This is the fourth installment of the LDGR series focused on examining the impacts of DEI on individual business units and how organizations can implement practices to reap the returns.

At the core of any company providing a service or product is the desire to ensure that your customers are able to get the most out of what you have put on the market. Customers push the boundaries of the product and provide insights that inform the strategic direction of the business. It serves then that the efficacy of customer-facing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts is contingent upon the customer success function of the business.

As Gainsight explains, customer success organizations are fairly new to businesses, rising in an era where a proactive focus on the customer is necessary in order to remain a leader in a given industry. Having a full understanding of the way customers use the product, their overall experience, and the nuances of the customer lifecycle allows a business to continually pivot and iterate to ensure customers are truly able to do things better.

But time and again, we see businesses profess values of “customer first” and “belonging” without taking the time to actually understand their customers and what factors contribute to their sense of belonging as it relates to their use of the product and trust in the company. The focus of an organization’s DEI strategy in customer success is essentially the mission of success organizations in general: to understand who your customers are and the cultural context of the problems they wish to solve, and to leverage those insights to advocate for product changes.

Advocacy in Success & Support

If you are able to understand the cultural context of the problems your customers are trying to solve, your team can be better advocates for product changes. Let’s look at this in a context outside of the tech industry and turn to healthcare.

Over the last few decades, there have been groundbreaking discoveries and treatments for some of the most common ailments experienced by different communities. This can largely be attributed to the drive toward more public health initiatives geared toward engaging with communities of color, rural communities, the LGBTQ community, and many others. Launching intentional initiatives to collect and assess qualitative and quantitative data allowed researchers and medical professionals to better understand behaviors of communities, disparities in access to preventative care and education, and ultimately how to tailor healthcare to the needs of these communities. As a result, we are able to understand the predisposition of African-Americans to hypertension and sickle cell anemia, the prevalence of ringworm and bacterial infections in rural areas that lack key infrastructure, and safer sex practices to limit exposure to HIV and other STIs.

Understanding the context of medical issues continues to shape the entire healthcare system as we see the launch of clinics and practitioners specializing in LGBTQ health, changes in patient care practices, and even medical education. But had people not had the wherewithal to begin proactive engagement efforts across demographics, we would have missed these key insights and likely witnessed greater inequities in healthcare, social mobility, and income stability.

Similarly, fintech organizations and those specializing in lending are poised to shape the economic growth of entire communities if they have an intentional DEI focus in their customer success functions. Having various data points like geography, income, race, gender, and types of loans sought at the disposal of the team can shape the trajectory of the business. These businesses can work with financial institutions to develop specific types of loans, form partnerships with organizations to help customers build credit, or even something as simple as changing the user interface of the product based on customer behavior.

All of this to say that concerted DEI efforts in customer success are centered on qualitative and quantitative data about the customer. Engaging with customers to seek understanding of context warrants a different set of questions. Why does the customer want to solve this problem? What are the contributing factors to the problem? What happens if the problem is solved or unresolved? In answering these questions, it is helpful to have a sense of the environment: What are the applicable laws or regulations in this area? Are there religious implications or restrictions that impact a resolution? Are there prevailing cultural practices that influence decision-making? You want to understand who your customer is and how they navigate the world around them and leverage these insights to shape your strategy and lobby for product changes that benefit the customer.

So What Do I Do?

• Collect voluntary customer data — The crux of successful DEI efforts in customer success is data. Teams must choose a variety of key data points that paint the fullest picture of their customers. Customers can provide voluntary information within the confines of GDPR that meet those needs. Additionally, leverage other data sources such as the Census, the American Community Survey, or other international equivalents. For B2Bs, the SBA provides insight on minority-owned businesses in addition to information that can be tracked in Salesforce or InsideView. Be sure to also examine trends that are identified via support tickets for additional data.
• Designate DEI metrics as a key task — Collecting and reporting on customer diversity data must a designated task for some or multiple people on the customer success team. This can be the task of the person responsible for success operations or companies can dedicate resources to a customer science and insights team within success. Regardless of the route taken, there must be someone who compiles, verifies data integrity, and presents the data regularly to both the success and product teams.
• Build interpersonal skills into onboarding — Relationships with customers must be nurtured. Customer success team members should be equipped with the skills necessary to cultivate relationships including active and empathetic listening, engaging across difference, and critical thinking at minimum. Not only should these skills be assessed in the interview process, but the organization’s approach to demonstrating these skills with customers should be part of the onboarding process for team members.
• Have a diverse team to interpret data — It warrants restating that you must employ a diverse customer success team. Even with the myriad of data available, you run the great risk of falling victim to poor interpretation of data because of limited perspective on the team. If the people interpreting the data have an arguably singular view of the world and have not been exposed to the communities where customers are present, then that bias will manifest itself in your strategy when decisions are made based on assumptions and stereotypes. Mitigate the potential for this bias by ensuring that your hiring practices result in assembling a diverse team.

