0:00

Ted Audio Collective. You're

0:02

ready to roll, Francis?

0:04

Oh, baby. I was born ready.

0:07

Hello, everyone. You

0:09

ready to roll, back to Oh,

0:11

baby. from I was born

0:13

ready. Collective. I'm your everyone. Welcome

0:16

back to Fixable builder Collective. I'm

0:18

your host, And I'm I'm a company

0:20

builder and leadership coach. And I'm

0:22

your co -host, Frances Fry. I'm a

0:24

Harvard Business School professor, and I'm

0:26

Anne's wife. wife. Frances, on today's

0:28

show, we wanna talk about diversity, equity,

0:31

and inclusion. Let Let me start

0:33

by setting the scene here. We've

0:35

seen a lot of breathless headlines

0:37

about companies. rolling back their

0:39

DEI initiatives. The latest is

0:42

latest I do want to say. I do want to

0:44

say up I don't think these

0:46

headlines are telling the whole story.

0:48

whole story. Yes, companies are

0:50

evaluating their DEI strategies in

0:52

a new political climate. climate, but but

0:54

also with the benefit of additional experience. and

0:57

data under their their belts on the

1:00

effectiveness of their strategies. And

1:02

And that's how change works. You adjust

1:04

as you go go based on what

1:06

you've learned. And nobody say say it

1:08

was working optimally. And so so use

1:11

this opportunity, even if we wouldn't have

1:13

picked the way it came about,

1:15

let's use this opportunity to fix it,

1:17

to make it better, to improve

1:19

it. And as you have taught me,

1:21

let's never waste a crisis. never waste a

1:23

crisis. and I have

1:25

written about DEI many times.

1:27

We've seen organizations make make important

1:29

progress, we've seen them stumble along

1:31

the way. along the way. And I

1:33

think this is a perfect moment, both

1:36

for us, I think for our

1:38

listeners, for the for of the world

1:40

to bring someone in who's a real

1:42

expert on this. I think we're

1:44

also modeling what we would invite leaders

1:46

to do in every organization, which

1:49

is. You probably have good

1:51

instincts about this. We have great

1:53

instincts about this. We even have

1:55

some experience. some experience. And

1:57

even we to rely on

1:59

the people. that do it 24-7 for

2:01

decades. Yes. And that's what we're

2:04

going to do. And I encourage

2:06

everyone to please lean on, pay

2:08

them, lean on the experts in

2:11

this moment. Beautiful. So Francis, today

2:13

we're talking to Dr. Stephanie Creary

2:15

at the Wharton School of Business.

2:17

She's an organizational behavior scientist who

2:20

has been studying DEAI and what

2:22

gets in the way of the

2:24

goals of diversity equity inclusion for

2:27

a long time, way before it

2:29

captured the zeitgeist in 2020. And

2:31

she's a fixer at heart, and

2:33

so I'm really looking forward to

2:36

this conversation. Our conversation today with

2:38

Stephanie is going to focus on

2:40

how DEA strategies have evolved over

2:43

the years, why everyone wins when

2:45

organizations get this right, and some

2:47

practical ways we can go about

2:50

making workplaces more inclusive. It just

2:52

feels like the most beautiful way

2:54

to spend an afternoon. 100% Does

3:06

your AI model really know

3:08

code? Its specific syntax, its

3:10

structure, financial geniuses, monetary magicians?

3:12

These are the things people

3:14

say about drivers who switch

3:16

their car insurance to progressive

3:18

and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com

3:20

to see if you could

3:22

save. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

3:24

and affiliates' potential savings will

3:26

vary not available in all

3:28

states or situations. Does your

3:30

AI model really know code?

3:32

Its specific syntax, its structure,

3:34

its logic? IBM's granite code

3:36

models do. They're purpose-built for

3:38

code and trained on 116

3:40

different programming languages to help

3:42

you generate, translate, and explain

3:44

code quickly. Because the more

3:46

your AI model knows about

3:48

code, the more it can

3:50

help you do. Get started

3:52

now at ibm.com/granite. IBM. Let's

3:54

create. Dr. Stephanie Creary, welcome

3:56

to Fixible. you. Thank you.

3:58

It's great to be here.

4:00

We could not be happier

4:02

to have you on, especially

4:04

today. There is a lot

4:06

to talk about. We are

4:08

recording this the week after

4:10

America just voted in a

4:12

device of election where DEA

4:14

was a flashpoint. Before we

4:16

jump into the deep end

4:18

on this conversation, we'd love

4:20

to give our audience a

4:22

chance to get to know

4:24

you a little bit better.

