Introduction on how to call out people

When it comes to different opinions and any discussions or conflicts relating to them, it is important to be aware of the paradox of tolerance(see image). Intolerant behaviour like hate speech, sexism, racism, etc., needs to be addressed. Knowing how to call out people in a group presenting these topics is often difficult. Different actions need different counteractions, and all have positive and negative impacts. Not addressing intolerant behaviour could lead to individuals feeling excluded, threatened or hurt by bigoted behaviour while others don't know how to handle it.

As an individual wanting to create change in a team culture, it is often difficult to stand up and talk about this. The important thing is (especially for coaches and leaders in an organisation): NOT addressing problematic behaviour creates a standard that will lead to even more of the same behaviour and likely lead to an escalation in the frequency of those behaviours (see the pyramid of violence). Confronting others about their missteps is not about humiliation, shaming, or angry altercations. And there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

As an individual wanting to create change in a team culture it is often difficult to step up “against all your friends or the group” and talk about this. The important thing is (especially for coaches and leaders in an organisation): NOT addressing such behaviour creates a standard that will lead to even more harm (see The pyramid of violence). Confronting other men about their missteps is not about humiliation, shaming, or angry altercations. And there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Taking a stance against intolerant/toxic behaviour (Allyship) is hard work. Creating lasting and meaningful change takes considerable thought and an empathetic approach. Excellent allies have the courage to get comfortable doing the uncomfortable position of disrupting the status quo.

What to do

There are three things you should do when you witness intolerant/toxic behaviour or Microaggressions:

As a target

Take care of yourself and share your experience with others. You can confront the aggressor, but you are not responsible for it. Confrontations can be nerve-wracking; scheduling a time for the discussion gives you time to think about what you want to say. If you fear the consequences of confronting someone (someone with "power", for example), be sure to have witnesses for the conversation. You are never alone; reaching out to others in personal discussions will give you the support you need to create change.

Be sure to criticise the topic and not the person. This is often a challenging task. This idea comes from "Nonviolent communications” where you are focused on explaining how the situation/the aggression/the communication made you feel instead of accusing someone of being racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

As a bystander

Be an ally but speak for yourself. Speaking on behalf of others can be dehumanising and might be a microaggression on its own. When witnessing toxic behaviour, there is often a short silent period (or filled with insecure laughter). Initial reactions should be followed up with a comment like: "That wasn't funny" or "We don't do that here".

Similar to speaking only for yourself, it should be you who states why you are offended. Instead of referring to others around you, clarify why it is against your values. Confronting others about their missteps is not about humiliation, shaming, or angry altercations. And there is no one size-fits-all approach.

As the aggressor

You may find yourself in the role of the aggressor and don't know how you got there. It might be simple: "You don't know what you don't know". Creating a microaggression doesn't necessarily mean that you are a bad person.

What should your reaction be when you are being called out?

Acknowledge your feelings (for example, the fear of being seen as sexist) and try not to be defensive about it. Please take it as an opportunity to learn. Realise the feelings of the other person confronting you, acknowledge them, apologise and increase your understanding of the topic.

An answer like: "It was just a joke" is always the wrong reaction and undermines the importance of your counterpart's feelings.

Here's advice on how to confront microaggressions, whether you're a target, bystander or perpetrator

Approaches

Here are some possible approaches to how to address one person and what to consider:

In front of the group

Example 1: In mixed practice, a man undermines women's athletic capabilities in front of the group.

Such a situation needs a direct confrontation. It would be best if the coaches immediately confront the aggressor by making it clear that such an opinion is not tolerated within the team. The situation could lead to a broader discussion with the whole team. The goal would be to make an internal statement on how to address such misbehaviour and take a combined stance against it. It would also be recommended to continue one-on-one conversations to address it with the whole group and what it stands for and to present alternative opinions and a platform for education for the person.

Example 2: You are watching a women's game with your open team, and one of your teammates comments: "She is really good, for a girl!" The initial reaction could reflect a showing of disgust like: "Do you really mean that?" addressing such sexist behaviour in front of the group should enable a broader conversation about the views and values of the team. Be aware that this direct confrontation is a small step, and instead of creating an unprepared discussion about it, it is better to ask if you could talk to them later about it. For this talk, you have additional time to prepare something and reflect with others about it.

Pros of approaching someone in front of the group:

You make a public statement and show the group that this is important for you and the team
As a result of the leadership approach and the transparent representation of the team's values, others may be encouraged to speak out too.

Cons of approaching someone in front of the group:

The direct confrontation will most likely lead to an unwillingness to listen and defensive behaviour

One-on-one

Example: You overhear a sexist comment from someone from your team; it is not addressed to the group but in private communication with another teammate. After the practice, you try to catch him alone and ask if you could talk about something. Initially, expressing how you felt in the situation should create an understanding of why such behaviour is not tolerated. See the different perspectives (as a target, as a bystander, as the aggressor) for additional ideas.

Pros of having a one-on-one conversation:

The personal conversation makes it a lot easier to reflect and to have a smooth conversation
Resolving a conflict brings the two parties closer together, so with this approach and resolution, you are also able to deepen the connection to the teammate

Cons of having a one-on-one conversation:

You might also want to talk to the other person they were talking to (trying to speak with them together can be tricky because it already creates a sort of group feeling where one might feel the need to "keep a reputation"). You might also want to talk to the other person they were talking to (trying to speak with them together can be tricky because it already creates a sort of group feeling where one might feel the need to "keep a reputation")

Planned discussion for the team

If you want to create change for a whole team, create the space for extra meetings, social activities after practice and team-building weekends where everyone is allowed and encouraged to share their thoughts on all of that.

Take a look at this article for more information: Planning a Team discussion

Relevant Links

publishintroduction