As always, take part in the conversation in the comment section or share the articles along with your thoughts.

Ulysses J. Smith is a strategist and consultant. He is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter. Follow Archetype on LinkedIn for more updates.

This is the third installment of the LDGR series focused on examining the impacts of DEI on individual business units and how organizations can implement practices to reap the returns.

Until recently, the tech industry has avoiding having in-depth conversations about the application of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in individual business units. One of the greatest shortcomings in the industry is the inability to successfully integrate strategic business decision-making processes with DEI strategy. As a result, critical connections and comprehensive strategies are shelved in favor of short-term, “scrappy startup” decisions that are then scaled to create the monumental issues we see today. This is abundantly apparent when determining the direction and design of an organization’s product.

The central synergy between a company’s engineering, product, and design (EPD) teams should be an unwavering focus on building a product that is accessible to the widest population in the target market. This can only be accomplished through the adoption of inclusive design principles that are integrated into the business strategy of the organization.

Understanding the Value of Inclusive Design

The concept of inclusive design is not necessarily new, as evidenced by the body of research that is available on the subject. However, research has not yielded a universal definition of inclusive design for use across industries. In fact, inclusive design is often used interchangeably with other concepts, particularly accessibility. But as Kat Holmes articulates, “accessibility is an attribute, while inclusive design is a method.” Inclusive design, she argues, is not born out of the school of law and policy like accessibility. Rather, the practice of inclusive design is an active pursuit of solutions to mismatched interactions between people and their world (1).

Designer Susan Goltsman characterizes the practice as follows: Inclusive design doesn’t mean you’re designing one thing for all people. You’re designing a diversity of ways to participate so that everyone has a sense of belonging.

While this seems like an intuitive practice, adopting the inclusive design method in an organization is not as common as one might think. The lack of diversity officers with authority and scope that includes EPD notwithstanding, investment in awareness of the practice and support is low. Studies have shown that little support is given to designers to focus on inclusive design because of the perceived trade-off with time and cost, subsequently leading to deprioritization of inclusion (2). By no means is this mindset unique to the product side of the business. The same arguments are made about hiring: if we have to dedicate time to sourcing underrepresented people, our cost per hire and time to fill will skyrocket. But this is a short-sighted and ill-rationalized thought.

When you think about it, the message here is: We cannot dedicate time and money to understanding our many different users’ needs when designing and building our product. We would rather spend the additional cost in retrofitting, re-releasing, and maintaining our mediocre and unusable product. Surely, this seems to defy logic and good business strategy.

Adopting an inclusive design method from the beginning actually results in higher revenues because it brings a higher-quality product to market faster that is usable by a higher volume of people. In fact, it has been demonstrated that revenues can be 80% higher for the second release of a product performed with a focus on usability engineering as compared to the first release without it (3). Conversely, divesting from inclusion early on is more likely to result in much higher post-production costs because products are deemed unusable. Good business sense, if one is focused on product quality and company longevity, would be to invest in inclusive design at the outset and establish yourself as a trusted brand among different communities. Remember the sales and marketing perks we previously discussed?

At some point, we must shift from the mindset that inclusion is a risk to a project as opposed to arguably the most important attribute of a product. Cost-benefit models have shown that the greatest benefits of inclusive design include: increased sales, increased productivity (i.e. decreased customer support, overall savings in development time and cost), reduced design/development personnel costs and need for costly expert peer-support, fewer changes in late stages of the life cycle, reduced cost of training and greater satisfaction for the end user (4).

So, What Do I Do?