4:26

We know you. We love

4:28

you. But let's start with

4:30

how do you describe your

4:32

expertise and the focus of

4:34

your work? Yeah, so my

4:36

research is focused on solutions

4:38

to workplace problems. Now, the

4:40

specific types of problems that

4:42

I'm interested in are those

4:44

related to diversity, equity, and

4:46

inclusion in the workplace. And

4:48

I have been studying these

4:50

types of problems for almost

4:52

20 years. I would say

4:54

you have a fixable mindset.

4:56

Absolutely. Absolutely. For sure,

4:59

I think that's why we

5:01

have been so drawn to

5:03

your work from the beginning,

5:05

is that orientation towards progress.

5:07

I'd love to try to

5:09

establish what good looks like,

5:11

so what meaningful inclusion feels

5:13

like, and then if I'm

5:15

listening to this and want

5:17

to know if I'm on

5:19

the right track, so define

5:21

the goal here. So I'm

5:23

going to talk about averages

5:25

because, you know, life isn't

5:27

amazing every day for any

5:29

of us, but you can

5:31

still be... doing pretty well,

5:33

right? So on average, I

5:35

come to work and I

5:37

feel respected. I feel like

5:39

people want me to contribute

5:41

and when I contribute, they

5:43

at least entertain what I'm

5:46

saying, even if they decide

5:48

that it's not the right

5:50

opportunity to consider my ideas.

5:52

So that's respected. I feel

5:54

like the parts of me

5:56

that I'm willing to bring

5:58

to the workplace. are accepted

6:00

and then I feel like

6:02

I'm thriving and thriving is

6:04

very different from surviving. I'm

6:06

getting a paycheck and you

6:08

know we still have a

6:10

roof over our head or

6:12

I come to this job

6:14

and it's not horrible every

6:16

day. Thriving is I feel

6:18

like I'm growing and developing

6:20

and I'm gaining something fundamentally

6:22

by being part of this

6:24

organization. So respect, belonging and

6:26

thriving is what's happening on

6:28

average for people including people

6:30

who are underrepresented. I love

6:32

it and I love that

6:35

last point. The objective is

6:37

that just for the record,

6:39

right, everyone has a fair

6:41

chance at feeling all of

6:43

these things. Absolutely. This is

6:45

not about advancing one group

6:47

ahead of the other. The

6:49

goal is that everyone has

6:51

a fair shot at thriving.

6:53

So one of the things

6:55

we love so much about

6:57

your work as we've talked

6:59

about is you really bridge

7:01

these complex ideas and objectives

7:03

into actions that we can

7:05

all take. So let's get

7:07

into some of your tools

7:09

and frameworks. for doing this.

7:11

So talk to us about

7:13

your leap framework and how

7:15

it can help leaders create

7:17

the types of workplaces that

7:19

you just so beautifully described.

7:21

Yeah, so leap stands for

7:23

looking, listening, learning, engaging, asking

7:26

questions and providing support. The

7:28

ideal is that you are,

7:30

as a human being, as

7:32

an individual contributor, or a

7:34

leader in your organization, you're

7:36

looking, listening, and learning for

7:38

opportunities. to connect with someone

7:40

who might be having a

7:42

different experience than you're having

7:44

in the organization. I think

7:46

we all need someone who

7:48

provides encouragement, advice, right, a

7:50

shoulder, to lean on empathy,

7:52

right? So things like psychosocial

7:54

support, which is what we

7:56

call those, or more tangible

7:58

forms of support, like opportunities,

8:00

or something like advocacy, or

8:02

protection. speaking up when someone

8:04

feels like they're being treated

8:06

unfairly, or they're being, you

8:08

know, criticized in some way

8:10

that is not accurate. On

8:12

your podcast Leading Diversity at

8:15

Work, you describe something called

8:17

Covering, which happens when employees

8:19

feel like they can't be

8:21

their authentic self at work

8:23

or an authentic version of

8:25

themselves at work. What's

8:27

the cost to organizations of this

8:29

dynamic? And if I'm a leader,

8:32

why should I care that my

8:34

employees aren't showing up authentically if

8:36

they seem to be getting their

8:38

work done? So covering is a

8:40

term that's attributed to Kenji Yishino

8:43

professor at NYU law and I

8:45

love this term and organizations love

8:47

it too because it's you can

8:49

see it right? For Kenji Yishino

8:52

he talks about covering as people

8:54

concealing or not disclosing parts of

8:56

themselves in the workplace. But what

8:58

we know to be true is

9:00

the reason why people do is

9:03

because it doesn't feel safe to

9:05

show up as the thing that

9:07

person who they really feel they

9:09

are. for a variety of reasons,

9:12

it feels like it could potentially

9:14

be penalizing. And so clearly we

9:16

understand what the potential consequences are

9:18

for individuals, right? Lack of well-being.

