Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion - How Do We Know When We're Doing it Right?

At my day job, we LOVE talking about equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).  There are several of us here who could easily spend hours every day talking about what we're doing wrong, brainstorming ideas for improvement, and generally wishing we could fix the world.  Ah, if only all this talk could solve an organization's EDI shortcomings--we'd be way ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately for all of us chatterboxes, talk is cheap.  Even more unfortunately for yours truly--she who never met a checklist she couldn't check or an award she wouldn't strive for--there is no end game.  The actual day-to-day work of EDI is itself the goal, which means none of us will ever get to the point where we look at what we've done and think "That's it!  Mission accomplished."

So, how do we do the work when we don't have an end goal in sight?  More importantly, how in the world do we know we're actually doing the work in any meaningful way?  While I can't create a finish line for you, I can offer you some concrete steps you can take, starting today, in your organization.

1. Understand--and get others to understand--that the meat of the EDI work lives not in a committee's discussions but in the daily actions and decisions of every employee.  Committee discussions are great for setting tone, determining guidelines, and creating visibility, but they can't actually do the work.  That's up to staff.
2. Create a method to learn what the decision points are in your company's work. This could be a survey of all staff or a meeting with representatives from each department.  Learn what people do and where they exert power in their daily work.
3. Make a master list of decisions people make in a day. It is at each of these decision points where the magic can happen.  When a hiring manager looks at a hiring decision with an equity lens and makes a decision in line with the organization's EDI goals, the outcome changes.  It is in the accrual of hundreds/thousands of these outcome changes that the EDI work progresses.  Your list can start small--one frequently made decision from each department or team--and can grow once the team members have had a chance to practice.
4. Determine what equity frameworks or tools would be useful in approaching a decision.  How do we change the outcome to support our EDI goals by changing one staff member's approach to a decision?
5. Create an evaluation system. This could look like an "accountability team" that meets regularly and hears and discusses reports from departments on the decisions they've made and the outcomes they've seen.  This could be a required monthly report from each department manager that the executive team reviews and shares with the organization.
6. Add the evaluation of EDI work to your organization's performance review process.  This doesn't have to be a numerical score, but every staff member should be able to articulate at least one decision they've made to which they applied an equity lens during the decision-making process.

That would really be a great start.  My organization is working on implementing and improving these steps as we continue our move away from the theoretical and into the practical.  I can't wait to see our outcomes. 

Feel free to share your questions in the comments, or send me an email if you'd like a little additional guidance!

#metoo but #not_here: Sexual Harassment and the New Workplace

A new day is dawning, folks!  Unless you've been totally tuned out, you know that women (and some men) are standing up in droves to demand justice from their harassers and abusers. 

As a woman and an advocate for equity, I'm beyond thrilled to see this overwhelming tide heading for corporate America. 

As an HR practitioner and lawyer, I'm advising leaders to be very very careful.

I'm assuming you, dear reader, also think sexual harassment in the workplace is, you know, not good. We (a) don't want victims to suffer and (b) don't want the fear of litigation that arises once someone speaks out. So, how do you proactively manage your company culture so (a) and (b) just never happen?  Here's a handy list of steps to take NOW (today!  this week! soon!):

• Review and revise your policy.

Spoiler alert: your policy needs to be updated.  I know this because, at my regular gig, the old policy basically says "here's the law on sexual harassment.  Don't violate it."  I recognized this from basically every other employer I've ever worked with, so I'm guessing you have the same old stuff in your handbook. Your policy shouldn't detail the law--it should detail the behavior that is unacceptable per your company's values. It's actually better to stay away from words like "illegal sexual harassment" and "hostile work environment" because those are legal conclusions--not clear standards for employee behavior.

Make your policy directly applicable to your company.  Address the quirks of your business and use examples that have some up before.  Always include strong wording about anti-retaliation policies.

• Make sure your employees have read your policy.

This is important.  Figure out a way to verify that every employee has read and understands your new-and-improved policy.  This can be a fancy signature acknowledgement through your HRIS, or it can be as simple as a required email reply.

• Hold a mandatory training for everyone.

Yes, mandatory.