It is rare to find an organization — particularly in tech — that adopts an inclusive design process and actively seeks to integrate DEI into product development. To get started, try these steps:

• Create a working definition — Adopting an internal definition of inclusive design that speaks to both the aspirations of the team and the mission of the organization is the first step toward realizing the returns of DEI in EPD. Teams responsible for developing products need clear language to get behind in order to establish inclusive design as a core principle and central methodology.
• Create a clear line of sight — For any member of an organization, it is frustrating not to understand the value of your work or how your individual actions contribute to the business. Armed with your internal definition of inclusive design, articulate to the team how their product design and development processes are integral to the success of the overall organizational DEI framework and business strategy. If these critical connections are not made, then it is more likely that DEI in the organization will be deprioritized.
• Have a champion with authority — To avoid the perils of deprioritization, it is best to have a person designated to own DEI within the organization, who partners closely with division and team leadership. This not only builds an accountability structure and line of sight, it ensures access to resources and partnerships that increase knowledge of evolving inclusive design practices.
• Revamp your user profiles — To successfully design a variety of ways for people to participate or interact with your product, you have to understand them. While all of your users may want to solve the same fundamental problem, they will engage with your product differently based on their individual needs. Gone are the days when it was acceptable to design with a single user profile in mind. It is imperative to give your user profiles multiple characteristics and traits that inform how they approach your product. Beyond the given of ensuring that you hire a diverse team, take the time to observe and engage key stakeholder groups and actively solicit feedback from partners.
• Run the numbers — None of the aforementioned items are divorced from the realities of running a business or keeping a fledgling startup alive. All too often, DEI is deprioritized because it is challenging for people to make critical and quantifiable connections back to the business. But part of an inclusive design process is to ensure that the costs of product development are reflective of building with different user profiles in mind. Assessing the costs of user requirements means that the team is actively considering the higher costs of retrofitting and maintenance for an unusable product, and prioritizing bringing a higher-quality product for multiple users to market faster.
• Audit, iterate, and adapt — Change is constant. Keeping your EPD team knowledgeable and informed is a necessity. Actively invest in team learning and development opportunities to remain abreast of improved practices that can be implemented. Continuously engage with your user base, your Success team, and your partners to audit and augment design processes. In short, avoid designing in a vacuum and resisting change.

As always, take part in the conversation in the comment section or share the articles along with your thoughts.

Ulysses J. Smith is a strategist and consultant. He is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter. Follow Archetype on LinkedIn for more updates.

References

1. “The №1 thing you’re getting wrong about inclusive design,” Fast Company (2018).
2. Mieczakowski A., Langdon P., Clarkson P. (2010) Investigating Designers’ Cognitive Representations for Inclusive Interaction Between Products and Users. In: Langdon P., Clarkson P., Robinson P. (eds) Designing Inclusive Interactions. Springer, London
3. Wixon, D. and Jones, S. Usability for fun and profit: a case study of the design of DEC Rally Version 2. Proceedings of a workshop on Human-computer interface design: success stories, emerging methods, and real-world context: success stories, emerging methods, and real-world context.Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1995).
4. Mieczakowski A., Hessey S., Clarkson P.J. (2013) Inclusive Design and the Bottom Line: How Can Its Value Be Proven to Decision Makers?. In: Stephanidis C., Antona M. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods, Tools, and Interaction Techniques for eInclusion. UAHCI 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8009. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

This is the second installment of the LDGR series focused on examining the impacts of DEI on individual business units and how organizations can implement practices to reap the returns.

Typically, the conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within an organization is not focused on the sales and marketing teams. The rare times that it does surface in these areas, it is either in regards to hiring or in response to a media crisis. But beyond hiring diverse teams, focusing on DEI in these business units directly impacts a company’s top and bottom lines. In order to reap the ultimate returns on DEI, a company must develop strategic customer diversity initiatives that center on an understanding of the audience and the ability to tell their stories.

Know Your Audience

As the study that is the jumping off point for this series illustrates, a major turning point for the economy of the U.S. was the expansion of access and opportunity for women and people of color. With increased access to education and high-paying jobs came social mobility and increased buying power that has only increased over the years, making consciousness of customer diversity more important than ever.

It has long been shown that customer diversity initiatives lead to revenue stability for organizations. It is pretty intuitive when one thinks about it: the more sources of income you have, the less you have to worry if one source becomes unstable or say, if a customer leaves. Such initiatives, as one Deloitte study finds, also reward organizations through stalwart supporters who return for repeat business and actively campaign within their communities on behalf of that company. In other words, customer diversity creates both brand ambassadors and informal sales teams that actively campaign within their networks. Even with these benefits, however, customer diversity initiatives remain a rarity. In reality, most companies do not design products with difference in mind, and often establish a singular customer profile without taking into account trends in consumer buying power. For example, Black women — the fastest growing group of entrepreneurs in the U.S. — rarely find themselves to be the focus of a product, hence the movement to simply build it themselves.