9:20

There are probably many will quit

9:23

that job because they don't feel

9:25

safe there. So there are lots

9:27

of costs to individuals, but there

9:29

are also costs to organizations when

9:32

people cover. And we're just starting

9:34

to understand those better, but for

9:36

example. Let's just say we actually

9:38

take that for granted and believe

9:40

the research. And for the record,

9:43

the research is quite persuasive on

9:45

that point. Yeah, we believe it

9:47

because we believe in good science,

9:49

right? If we believe that, then

9:51

we don't just assume that through

9:54

osmosis or just because we're all

9:56

in a room together that we're

9:58

going to understand people. and

10:01

perspectives, people actually need to

10:03

share that information in some

10:05

way, shape, or form, verbally,

10:07

and writing, etc. If we

10:09

have people on a team

10:11

who are unwilling to share

10:13

information about their diverse perspectives

10:15

or their backgrounds, how are

10:17

we even going to get

10:20

to better decisions? So we

10:22

have a true disclosure issue.

10:24

So if people are covering,

10:26

they're not disclosing, they're not

10:28

sharing the information that we

10:30

need in order to make

10:32

better decisions to be more

10:34

creative. So the whole equation

10:36

falls apart when people are

10:38

covering. Beautiful. I'm going to

10:40

say this very mildly. But

10:42

historically, people who are most

10:45

underrepresented, most marginalized in the

10:47

workplace, are often the ones

10:49

to bear the burden of

10:51

doing this work from a

10:53

practical standpoint. How do

10:55

you make the case to people

10:58

with more social capital to be

11:00

a part of the solution here?

11:02

So this is actually the underlying

11:05

set of principles behind the radical

11:07

leap. is you do need people

11:09

who look like us informing what

11:12

strategies and solutions you're trying to

11:14

create for us. Because what goes

11:16

wrong sometimes is organizations get this

11:19

feedback and then it's like they

11:21

leave all of us out and

11:24

they create these solutions and they

11:26

don't work and they're not for

11:28

us. And so what a radical

11:31

leap is is saying you actually

11:33

need our input, you need us,

11:35

you need to understand how we're

11:38

feeling, you need to know what

11:40

we like about it, but we

11:43

don't have to take care of

11:45

all the implementation, right? And if

11:47

we, let's say we want to,

11:50

right, because there are many people

11:52

who are just passionate and they

11:54

do want to get involved in

11:57

implementation, that we're actually getting rewarded

11:59

for it. It's not a hidden

12:01

tax of work. It's either like

12:04

finding. getting paid the extra work

12:06

that you're doing. Or, you know,

12:09

I think for so many organizations,

12:11

they started putting in like diversity

12:13

champion of the month awards. And

12:16

you're saying just to be clear,

12:18

trophies are great, but also consider

12:20

compensating people for their time effort

12:23

and leadership on these issues. I

12:25

would also say, because I've been

12:28

advocating this, I'm not the only

12:30

one, but I'm advocating this for

12:32

years, is the number one way

12:35

in which organizations often determine who

12:37

gets the big prizes like a

12:39

promotion and compensation is through the

12:42

performance evaluation process. So what would

12:44

it look like and what I'm

12:46

suggesting should happen to have diversity-related

12:49

work be? something that is evaluated

12:51

on a performance evaluation, that you're

12:54

given anywhere from a zero to

12:56

a five, just like you are

12:58

for any other competency, and it's

13:01

factored into all of those key

13:03

decisions around compensation, promotion, and what,

13:05

not in developmental opportunities. That's really

13:08

the ideal for A-level organizations. It

13:10

totally aligns with our experience. We're

13:13

in promotion season at HBS and

13:15

we discuss the two main things

13:17

that matter. Teaching and research wouldn't

13:20

be a surprise to you, but

13:22

then we discuss colleagueship and we

13:24

systematically spend time on it to

13:27

make sure that it's considered because

13:29

otherwise we would episodically do it

13:31

and for sure people are coached

13:34

on colleagueship now because it's so

13:36

explicitly done. So I think your

13:39

point of if you make it

13:41

part of the criteria, we will

13:43

come up with habits and practices

13:46

to make sure that we're systematically

13:48

doing it because we're achievers. So

13:50

I really, what you're saying totally

13:53

resonates with me. What I'm also

13:55

saying is many organizations have like

13:58

five areas of competencies that they

14:00

The best organizations know the relative

14:02

weightedness of that in a decision

14:05

and they're explicit and they're transparent

14:07

about it. I'm not saying your

14:09

contribution to diversity work should be

14:12

90% for everyone. But I feel

14:14

like it should be something. And

14:16

in many organizations, it's currently nothing.

