Taking it Personally: Why workplace racism is difficult to discuss

Racism in the UK has become more visible and, in some contexts, more openly expressed, including within public institutions such as the NHS. While overt incidents attract attention, racism is more commonly experienced through embedded organisational patterns - inequalities in recruitment, progression, discipline, speaking up, and everyday interactions. These are not random occurrences but reflect systemic dynamics that shape whose voices are heard, trusted, and valued.

Growing number of staff concerned about racism

We have had thousands of individual conversations with staff in a range of organisations, especially the NHS, and been involved in numerous investigations, culture reviews and dedicated courses which we have run.

With our extensive experience in researching and trying to improve workplace culture, particularly in the NHS, we have both seen a growing number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) staff raising concerns about their experiences of racism, including, in some cases, physical attacks. The impact of these experiences is profound. They affect people’s mental and physical health, their careers, their sense of safety, and their ability to work effectively. Yet what is often just as troubling as the racism itself is the response it provokes when it is challenged.

When racism is named, individuals and organisations frequently interpret it as a personal accusation rather than a critique of broader systems. This reaction can be as harmful as the original incident because it shuts down dialogue and shifts attention away from the underlying issues.

Although all discrimination is damaging, racism remains particularly difficult to discuss. Many people lack the language, confidence, or conceptual tools to engage constructively, leading to avoidance or denial. Instead of curiosity or accountability, conversations often trigger emotional reactions that recentre the feelings of those being challenged rather than those experiencing harm.

The dynamics behind the issue

Several interconnected dynamics help explain why defensiveness arises so consistently.

First, many people have an emotional attachment to the status quo. Existing social arrangements feel familiar and legitimate, so challenges to them can feel destabilising. Resistance is often framed as “common sense,” neutrality, or a defence of meritocracy, which means a society governed by people on merit, rather than as protection of existing racial hierarchies.

Second, anti-racism can be perceived as involving loss—of privilege, influence, comfort, or belonging. This fear is rarely acknowledged directly but appears in concerns about fairness, division, or “reverse racism.” In this sense, resistance often functions as a protective response rather than an explicitly hostile one.

Third, defensive emotional reactions—often described as white fragility—play a significant role. Feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety can lead to denial, withdrawal, or attempts to change the subject. The emotional burden of the conversation then shifts onto those raising concerns, who must manage not only the original harm but also others’ reactions.

Fourth, many people are deeply invested in seeing themselves as good and non-racist. Because of this, critique is experienced as a moral threat rather than an opportunity to learn. Organisations reinforce this dynamic when they prioritise appearing well-intentioned over pursuing substantive change, celebrating symbolic progress while deeper inequities, meaning a lack of justice or fairness, remain.

Fifth, dominant workplace norms—such as perfectionism, urgency, individualism, and defensiveness—reflect aspects of white supremacy culture. These norms discourage reflection, collective accountability, and openness to discomfort, making transformative work more difficult even among those who support equity, meaning the quality of being fair and just, in principle.

Sixth, there is a widespread avoidance of discomfort and conflict. Many people prefer harmony and emotional safety, which can lead to silence or minimisation. Harm is not caused through overt hostility but through inaction.

Seventh, cognitive dissonance, which means the mental discomfort experienced when holding two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or behaviours at the same time, leads individuals to reinterpret or dismiss evidence of racism to preserve their worldview. Structural issues are reframed as isolated incidents, allowing people to maintain a belief in fairness while avoiding deeper examination.

Eighth, responsibility is often delegated to those most affected. Marginalised staff are expected to educate others, provide proof, or demonstrate resilience, while those with greater power remain passive. This dynamic maintains existing inequalities while appearing supportive.

Ninth, strong beliefs in meritocracy and colour-blindness make systemic racism difficult to recognise. By claiming not to “see race,” individuals can avoid engaging with power and inequality while maintaining a sense of moral neutrality.

Finally, social reinforcement sustains resistance. Workplace cultures and peer networks often reward conformity and scepticism toward anti-racism, making it feel risky to challenge prevailing norms.

How to address racism

These individual dynamics mirror broader institutional responses. Organisations frequently rely on superficial interventions - action plans without clear theory of change, one-off training sessions, or mandatory e-learning - that create the appearance of progress without addressing root causes. Such approaches risk becoming performative, lacking meaning, substituting activity for impact.

This avoidance is particularly concerning in healthcare, where a large proportion of both staff and patients come from minority backgrounds. Failure to engage meaningfully with racism undermines staff wellbeing, weakens teamwork, and ultimately affects quality of care.

Addressing racism therefore requires moving beyond defensiveness and symbolic gestures. It calls for sustained reflection, deeper understanding of systemic dynamics, and a willingness—especially among those with greater structural power - to listen without personalising critique. Only through this shift can organisations create environments where equity, fairness and justice, is embedded in everyday practice rather than treated as an optional or reputational concern.

Diversity at Middlesex University video