Not understanding the vast capital held by growing demographics is a costly oversight. In 2017, the combined buying power of Black Americans, Asian-Americans and Native Americans was estimated to be $2.4 trillion, while the nation’s Hispanic/Latinx population held $1.5 trillion in buying power. Let’s not forget the $1 trillion purchasing power of the LGBTQ community. If individual buying power means less to your organization because your focus is more B2B sales, then consider estimates put forward by the U.S. Small Business Administration, showing the trillions of dollars in annual receipts from women and minority-owned businesses. As the U.S. experiences continuing shifts in the demographics of the population, these numbers continue to trend upward.

Tell Their Stories

Beyond understanding the numbers, leadership must be connected to the customer base and have a strategy in place that caters to different demographics within your target market. In this globalized economy, it is unlikely that major organizations or those with growth aspirations will conduct business without engaging with people from different backgrounds and cultures, be they customers or employees. Therefore, it is imperative that organizations continue to actively hone their skills in engaging across difference in order to accurately tell the stories of customers.

Many companies espouse a “customer first” value or mentality, yet as with sales organizations, the customer profile they have in mind is often not dynamic. This leads to sizeable populations being unable to see themselves in or using the product, tone deaf messaging and a disconnect from social issues, and ultimately stifled growth. In the last few years, there has been an uptick in the number of company ads that feature people who have not traditionally been the subject of major campaigns. For example, Dove began featuring women of color and different body sizes to more accurately reflect their customers. General Mills featured LGBTQ parents in their Cheerios ad, as did Campbell’s Soup. Even major brands like Old Navy, State Farm, and Macy’s began featuring interracial couples in their ads.

While each of these companies received backlash from those who were uninterested in seeing different people, the financial benefits of inclusive advertising are clear. Fenty Beauty, Rihanna’s cosmetic line that has been hailed for its inclusivity, earned a record-breaking $72 million in Earned Media Value in its first month and garnered honors from Time as a result of its focus on the diversity of complexions in both product and advertising. If increased growth and revenue are company business objectives, then marketing teams must have a strategy that actively engages the diversity of customers. Andrew McCaskill, Nielsen’s Senior Vice President, Global Communications and Multicultural Marketing, put it plainly, “With 43% of the 75 million Millennials in the U.S. identifying as African American, Hispanic or Asian, if a brand doesn’t have a multicultural strategy, it doesn’t have a growth strategy.”

Not only does representation matter in marketing materials, the ability to accurately tell user stories and to create conscious messaging is key to maintaining positive relationships with customers. But the vast majority of marketing that is focused on featuring underrepresented people is often in response to a crisis or criticism, not because there is an intentional and strategic focus on these populations. In the last few years, a number of companies have suffered significant losses because of their disconnect from issues that matter to their customers and the responses given by leadership or in general messaging. Starbucks, Papa John’s, H&M, PepsiCo, Nivea, and numerous others have experienced first-hand the detrimental impacts of being out of touch with underrepresented populations. This could be resolved if companies did their due diligence and conducted extensive market research, with a particular focus on engaging underrepresented groups. This would help companies to better understand the power and nuance of particular phrasing and how such messages are received in different global communities. Having a diverse marketing team is incredibly important, but you must also take the time to build relationships with diverse communities and engage them.

Marketing strategies are hardly ever simple, and a multicultural marketing strategy is no exception. But if the marketing team shifts some of its focus to actively building relationships with customers, they would be able to more accurately tell user stories, help other populations see themselves in the product, and have a more conscious understanding of messaging.

So, What Do I Do?

Sales and marketing organizations can see immediate returns on DEI initiatives, largely because they are the epicenter for both demand generation and revenue. While every organization’s approach should be tailored, here are the general actions to get started:

• Do your research: Take the time to review buying power and spending trends by key demographics, and engage with these audiences to understand what resonates with them. Explore use cases for the product with customers and assess if customers see themselves in or even using your product.
• Develop a strategy: Armed with qualitative and quantitative data, craft a framework and a set of measurable goals aimed at growth within underrepresented communities. This should range from brand identity and trust indices to overall sales.
• Stay woke: Remain conscious of historic and current events that may have disproportionately negative impacts on underrepresented people, and ensure your messaging reflects this awareness. Attend events hosted by and partner with organizations that focus on underrepresented populations in sales and marketing to ensure that the perspectives of these professionals are constantly part of the decision-making process.