14:19

It's not factored at all. And

14:21

people are doing a lot of

14:24

it. And the organization is winning

14:26

from all these people doing this

14:28

invisible labor around diversity work. They're

14:31

building culture. They're creating better experiences

14:33

for people, but yet they're not

14:35

getting assessed or evaluated or compensated

14:38

fairly for this work. that

14:40

seems like there's a lot

14:43

of practical room here for

14:45

common ground for this to

14:48

actually bring people together rather

14:50

than divide them. So how

14:52

do leaders do this work

14:55

and talk about this work

14:57

in ways that really that

15:00

really do bring people together.

15:02

It's really quite simple. And

15:05

basically we found is when

15:07

anyone, no matter who you

15:09

are, feels like you have

15:12

access to, which is code

15:14

word, can benefit from diversity-related

15:17

practices. you're actually

15:19

more likely to engage in

15:21

all of the things that

15:23

people who create and champion

15:25

diversity practices want you to

15:27

engage in, and you're also

15:29

more likely to feel like

15:31

your own workplace experience is

15:33

a good one. Saying that

15:35

allowing everyone to benefit from

15:37

diversity equity inclusion practices isn't

15:39

saying don't pay attention to

15:41

the gaps, the gender gaps,

15:43

the, you know, sexuality gaps,

15:45

the racial gaps. It's saying

15:47

that when we don't have

15:49

a healthy workplace culture and

15:51

we don't have policies and

15:53

practices that support workers, the

15:55

people who are more likely

15:58

to lose first are the

16:00

people who historically the most

16:02

marginalized. But what we find

16:04

is when we put those

16:06

practices in place, everybody wins

16:08

because the practices in and

16:10

of themselves are really important,

16:12

period. I want to just

16:14

test a couple of things

16:16

with you and then get

16:18

your help. I find myself,

16:20

I think in any company

16:22

that I have spoken with

16:24

over the last 10 years,

16:26

I have said some form

16:28

of As an operations professor,

16:30

I know of nothing more

16:32

powerful than inclusion. And that

16:34

is because with no new

16:36

people and no new technology,

16:38

I can supersize engagement and

16:40

team performance. And after every,

16:42

almost every time that I

16:45

have a talk, for which

16:47

that's part of it, people

16:49

come up to me afterwards

16:51

and say some form of,

16:53

I hadn't thought about DEA

16:55

the way you talk about

16:57

it. That is, I thought

16:59

it was this boogie man.

17:01

And my language for what

17:03

they're doing is, DEA has

17:05

become weaponized in my mind.

17:07

When you talk about, I

17:09

like what you're talking about,

17:11

but the DEA part, like

17:13

I got a, that's not

17:15

the message. And I think

17:17

this was part of Anne's

17:19

losing the narrative. So here's

17:21

my, here's my question. I'm

17:23

going to start with an

17:25

observation and then my question.

17:28

I've gone into help turn around

17:30

toxic cultures. I went to Uber

17:33

back in 2017. Many of their

17:35

original values, which were awesome, had

17:37

become weaponized. Right. My experience with

17:39

them and with others is that

17:41

the attempt to say, no, no,

17:43

this is what it really means.

17:45

So they had to stepping as

17:47

a value, right? Very famously. And

17:49

it was such a good value.

17:51

Oh my gosh. If you have

17:54

a great idea and your manager

17:56

won't listen to you, you can

17:58

step on your manager. and go

18:00

above them. In practice, people used

18:02

to step beneath them, not over

18:04

them, and it got weaponized. And

18:06

I remember, the former CEO kept

18:08

trying to just say, no, this

18:10

is what it means. And my

18:12

experience now has been once the

18:14

word is weaponized, it's gone. You

18:17

can spend your whole life trying

18:19

to reclaim it, but there are

18:21

so many words in the English

18:23

language. My advice has been, and

18:25

so I want to test it

18:27

for this, is once it's been

18:29

weaponized by external forces. you can

18:31

lament it but come up with

18:33

a new phrase. So given all

18:35

of that context, I know of

18:37

nothing more powerful than inclusion, and

18:40

people are reporting to me that

18:42

in their spheres, DEA has become

18:44

weaponized. What's the next step there?