Make everyone be in the same room--employees and managers and the C-suite.  In the past, these groups were addressed separately, but it's important to let everyone see that everyone is being held to the same standards.  Also, in today's more egalitarian, less hierarchical workplaces, harassment isn't always (or even usually) something that a direct supervisor perpetrates against a direct report.  (Anyone can harass anyone--progress!)

• Repeat regularly.

All the steps (revise, disseminate, train).  Upon hire, and at least semi-annually thereafter.

That's it!  Just kidding.  There's more, but that's a great place to start.  If you need some guidance on revising your policy or delivering good training, feel free to contact me.  You can hire me if that makes sense for you, or I can direct you to a good resource to DIY.

* I have to give credit for the "#not_here" hashtag to the lawyers who delivered a great training I attended recently.  Thanks, Stoel Rives!

Promoting equity without a seat at the table

Institutional initiatives require leadership buy-in.  That's hardly a controversial statement.  So, what do you do when you want to move your organization toward equity and inclusion, but you don't have an official seat at the table?

Many resources will tell you to make the economic case.  Sure, you can point to studies that show that diverse teams produce more innovative work, or that it's good business to be able to show that your company is one of the Good Guys by adding splashy "we welcome everyone" statements to your careers page.  However, I think there's a stronger case you can make for implementing equity practices in your organization, and it's not economic---it's personal.

Why isn't the "good business choice" the strongest argument for practicing equity?

Ultimately, when your leaders are making employment decisions, they're often NOT making them based on the smartest business choice, strictly speaking.  That's because even the CEO is human and ultimately, as we've discussed, humans seek comfort as a default. Even the CEO knows they're going to be more comfortable at work if they're going to be working with a good buddy's nephew, or with someone from their alma mater, or with a guy who also really loves golf. 

And, of course, choices made without an equity lens aren't just about comfort.  In the wonderful Dismantling Racism handbook, we learn that the choices that keep the dominant culture dominant are also about values like either/or thinking, quantity over quality, power hoarding, and fear of conflict.  (Note: I encourage you to follow the link above to read about those values, and others.) These are ways of thinking that have become the default for many of us--and, I would argue, most CEOs--and those defaults are actually quite a bit stronger than the desire to make a "good business choice."  

So how do we make the personal case?

First of all, determine whether or not your CEO has morals.  KIDDING.  We're starting from the assumption that the people you work with want to do the right thing.  In fact, that's step #1--assume your leadership wants to do the right thing and that they just don't realize that their own values are getting in the way of that.  Say that to them.  Get a meeting on the calendar and start with "I know you care as much as I do about equity and inclusion."  We ultimately want to rely on this person's introspection and conscience, as we need to trigger it early in the process.  (Note: You can do this with your manager or another leader in your organization--it doesn't have to be the CEO.  You just need to choose someone with strong decisionmaking authority.)

Second, share the axiomatic "Our values determine our outcomes" and explain that the organization is likely over-valuing things like comfort and fear of conflict.  Think of relatively benign examples of this in your own organization.  An easy example of "comfort" is often choosing to hire people with whom we have an easy rapport or things in common.  We all see "fear of conflict" at play every day, so that should be an easy one.  The idea at this stage is to choose examples that don't necessarily implicate the CEO personally, but that may leave them contemplating their own choices after you leave the room.  Get the CEO on your team as you try, together, to think of places where these values play out. Talk about some of the antidotes discussed here.

Third, leave the room.  But before you do, reiterate your enthusiasm for the idea of an equity initiative ("I just find it so exciting that we could be at the forefront of this work, and I had to share!"), and ask if your CEO wouldn't mind if you leave them with an article you found helpful.  (Maybe give them this, which is a gentle intro to reducing bias in hiring, or find something similar that relates to your area of work.)  Ask if you can follow up in a week or so to hear their thoughts.

Finally, keep the conversation going.  Trust that, after you leave the room, your CEO is thinking about this--remember that we're assuming they want to do the right thing.  Invite them to a meeting to chat about the article you shared and talk about a couple of new processes you'd like to test.  After discussing the article and hearing the CEO's thoughts, ask if you have their support to look into how the business could benefit from an equity lens.  The answer will be some version of yes!  It may be qualified and only apply to a specific area of your work, but you now have permission to make real change happen.  