As always, take part in the conversation in the comment section or share the articles along with your thoughts.

Ulysses J. Smith is a strategist and consultant. He is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter. Follow Archetype on LinkedIn for more updates.

References

1. “Missing Out: The business case for customer diversity,” Deloitte (2017).
2. “The Most Successful CEOs Embrace Customer Diversity,” Forbes (2014).
3. “Small Business Facts & Infographics,” U.S. Small Business Administration (2018).
4. “raceAhead: A New Nielsen Report Puts Black Buying Power at $1.2 Trillion,” Fortune (2018).
5. “Black Impact: Consumer Categories Where African Americans Move Markets,” Nielsen (2018).
6. “UGA report breaks down ‘buying power’ by demographic,” Atlanta Business Chronicle (2018).
7. “The Multicultural Economy 2018,” University of Georgia (2018).

Moving from Why to How

This is the first installment of the LDGR series focused on examining the impacts of DEI on individual business units and how organizations can implement practices to reap the returns.

Recently, economists from the University of Chicago and Stanford University published a study finding that improved access to jobs and opportunities for women and people of color accounted for a significant increase in the economic growth of the United States.

While this study represents one of the first attempts to quantify the broader economic contributions of women and people of color, it is far from the first study to prove the value (read: business case) for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). A plethora of studies over the years have proven the benefits of diversity across industries and settings ranging from K-12 and higher education, government and public institutions, and private industry. Still, we find ourselves in a perpetual state of attempting to explain why water is wet. One of the more frustrating aspects of this work for many practitioners can be simplified to this: Give the majority hundreds of studies over multiple decades just for them to continue to treat you like three-fifths of a person.

Regardless of the body of research available to support the case for companies to focus on DEI, the increasingly global economy, and the impending demographic shifts in the workforce, practitioners still find themselves in the position of having to justify their work. Granted, there has been an upward shift in the number of companies hiring full-time DEI practitioners, particularly in the tech industry. But the scope, influence, and decision-making authority of these positions varies depending on the organization. As I’ve discussed in previous pieces, hiring a practitioner is only one step; companies still have to ask critical questions about how DEI influences product, and there has to be meaningful investment in inclusion.

But what would happen to an organization if it truly understood the business benefits of DEI and actively sought to drive those returns? Put another way: what would happen if an organization stopped asking why should diversity be a business priority and instead focused on how to reap its many benefits? Applying the findings of this latest study, organizations would see exponential returns on their investments.

This series localizes this (and other) studies to individual business units that are often not the focus of this conversation and examines the impact of diversity within them. We’ll take a look at some of the critical questions those within these fields can ask to make the much-needed connections to DEI and division objectives, and offer a set of actions that can be taken to advance those goals. Of course, supporting resources will also be provided to help you get started. We’ll look at these business units and guiding questions:

• Sales & Marketing — Beyond hiring a diverse sales team, what is the impact of customer diversity initiatives and how do we tell the stories of the various customers we serve?
• Engineering, Product & Design — How do we build a product that is accessible to the widest population in our target market and design with difference in mind?
• Success & Support — How do we ensure that we understand the cultural context of the problems our customers want to solve and become better advocates for product changes?
• Human Resources — Recognizing that hiring is only part of what we do, how do we establish an organizational culture that embraces DEI principles both in policy and practice?

At the conclusion of this series, readers should understand two basic truths: 1) Diversity, equity, and inclusion work cannot simply be reduced to composition and demographics (read: hiring), divorced from a focus on organizational culture, and 2) Removing arbitrary barriers to participation and instituting meaningful practices with DEI as the foundation on both the team and division levels leads to overall increases in innovation, productivity, and the bottom line.

As always, take part in the conversation in the comment section or share the articles along with your thoughts.

Ulysses J. Smith is a strategist and consultant. He is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter. Follow Archetype on LinkedIn for more updates.

TL;DR: It’s not just the way you spend your money, but where you give your time and attention.

Whether you’re a venture capitalist trying to predict the next big thing or an executive trying to lead their company in a new strategic direction, how you choose to invest your resources speaks to your vision, direction, and priorities. And though an increasing number of leaders are articulating their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion those of us in the DEI space often find ourselves clamoring for the resources needed to build and sustain a successful function. Which leads many of us to wonder, is diversity, equity, and inclusion actually a priority?