18:46

So I want to say that

18:48

DEI wasn't a word until 2020.

18:50

The fear by diversity-related champions or

18:52

people who are marginalized and for

18:54

whom the D and the E

18:56

really speak to them is that

18:58

I will be made invisible as

19:01

well in this process. And so

19:03

how do we talk about inclusion

19:05

in a way that says we're

19:07

trying to create this environment where

19:09

people, no matter who they are,

19:11

can come to this organization, contribute,

19:13

feel valued, feel like they have

19:15

a chance to be at the

19:17

seat at the table? When

19:20

we do the all thing in

19:22

the US, it quickly hides the

19:24

experiences of people who are from

19:27

historically marginalized groups. So if we

19:29

move to inclusion because that's our

19:31

value in our organizations, we want

19:33

to leave with that fine. But

19:36

how do you do that in

19:38

a way that doesn't allow us

19:40

to cloak the experiences of the

19:43

people who often get left behind?

19:45

That's the dance we're trying to

19:47

accomplish. It don't matter what you

19:49

call it. Right? It says, can

19:52

we still make visible? Will we

19:54

still go looking for the people

19:56

who are on the margins and

19:58

try to help them feel like

20:01

that value is recognized as a

20:03

universal for them as well? You

20:05

said in the beginning of this,

20:07

I took note when you did

20:10

exactly that, when you said, this

20:12

is for all, including underrepresented folks.

20:14

And I found it really poignant

20:17

and lovely. And it makes sure

20:19

that we're not forgotten with it.

20:21

I love that. So Wendy Smith

20:23

at the University of Delaware has

20:26

written this fantastic book. both and.

20:28

And she's a long been a

20:30

paradox scholar and paradox theory is

20:32

about the both and the end,

20:35

right? And inclusion often gets talked

20:37

about as the sort of the

20:39

both slash the all, right? But

20:41

the and often gets left behind,

20:44

right? And so by saying inclusion

20:46

for everyone who works here and

20:48

including, right, people who are underrepresented,

20:51

you're remembering the and part of

20:53

the two things can be true.

20:55

And they should the complexity is

20:57

really important here. I've heard of

21:00

both and but I never metabolized

21:02

it in the way you just

21:04

did and I'm having that experience

21:06

with so many of these things

21:09

and I often talk about a

21:11

deeply simply form of communication which

21:13

is the people that understand things

21:15

so deeply that they can then

21:18

turn around and describe it simply

21:20

and what's powerful about that is

21:22

when you do it the ideas

21:25

last into your absence. Absolutely. And

21:27

many of us, when we take

21:29

a complicated thing and we describe

21:31

it in a complicated way, it

21:34

requires us to be the messenger.

21:36

And what I'm finding so alluring

21:38

about what you're saying is you're

21:40

equipping us and our listeners to

21:43

have these ideas resonant into your

21:45

absence, which is super exciting to

21:47

me. Thank you. How

21:49

should all of us, particularly

21:51

the leaders out there, think

21:53

about advancing this work in

21:55

this political moment? would add

21:57

beyond what we've already talked

21:59

about? Yes. So, you know,

22:01

I grew up in Las

22:03

Vegas, Nevada. Come on. I

22:05

did. I grew up in

22:07

Las Vegas, Nevada, and Nevada,

22:09

the entire state, even in

22:11

the city of Las Vegas,

22:14

was a red state when

22:16

I grew up there. So

22:18

that means that I, as

22:20

a person who is not

22:22

conservative, nor a Republican, have

22:24

spent plenty of time. engaging

22:26

with people who have different

22:28

political values than I have.

22:30

And then certainly in doing

22:32

this work in corporate organizations,

22:34

knowing that many, many leaders

22:36

have conservative values or, you

22:38

know, identify with the Republican

22:40

Party, what I've come to

22:42

understand is there is, now

22:44

there are extremes, I'm going

22:46

to like not talk about

22:48

the extreme version, there is

22:50

a place where there are

22:52

some shared values around diversity.

22:54

and inclusion and equity between

22:56

let's just talk about Republicans

22:58

and Democrats. The differences are

23:00

on what do we do

23:02

about it, right? When we're

23:04

not being extreme, what we're

23:06

arguing around is what's the

23:08

right intervention. Is it an

23:10

individualized interpersonal, let's make better

23:12

people better, right? Or is

23:14

it at the system level?