Coming soon: How the &#$% do you make real change happen?

Radical Collaboration

If you've ever been through the strategic planning process before, you know how it usually goes: a bunch of people sit in a room and push their priorities for the next cycles, the group settles on some goals, and the few who are willing to take it on do the work to distill everything into a document.  Said document sits on a shelf for three years, then the process begins again.

Fortunately for me, I work for an organization that loves to innovate, and our new strategic planning cycle presents the perfect opportunity to do things differently.  Enter Deeper Funner Change, a consultancy that is changing the way leaders engage with each other and with their organizations.  The amazing team at DFC led a revolutionary retreat for our leadership team and board members, and we're already using these awesome new tools in our daily work.  I encourage you to check out their video about a new approach to collaboration, here: Deeper Funner Video.

I've worked with companies that are very resistant to outside perspectives--bringing in that consultant to solve a tricky problem or hiring a mediator to facilitate inter-team conflict resolution can be scary.  What if they see that we aren't perfect?  What if it turns out we are doing it all wrong?  It can feel like a radical step to open our organizations to criticism when we don't have to.  However, the fact remains that outsiders can see what we're missing in a way we never will from the inside.  I encourage you to be unafraid, open to outside influence, and brave enough to ask for help.  Think of it as unlocking a mystery or solving a riddle--and follow the fear.

Hiring in the Comfort Zone

Recruiting and hiring would be so much easier if we were all robots.  We'd achieve just the right balance of whatever it is we need, all without the feelings and patterns and habits that, more often than not, work against our success.  I'm on a lot of HR-related discussion boards, and this question came up recently from a brand-new HR manager (paraphrased so as to avoid violating anyone privacy):

Is it legal to deny an applicant an interview because of bad grammar on an application?  Writing and other clerical duties are core responsibilities, but the job description does not explicitly state the use of correct grammar as a requirement.  However, I assume this is an implied requirement.  

Seems easy, right?  "Bad grammar" isn't a protected class under any discrimination laws I know of, and everyone wants an administrative assistant with an English degree.  The answer to the "is this legal" question is definitely "yes."

Still, I learned something amazing at a training quite a while ago, and it's become the number one thing I have taken with me on this HR journey: We MUST challenge job requirements like "good grammar"--and the even-more-pervasive "comfort" and "fit"--if we are to begin the work of dismantling white (and able- and cis- and hetero-) supremacy in hiring.  Comfort is the essence of the status quo.

Here's my response to the OP:

I agree it's usually legal, and sometimes appropriate, to reject someone for bad grammar.  It sounds like this may be one of those situations--though you may need to look into "implied requirements" and think about how to make them explicit if they are actual requirements.  Since you're new to HR and will likely have issues like this arise in the future, I'll add my advice about stuff like this:

I think it's important we challenge ourselves to examine whether we use grammar or other values as tool to weed out people who are otherwise qualified and just come from different backgrounds.  For example, it may make upper management feel more comfortable to hire a [manufacturing position/sales manager/IT director] who speaks and writes like them.  However, speaking the Queen's English is often not job-related and in many cases may end up working against equity and inclusion efforts.  For example, using AAVE in a cover letter might be a no-go for an executive assistant who is expected--as clearly stated in the job posting--to draft official company press releases, but it shouldn't weed people out if they won't be creating "formal" external communications. In the end, it's up to us to push hiring managers and challenge them when values like "fit" and "comfort" and, yes, perfect grammar stand in the way of doing our best work.

So, the right question is usually NOT "Is this legal?"  It's "Why are we more comfortable with Candidate A than Candidate B?" or "Why do we care if our IT administrator isn't 100% fluent in English?" or "What do you mean when you say he 'fits in' better with the team?"

When we choose comfort and fit and grammar and appearance, we're usually choosing the status quo.  And guess what the status quo is!  It's white male C-suites, young female secretaries, people of color only in the entry levels, and sky-high unemployment for trans folk and people with disabilities.

We can do better than "comfortable," so now I challenge you: How can you make your leadership uncomfortable today?