I previously focused on the importance of integrating inclusion into the product design process and overall business model, but only briefly touched on the topic of a DEI leader’s scope in the organization. But the ability of the DEI leader or team to actually create the kinds of changes I discussed in my last post is dependent on the their scope within the broader organization and how many resources they are allocated. Consider these four questions:

Where in the organization is the DEI leader and team positioned?

Positioning in an organization refers to both the division and the level of the DEI leader, and it often dictates influence and decision-making authority. Regardless of how passionate you say you are about inclusion, there will always be a difference between a chief diversity officer and a program manager. The rise of the CDO has long been chronicled and results have been mixed, though that is usually the result of a lack of support from fellow executives. The CDO model is not for everyone.

While some organizations have found relative success with other decentralized models, beware the perils of having a structure with no clear responsibility, accountability, or authority. You might also consider heeding the growing calls for DEI to be removed from your human resources function.

To whom does the DEI leader report?

Regardless of where the DEI leader is situated within the organization, the reporting relationships between your DEI leader and other division leads should support the scope of the role. Reporting is not synonymous with positioning in this case, as reporting relationships can and should be lateral and throughout the organization. It is necessary for the DEI leader to have a reporting relationship with the CEO, but leaders of design and product should also be engaged to check the accessibility of new products. Marketing and communications leaders should work with DEI leaders to ensure that company messages resonate with the target audiences and have the appropriate cultural context. Sales executives should also do so when finding emerging markets, particularly those of underrepresented and minority-owned businesses.

If the vision is for inclusion to be integrated throughout the organization, then the DEI leader should be expected to regularly meet with other executives or division leads, and keep track of their progress on strategic initiatives that go beyond hiring goals.

What’s the budget?

Talking about money is often uncomfortable. Let me be clear in stating that simply throwing money at DEI neither solves your deep-seated culture issues, nor does it absolve the rest of the organization from involvement in the ongoing and difficult work of inclusion. That being said, your DEI leader and team should have a substantial budget that is reflective of the scope of their role and the vision of the organization. Internal programming, sponsorships, external partnerships, conferences and events, supplier diversity, customer experience initiatives, social impact, and so much more requires a budget. DEI leaders are often forced to hustle and find ways to build high-impact programs with almost no budget. While many of us are accustomed to this approach, it should not be the norm if you are serious about making meaningful change.

Michelle Kim on Twitter

Let's look at your holiday party budget vs. Diversity & Inclusion programming budget. Yep thought so. #tech

How much time do you give the DEI leader or team?

“Time is of the essence and it’s much too short to waste another minute on you.” — Destiny’s Child

The most important resource to invest is your time. The topics that are of the highest priority in an organization always find a way on the agenda of any meeting or event. Think of how often your company discussed new product launches, the budget, the holiday party, and any other priority over the last few months. If progress on DEI strategy does not come up for discussion even half as much as these other topics, then it is not a priority. Your organization must make time to regularly discuss DEI at your all-company meetings, division meetings, executive meetings, and any other place where strategic decisions are made. Actively seek out the DEI team for perspective during the ideation process, not right before a release to assist with PR.

Before you profess to your workforce, client base, and the world how committed you are to diversity, take a moment to reflect on what that means for you. Are you ready and willing to commit the time it takes to realize many of these culture shifts? Are you ready for some uncomfortable conversations? Are you ready to start making critical connections back to every facet of the business? If this is truly a priority, prepare yourself for the long haul and make the investments in time, attention, and deep work that are needed to reap the benefits of inclusion.

Ulysses J. Smith is Head of Inclusion, Diversity & Equity at Mixpanel. #GetintheMix and connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter.

The news around diversity in tech continues to be mediocre and disheartening. Despite good intentions and the flood of new positions dedicated to diversity, progress has stagnated. Perhaps it’s because of a growing fatigue among diversity advocates or too much emphasis on the wrong conversations? But there is also a critical element missing from the conversation happening at most tech companies: the connection between diversity and inclusion and the actual product. I’ve found that bringing the product into a company’s approach to D&I can re-energize the movement and generate more of the changes we want to see.

One of the major barriers to making progress on the job is people’s inability to see themselves as a critical part of conversation–that is, getting them to see their place within the D&I conversation. When I start talking about D&I, eyes glaze over as people mentally relegate the subject to a narrow discussion of race and gender that is only important to “those people” instead of the majority.