23:16

So I think where we're

23:18

going to be the opportunity

23:20

that we have in front

23:22

of us is really thinking

23:24

about what each of us

23:26

can do in our own

23:28

sphere of influence as an

23:30

individual contributor, as a manager,

23:32

as a leader for our

23:34

team in order to create

23:36

an inclusive environment, that's where

23:38

we are right now. And

23:40

that to me is the

23:42

opening in the non-extreme context.

23:45

and I think it's

23:47

beautiful and motivating framing.

23:49

For people listening who

23:51

are also motivated by

23:53

that framing, what is

23:55

one action that they

23:57

can take to make

23:59

their is more inclusive.

24:01

The biggest thing right now, I actually

24:03

had to, I presented to a bank

24:06

two days post-election and what resonated as

24:08

I looked at the chat when people

24:10

were writing all these things in the

24:13

chat, there are like more than 200

24:15

people attended this talk. I actually suggested

24:17

three different types of strategies. I feel

24:19

like this is circuit early 2000s, the

24:22

head heart and the hands language around

24:24

how do we create a better workplace

24:26

environment was created back when we didn't

24:29

know if there was going to be

24:31

a whole lot of structural changes happening

24:33

in our organizations. And so a head

24:35

strategy, something that people can begin doing

24:38

right now, is like learning more, like

24:40

taking advantage of the the cadre of

24:42

videos or trainings that exists on their

24:45

internal learning platforms at their organizations or

24:47

picking up a book. and learning about

24:49

something, and it would be great if

24:51

you learned about something that wasn't your

24:54

own, just validating your own experience, and

24:56

see, have you actually encountered that perspective

24:58

before, because then you might understand what

25:01

just happened. So that's a head strategy,

25:03

is like thinking, learning more. A heart

25:05

strategy is actually where my mind first

25:07

went, and then I was like, let

25:10

me go back to head, is like

25:12

empathy, right? It's this idea that understanding

25:14

that understanding that if we're all in

25:17

the same team together in a workplace

25:19

or world, We hope that there is

25:21

a common goal around us all winning

25:23

and us all in our organization winning.

25:26

And so what would it look like

25:28

to just care about and show that

25:30

you care about somebody's experience by saying,

25:33

I hope tomorrow's a better day for

25:35

you. So that's like a heart strategy,

25:37

which again is not for some people,

25:39

that's an easy thing to do because

25:42

they're hurt people. For other people, they're

25:44

like, oh, that feels very uncomfortable. And

25:46

then the hand strategy is actually the

25:49

actions, the things that we do in

25:51

order to improve someone's experience. And that

25:53

can be something as easy as. you're

25:55

an individual contributor, inviting your colleague out

25:58

to lunch for a chat. Like that

26:00

is not that hard to just talk

26:02

about life and how are things going

26:05

for them. For a manager, I always

26:07

like to talk about meetings because meetings

26:09

is where things. Things are where things

26:11

fall apart a lot. But as a

26:14

manager, what is it to really be

26:16

paper aware of who's contributing and who's

26:18

not and checking in with the people

26:21

who are and who's not, contributing after

26:23

the meeting and saying, I've noticed that

26:25

you haven't spoken up in meetings lately.

26:27

And I just wanted to understand if

26:30

there's anything that I can do to

26:32

make it easier for you to speak

26:34

up because we'd like to hear your

26:36

ideas. That's actually a hands strategy. for

26:39

me is where we are. It's what

26:41

I've been trying to teach people and

26:43

it's been resonating. And again, this is

26:46

just rewinding back in the past for

26:48

how we used to talk about things

26:50

that felt like we needed to be

26:52

able to empower people to do when

26:55

the structural change wasn't going to happen

26:57

as quickly as some of us might

26:59

hope. I love it. First of all,

27:02

thank you for all of your time

27:04

and energy and wisdom and I think

27:06

our listeners are going to get so

27:08

much from this conversation. Is there anything

27:11

that you wished we had asked you

27:13

or you want to say before we

27:15

wrap up? I just want to express

27:18

my gratitude to a number of role

27:20

models who created this field of research,

27:22

of teaching, of practice, who did it

27:24

when it was really hard. They made

27:27

the make up the language and they

27:29

had to figure out how to get

27:31

people to care about it. That was

27:34

much harder than this right now. This

27:36

is horribly disappointing for those of us

27:38

who felt like we were making progress,

27:40

but I would say That's what's giving

27:43

me, I think, hope optimism, but also

27:45

a little bit of grounding in what

27:47

feels very hard to deal with, is

27:50

there are many, many, many people who

27:52

have done harder things than the

27:54

that I have in

27:56

front of me right

27:59

now. I express some I

28:01

express some gratitude

28:03

as well because, um, Stephanie, I'm

28:06

staying with I'm staying

28:08

with you. us. Oh, we're

28:10

all, we can't stop us. Oh, directed we're

28:12

all, we this stop ourselves. We

28:14

are all in on influenced you've

28:16

most important part. Absolutely. Thank you both for having Thank

28:18

you both for having me.

