveal something about the roots of racism that we can learn?

FRANCESCA GINO: To me, it points to potential missed opportunities that we all have in all of our interactions. When I work with organizations, with leaders of all types, with employees of all types, or even when I think about a story in my own personal life and professional life for that matter, often I see that in the face of difference, in the face of potential disagreement, in the face of potential conflict, the road that we choose is one of, “Let’s avoid that interaction. Let’s avoid the conflict. Let’s avoid the disagreement.” To me, this story is a great story of hope. When we in fact react differently, when we show up with empathy and curiosity, we can create a connection that is truly meaningful and changes the way we look at each other. Empathy means being willing to listen. Curiosity means asking a lot of questions where you get to learn more of the other person, you understand how is it that they have the beliefs that they have, what experiences in their past that shaped those beliefs. And so you’re able to create productive conversations across difference in a way that I think will really benefit us all and probably lead to a world where we see fewer issues of race and fewer issues of gender and bias more generally.

BRIAN KENNY: So, I think that’s a really interesting way to think about that issue. And as I thought about the three protagonists, I’m just curious as to what your thoughts are about who went through the most transformation as a result of this process.

BRIAN KENNY: Jeff, do you want to take a stab at that?

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: Yeah. I think all three protagonists, if you will, of this case underwent remarkable transformation. I think that Ellis’s is especially interesting. Not because it was greater, but in the sense that he in his thinking almost shifted blame for a lot of the problems facing not just the white community, but Durham as a whole, from the African-American community to the wealthy, affluent elite management class of Durham. The same folks who declined to really participate in the S.O.S charrette from the beginning. So, I think both in terms of the roots of racism and transformation, I think blame does play a pretty significant role here.

BRIAN KENNY: I’m going to ask you both to respond to this last question and I’ll start with you, Jeff. If there’s one thing that you want people to remember about the case, what would that be?

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: I think there’s a moment early on in the case that describes Bill Riddick’s background. In his first job after college, he is working with poor farmers and poor residents of North Carolina who have received some aid from the government. And they had not really fully utilized that aid or capitalized on the assistance that they were being given. And rather than write them off as ungrateful or resort to a simplistic explanation for this behavior, he devoted the rest of his life and his career to essentially understanding them. So, I think it really speaks to this curiosity that Francesca has talked about so much. To really understand where someone’s coming from and what their situations are and acknowledge that they aren’t necessarily the most simple or obvious or straightforward. So, I think that’s something that makes Bill Riddick unbelievably admirable.

BRIAN KENNY: Francesca?

FRANCESCA GINO: I am in agreement with Jeff and I’ll add another one that brings me back to what I’ve seen in a lot of organizations. There are Ann Atwaters and C.P. Ellises in most organizations and their differences often appear like obstacles that can’t be overcome until a person like Bill Riddick helps bridge across the divide. And so I think so many opportunities for all of us to leverage our experiences, to leverage our knowledge, to leverage our curiosity and empathy, to courageously be the person who, like Bill Riddick, intervened in a situation where others were not able to speak the same language or to look at the world and understand their different perspectives.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. It’s a great case. It’s an important topic. And it’s one of those cases that reads almost like a novel. So, I really enjoyed it. Thank you for writing it and thanks for coming on the show to talk about it.

FRANCESCA GINO: Thank you so much, Brian, for having us.

JEFFREY HUIZINGA: Thank you.

BRIAN KENNY: If you enjoy Cold Call, you might like other podcasts on the HBR Presents Network. Whether you’re looking for advice on navigating your career, you want the latest thinking in business and management, or you just want to hear what’s on the minds of Harvard Business School professors, the HBR Presents Network has a podcast for you. Find them on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen. I’m your host, Brian Kenny, and you’ve been listening to Cold Call, an official podcast of Harvard Business School on the HBR Presents Network.