Raven Sinclair (2004) locates the social worker at the heart of the colonial project, carrying out violent and assimilative government policy in Canada (p.50). Social work's connections to colonialism have been consciously and some would say “innocently” mutually dependent (Rossiter, 2001; Heron, 2007). Social work responses over time have been criticized for being non-performative (Ahmed, 2004), upholding institutional power (Bunjun, 2014) and ignoring ongoing colonialism (Lawrence & Dua, 2005). This study explores how self-identified white social work managers and directors reflect on and understand their roles in relation to reconciliation policy. It looks at the way discourse interrupts or maintains ruling relations including white supremacy and other colonial continuities (Heron, 2007). “In order to avoid further complicity, in assimilative and colonial practices, non-indigenous helpers must develop a clear understanding of their privilege and of their professions’ complicity in past and present colonial practices embedded in their practice”(Baskin, 2016). Through qualitative interviewing the study used critical whiteness studies and critical discourse analysis with the concept of relational validity in mind (Tuck & Yang, 2018). “What is valid in research is that which resonates with people’s lives and informs their power to make change” (Tuck & Yang, 2018, p.xiii). The findings suggest that participants orientation to reconciliation in the workplace, is controlled and continually reinforced through state discourses (neoliberal, neocolonial, reconciliation). Interestingly, the findings also suggest that participants may be de-contextualizing AOP discourses to neutralize and depoliticize their professional roles in the colonial project, as well as to rationalize their reluctance to take action. This suggests current approaches are not adequate to address colonial continuities in an era of reconciliation. / Thesis / Master of Social Work (MSW)