28:20

This is my pleasure and such

28:22

an honor. Thank you. you. Proving

28:32

is more important than ever,

28:34

especially when it comes to

28:36

your security program. helps centralized program

28:38

requirements and automate evidence collection

28:40

for frameworks like Sock 2, ISO

28:43

ISO and more. So you save time and and

28:45

more so you save time

28:47

and money and build customer

28:49

trust. And with Vanta, you

28:51

get continuous visibility into the

28:54

state of your controls. Join

28:56

more than 8 ,000 global

28:58

companies like Atlassian, FlowHealth, and like

29:00

who trust Vanta. To manage

29:02

risk who security in real to

29:05

manage risk a new way to

29:07

GRC. Learn more at vanta.com

29:09

a new way to GRC. Learn more.com/Ted audio. Something

29:14

about the way we're working just

29:16

isn't working. When you're caught up

29:18

in complex pay requirements or distracted

29:20

by scheduling staff in multiple time

29:22

multiple Or thinking about the complexity

29:24

of working in of while based in

29:26

while based You're not doing the work

29:28

you're meant to do. the work with

29:30

meant to you get HR, pay, you

29:32

time, talent, and analytics all in

29:34

one global people platform. So you

29:36

can do the work you're meant

29:38

to do. meant Visit Visit.com slash slash work

29:41

to learn more. more. I

29:46

found Stephanie's energy around

29:48

this work be encouraging, to

29:50

be energizing, to be

29:52

hopeful. The thing that gets

29:54

reinforced for me me is how

29:57

much room there

29:59

is for people

30:01

to come. together. I

30:04

mean, the fundamental goals of DEI

30:06

are about creating organizations where everyone

30:08

has a chance to thrive. It's

30:11

fundamentally about fairness. And I think

30:13

the way this word has been

30:15

weaponized is to signal the absence

30:17

of fairness. And so I think

30:20

my heart is more open to

30:22

the idea that yeah, like there's

30:24

so much beautiful stuff at the

30:26

heart of this movement that really

30:29

is about building the biggest tent

30:31

possible inside your organization for everyone

30:33

to show up and be able

30:36

to contribute to the extent of

30:38

their capacity. And if we knew

30:40

a new word for this because

30:42

the old words are getting in

30:45

the way of people getting on

30:47

board this train, then let's invent

30:49

new words. Princess, you mentioned the

30:51

example of tow stepping at Uber.

30:54

So what happened next? Did they

30:56

give up the value? Did they

30:58

rebrand it? I would say that

31:01

it was rebranded. The values, if

31:03

you look at the current values

31:05

of Uber today, they are super

31:07

similar to the values of Uber

31:10

of old. And they, as soon

31:12

as they, as soon as they

31:14

were put in print, they took

31:16

off like wildfire. So really what

31:19

was holding them back was the

31:21

weaponization. But the fundamental ideas, the,

31:23

we want ideas to come from

31:26

everywhere, still central to Uber. So

31:28

the heart of the ideas are

31:30

still there. There is absolutely a

31:32

new language and a broader understanding

31:35

of the global context within which

31:37

they sit. So friends, you also

31:39

mentioned colleagueship as part of the

31:41

evaluation journey at HBS. Do

31:45

you see parallels there and just

31:47

practical steps organizations can take to

31:49

promote these goals? Yeah, you know,

31:52

as we mentioned at HBS, teaching

31:54

and research matter, and so does

31:56

colleagueship. citizenship. You can use one

31:59

word or the other. But we

32:01

didn't ever formally talk about colleagueship

32:03

and citizenship. Define it in a

32:06

way that was. Yeah, and we

32:08

didn't, we didn't in the, in

32:11

the review processes when we would

32:13

discuss people for promotion and we

32:15

would have long conversations. There was

32:18

the teaching section and there was

32:20

the research section. I think citizenship

32:22

went up when we added a

32:25

third colleagueship session. And so even

32:27

just giving space to talk about

32:29

it. And you know, we don't

32:32

have like a metric of colleagueship

32:34

from zero to 10. We don't

32:36

ask people to numerically for, but

32:39

we give space to discuss it.

