The IHP Interview: Steve Ciesielski on DEI and White Privilege

Steve Ciesielski, PsyD, MA, has been with the MGH Institute School of Nursing since 2013, first as the inaugural academic support counselor and now as the assistant dean for student success in the School of Nursing, a role he has held since 2020. That same year, he enrolled in a Doctor of Leadership Psychology program where his research looked at diversity, equity, inclusion, and white privilege. He spoke with OSC’s Lisa McEvoy for this month’s IHP Interview.

How did your research on DEI and white privilege come about?

I began my journey into organizational psychology in 2020 when I enrolled in the Leadership Psychology Program at William James College. For years, I observed significant racial disparities among the students in the School of Nursing. Many of the students seeking my support were disproportionately BIPOC, which prompted me to ask, ‘What is happening here?’ and ‘Why is this occurring?’ I wanted to delve deeper into the underlying issues.

While I was enrolled in the program, I attended a virtual JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) event. During a breakout session, one of the attendees, a Black faculty member, shared an incredibly honest and vulnerable account of her experience as a Black woman in academia. She described the challenges she faced with raw transparency. When she finished speaking, there was silence.

She then asked, “Did anyone hear me?”

As this was on Zoom, I unmuted myself and said, “I heard you. I don’t know what to say.”

This moment stuck with me. I consider myself a progressive ally who is deeply committed to DEI principles, but I felt paralyzed. I wondered: Why didn’t I know what to say? Reflecting on this, I realized that if it had been just the two of us, I would have responded immediately. However, in a group setting, I became overly concerned with how I might come across — whether my words might placate, undermine, or fall short. This hesitation did nothing to foster connection or build trust. It highlighted the barriers — both internal and systemic — that can prevent meaningful engagement in DEI conversations.

This experience led me to investigate the dynamics and systems that inhibit these conversations, particularly for White people like me.

What did your research focus on?

I decided to explore two key dynamics: how systems operate and influence DEI engagement and how White people manage their privilege in the context of DEI.

My analysis on systems drew on the work of Peter Senge, particularly his book, The Fifth Discipline, which explores how systems operate and how effective communication and decision-making are crucial in organizations. A team of psychologists built on Senge’s framework to create a validated survey measuring characteristics of learning organizations. I used this survey to assess how effective participants learned and applied DEI lessons in their organizations. 

My study of how White people manage privilege included use of another validated tool that examines different strategies individuals use to navigate privilege. According to this work, people within the majority have five different management strategies; some deny it exists, some defend privilege, some will state they themselves do not have privilege, others do not believe they belong to a race (deny White is a race), and others engage with it constructively. 

I combined these surveys and asked three additional questions seeking information about the individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to DEI, and distributed them through my networks.

What did you discover?

Quantitative results suggest the importance of a psychologically safe environment. These spaces increase the likelihood that people will engage in dismantling behavior, which includes working to reduce inequality by supporting actions and policies aimed to level the playing field. Additionally, I found leaders who reinforced the importance of DEI lead to more people actively engaging in dismantling behaviors.

The qualitative results show five psychological themes arise when people are asked about their engagement with DEI in their organization. One theme was participants struggled to express thoughts and identify emotions. When asked about feelings, many respondents answered with thoughts. Likewise, when asked about behaviors, they also provided answers that were thoughts. I was expecting people to share their emotional reactions like this makes me angry, or mad. That did not happen. This dissociation showed people were avoiding the emotional experience. 

A second theme, related to displacement, was that people shifted emphasis away from themselves and centered their responses onto their organizations. Questions directly asked the respondent to ‘tell me your thoughts, tell me your actions.’ Several people centered the focus of their answer on their organization: ‘The organization doesn't know what it's doing. The organization is doing this for purposes of public relations…’ The organization became a scapegoat for their discomfort. Like the first theme, people took responsibility away from themselves. In the first theme it was an internal displacement, in the second it was an external displacement. 

The third theme was that people equated DEI exclusively with race. There wasn't a whole lot of talk about other forms of diversity and felt that more attention be given to ethnic, sexuality, sexual identity, to name just a few. A fourth theme is that participants felt that DEI initiatives are unfair to White people. Participants elaborated and said they have witnessed qualified White people be overlooked for jobs and promotions in favor of “diversity hires.” 

The fifth theme was that some are empowered and taking meaningful action. They shared how they apply DEI values into their work and personal interactions. People shared that they talking to people about race and other DEI issues. Several stated they infused topics, including microaggressions and biases, into their own world, both professional and personal. 

What feedback did you receive on your findings?

During my dissertation, the panel discussed the findings and each of them saw many ways engagement is prevented. It elicited rich conversation about who was responsible for this and how easily it can be denied when we don’t want to face emotion. Often when confronted with DEI issues, people point to “the system” and blame outside forces and structures. That’s the beauty of Senge’s thinking, it states that we are all responsible for the system. The complicating variable is that White privilege allows White people to recognize that this is uncomfortable, decide they don’t want to engage, and walk away from the topic and conversation.

During the IHP research day, I spoke to several members of the IHP community during my poster session. Many of the discussions I had addressed the fears that White people have when engaging in DEI conversations, including fear of saying the wrong thing, fear as being seen as a racist, and fear of hurting others.

What’s next for you on this topic?

I really want to understand the emotions involved. To put myself back in that moment in the Zoom room. What was I feeling? I was fearful and fear is what stopped me. What are the other emotions involved and how do we address that? How do we talk about all those things?

Marshall Ganz, a professor in leadership and in social change, identified five emotions that inhibit purposeful action. I am curious how organizations can address these emotions directly as they relate to DEI engagement. If one can address the emotion, then we are more likely to move beyond it to action.

At IHP, I am working with Callie [Watkins Liu] in the JEDI office to investigate how White people can be more active in these discussions. One initiative we identified is the creation of white affinity spaces. These groups provide White allies a place to talk about race and privilege and work towards being more actively anti-racist.