Someone recently asked me a question in response to my essay, Dignity Is Not the Same as Civility: What advice would I give someone trying to fix an environment where dignity is lacking? I appreciated the question because it moves us from a distinction that is relatively easy to affirm toward work that is considerably harder to undertake. Once we recognize that an organization can be courteous and still diminish people, what are we actually supposed to do about it?
I think the answer depends, in part, on where we stand in the environment. A leader who controls decisions, expectations, and accountability has responsibilities that an employee without that authority does not. And if the person asking is already being harmed by the environment, my advice needs to begin with care for that person, not another assignment to improve the culture. We can all contribute to the interactions around us, but we cannot assume that everyone has equal power—or faces equal risk—when trying to change them.
Look for the Patterns People Have Learned
Through my work on Leadership Communication Ecology (LCE), I pay particular attention to what repeated interactions teach people to expect. What happens when someone disagrees, makes a mistake, challenges a decision, or raises a concern? Is their contribution considered? Are they met with curiosity or defensiveness? Does speaking lead to thoughtful follow-through, or does the person quietly pay a price for having spoken?
These questions help us see more than an isolated unpleasant interaction. A leader may politely thank an employee for raising a concern and then never return to it. A team may appear harmonious because people have learned that disagreement changes nothing. Over time, experiences like these become expectations about whose knowledge matters, what is safe to say, and whether participation is worth the cost.
I would begin repair by listening for those patterns and taking them seriously, including when what people describe does not match the environment we believe we have created. Intentions matter, but they are not a substitute for understanding what others have experienced. We also need to notice whether our invitation to speak is credible. If previous concerns have been dismissed or punished, asking people to be candid again without changing how we respond may simply ask them to take another risk.
For Leaders: Make Repair Concrete and Visible
If I were advising a leader, I would encourage them to identify specific behaviors and practices rather than begin with another broad statement about values. Where are employees being interrupted, ignored, embarrassed, excluded from decisions that affect their work, or held to inconsistent standards? Are we rewarding results while overlooking how those results are achieved? The answers tell us where leadership action is needed.
Then I would ask what a different response would look like in practice. When an employee raises a concern, a leader can explain how it will be considered, identify what can realistically change, and return with a clear answer. When feedback has been delivered in a humiliating way, a leader can address the behavior and establish a better expectation for accountability. When a process consistently excludes people who possess important knowledge, the process can be changed to make that knowledge consequential. None of this requires agreeing with every concern or granting every request. It requires demonstrating that another person’s dignity has consequences for what happens next.
Making change visible is essential, particularly when trust has been damaged. Leaders can acknowledge what they have heard, explain the steps they are taking, name the standards they will uphold, and invite people to evaluate whether things are actually different. Confidential matters may limit what can be shared, but confidentiality should not become an excuse for silence about the organization’s broader commitments and practices. An apology may matter, and a new policy may be necessary, but people will look to what happens in the next meeting, the next difficult conversation, and the next consequential decision.
We also have to remember that dignity does not mean avoiding accountability. We can address poor performance, say no, enforce boundaries, and make difficult decisions without diminishing someone’s worth. In fact, tolerating harmful behavior for the sake of a pleasant atmosphere may protect the appearance of civility while leaving others to bear the consequences.
For Employees: Consider Your Influence Without Taking On the Whole Burden
If you are trying to navigate an environment where dignity is lacking, I would offer different advice. Start by paying attention to what is happening and how it is affecting you. If you are unsure whether an incident reflects a larger pattern, consider keeping a factual record of specific interactions and seeking perspective from someone you trust. You do not have to know another person’s intentions with certainty before recognizing the effect of their behavior or deciding that you need support.
Where it is safe and realistic, you may be able to address a particular interaction, set a boundary, find trusted allies, or raise a concern through an appropriate organizational channel. It can help to name the behavior and its consequences rather than make assumptions about motive: what happened, how it affected your ability to contribute, and what would need to change. If an organization has credible, confidential resources, they may help you understand your options before deciding whether or how to act.
But I want to be careful here. Advice to “speak up” can sound empowering when we overlook the risks carried by the person who must do the speaking. An employee whose opportunities, evaluations, or employment depend on the person causing harm may face very different consequences than a senior leader who raises the same concern. If you have seen concerns dismissed or experienced retaliation, your caution may be informed by the environment itself. I would not ask you to keep making yourself vulnerable simply to demonstrate courage or commitment to the organization.
If the environment is affecting your well-being and leaders are unwilling to see or address the problem, the immediate priority may need to shift from changing the culture to protecting yourself. That might involve documenting experiences, seeking confidential guidance, using available protections or reporting channels, setting boundaries where possible, or exploring whether remaining is sustainable. Leaving is not a simple or universally available option, and no one should suggest it casually. The point is that you deserve to consider your safety, livelihood, and health alongside whatever hope you have for the organization.
Responsibility for Repair Should Follow Power
The distinction from my earlier essay remains important: dignity is inherent. An organization cannot give it to people, and another person’s failure to recognize it does not erase it. What we can repair are the conditions in which people’s dignity has been disregarded: the responses, decisions, and practices that have taught them their voices are inconsequential or their worth is conditional.
This work is possible only when we are clear about responsibility. Employees can help create healthier interactions within their sphere of influence, and those contributions matter. Leaders, however, control many of the conditions others must live within. They have a greater obligation to address harmful patterns, establish accountability, and make change credible through consistent action. We should not confuse an employee’s willingness to advocate for dignity with an obligation to repair an environment they do not control.
When I return to the original question, I find myself thinking less about a single intervention and more about the evidence people encounter over time. Is a concern treated differently now? Can someone disagree without being diminished? Does accountability preserve a person’s humanity? The answers are found in repeated experience. Repair begins when our next responses give people reason to expect something different—and continues only as we make that difference real.
Read the first essay: Dignity Is Not the Same as Civility