32:41

And you can see how seriously

32:44

people take it and how they're

32:46

using beautifully illustrative examples in order

32:48

to discuss its presence or in

32:51

some cases its absence. And so

32:53

I think giving, revealing that it's

32:55

important, giving it its own space

32:58

in the meeting, I think well,

33:00

well, was the signal that mattered

33:02

for us. And so if I

33:05

look at the EI, I want

33:07

us to, when we have conversations,

33:10

These people thrive, these people didn't

33:12

thrive. Did everyone have equal access

33:14

to thriving? Just give space for

33:17

it. If you just give space

33:19

for it, I don't want you

33:21

to have to hit a certain

33:23

metric. Are we providing unequal access?

33:25

How could we provide more equal

33:27

access tomorrow than we can today?

33:30

Just give space for it. Our

33:32

human instincts are going to work.

33:34

What I love about that too

33:36

is it's not a political litmus

33:38

test. No. It's not does, you

33:40

know, does this person fit into

33:43

a narrow set of values. I

33:45

think it's also a way to

33:47

talk about, you know, these, these

33:49

levers that really matter to the

33:51

health of an organization. So if,

33:53

if there is a, a manager

33:56

who is very good at creating

33:58

a context where there is opportunity

34:02

for other people to thrive, I

34:04

want a way to talk about

34:06

that. I want a way to,

34:08

we need a language to describe

34:11

that cultural asset inside the organization.

34:13

And if it's not going to

34:15

be DEAI, then let's pick different

34:17

words. But when you look at

34:20

the health of a culture, And

34:22

then the byproducts of that culture

34:24

where good people want to show

34:26

up because it is more likely

34:29

to be a real meritocracy, that

34:31

is critical to the performance of

34:33

an organization. And so even like

34:35

in the case of HPS, even

34:38

naming it with a word like

34:40

citizenship or colleagueship is a big

34:42

step forward in ultimately being able

34:44

to measure it. But even in

34:47

the interim, being able to see

34:49

it, name it, support it, promote

34:51

it. And I mean, I love

34:53

that word. I don't know if

34:56

it works outside of academia, but

34:58

I think it's a very, I

35:00

think it's a great example of

35:02

the power of language to open

35:05

up a conversation about something that

35:07

really matters. And sometimes giving space

35:09

is a substitute for and even

35:11

an improvement on metrics. Like if

35:14

you came up with a citizenship

35:16

metric, I don't think it would

35:18

be nearly as culturally powerful as

35:21

our holding space to make it

35:23

discussable because we then live up

35:25

to a greatest version of ourselves

35:27

collectively and we get better and

35:30

better and better at it every

35:32

year. Yeah, and usually I find

35:34

myself resisting these squishy words because

35:36

it does feel like there's more

35:39

room to kind of politicize them,

35:41

but I think, I think when

35:43

everyone is earnestly showing up talking

35:45

about this thing that we all

35:48

collectively agree is an organizational good,

35:50

then I think what you just

35:52

articulated exactly right. And I'll give

35:54

a pro-tip operational detail with the

35:57

illustrative examples that you provide help

35:59

a lot. great at this.

36:01

great at this. citizens. citizens doesn't

36:03

help it. Doesn't help it help it

36:05

the absence of that detail. any

36:07

absence of with all things, As with

36:09

and specific and wins. wins.

36:12

Right. All right,

36:14

Francis, that's our show. Fix

36:16

about listeners. We hope you were able

36:18

to take as much from this conversation with

36:20

Stephanie as we did. as I'm sure we're

36:22

gonna keep talking about this talking about this can't

36:25

shut up about it and there's so

36:27

much to cover here. here. We like to win

36:29

too much. We have to talk about it.

36:31

it. Fixable is brought to

36:33

you by to you by the TED audio

36:35

Pushkin Industries. It's hosted by

36:37

me, hosted by And me, Morris, and me,

36:39

Francis episode was produced by Rahima

36:41

Nasa from Pushkin Industries. Our

36:44

team includes Our team includes

36:46

Constanza Gallardo, Ban-Ban- Chang, and

36:48

Roxanne and Our show

36:50

is mixed by by Louis

36:52

at If you're enjoying the show,

36:54

make sure to subscribe wherever you get

36:57

your you get your and tell a friend to

36:59

check us out. check us out. if you're really

37:01

enjoying the show, don't hesitate to give us

37:03

a a -star review on your local podcast platform.