As a result, much of my bandwidth is dedicated to breaking down the concepts of diversity, inclusion, belonging, and equity and trying to convince people that they do, in fact, have a role — and a stake — in these efforts. While that is not how I prefer to spend most of my day, it feels worthwhile when the lightbulb clicks for someone and they begin to process these concepts–and their role–differently. I get this response more often when we discuss how diversity and inclusion is critical to our product.

A company should make the choice to approach their product through the lens of inclusion, diversity, and equity. This approach, gives you the opportunity to ask a different set of questions that help you understand the critical connections between your product, people, and the communities where you are present. Here are the six questions that you can ask across the organization:

1. Equal Treatment: Do we all feel valued interpersonally and economically? Beginning with our workforce, we have to ensure that people feel respected for who they are and what they bring, and are treated and compensated equally for the work they do.
2. Accessibility: Do we ensure access to the farthest corners of our target market? While our market may be narrow, we have to maximize participation of those in the market, as any good business should. This means ensuring our product is accessible to people with disabilities and underrepresented communities within our target audience.
3. Community Impact: What is our impact on the communities in which we are physically present? We must consider everything– from operating in accordance with prevailing sustainability standards to ensuring that we invest resources in supporting the most vulnerable people in these communities. We must continually look for opportunities for our product to be used for social good.
4. Customer Competence: Do we understand our customers? The composition of our workforce has to be representative of our customer base in order for us to make meaningful connections across demographics and advocate for product changes on the behalf of customers with the correct context of that community.
5. Compliance: Are we meeting and exceeding all of our global compliance obligations? Meeting the minimum in the applicable jurisdictions is not enough. From government contractor obligations to ethical standards of operation, our goal is to set the standard and surpass these requirements.
6. Values Alignment: Do both our workforce and our product reflect and demonstrate our values? Abandoning the flawed notion of “culture fit” gives us the opportunity to really think through our values as an organization, and to bring people into the organization that have a personal and professional connection to those values and enhance culture overtime. This must translate to the products we introduce to the marketplace.

Of course, asking these questions is only one step. Aligning your practices and processes to this change in mindset takes time and unwavering commitment from every executive and manager. To make that happen, D&I leaders need to have a cross-functional role that allows them to touch all parts of the company and have constant interaction with leadership. If your D&I leader’s role is confined to recruiting and unconscious bias training, your organization is doomed. To influence decision-making and to highlight the often-missed critical connections between employees, customers, and product, D&I leaders need the right resources and an engaged executive team.

Ulysses J. Smith is a strategist and consultant. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Emi Tabb made this article what it is and is responsible for many brilliant pieces. Check her out on LinkedIn and read her other pieces on Mixpanel’s blog: The Signal.

“Universities and College campuses are not these progressive safe havens void of racism that America all too often makes them out to be.”

There is so much truth in the above statement from Detrick Manning, author of “Racism within Elite Universities: A Cornell Student Called Me the N-Word and Nothing Has Been Done”. In the piece, the author uses his own horrible experience with a Cornell student on social media to make the argument that colleges and universities should be doing more to protect “the mental and emotional well-being of their students” and to convey “that prejudices of any kind are not tolerated within spaces of learning.”

Full disclosure: I was the Cornell administrator who coordinated the response to this matter during the Christmas holiday in 2016. The views expressed in this piece are solely my own and in no way reflect an official statement or response by Cornell University. Further, a sense of privacy for all parties prevents public disclosure at this time of details of Cornell’s activities, and it is not my purpose to defend or critique those actions in this forum. The author knows the significant support Cornell provided him and coordinated with his institution; and, he is welcome to discuss further other actions privately. This piece, however, is dedicated to asking ourselves to critically think about the role of colleges and universities as it relates to their mission and the support of their students.

I first want to say that I appreciate the author making himself even more vulnerable to social media retribution by recounting this event and the impact it had, not only to himself, but also to others who watched it unfold. Like the author, I am also a Black, gay man. I have now had the interesting (and very privileged) experience to go from an undergraduate student at Cornell to being a young administrator at the same institution. The author is absolutely correct in stating that “campuses…can house some of the most racist and prejudiced behaviors.” I have spent the better part of the last couple of years dealing with a number of cases of bias, discrimination, and protected-status harassment involving students and employees. That notwithstanding, surely our national climate has shown that bigotry is alive and well, and we should not subscribe to the belief that it disappears once one enters through the elite gates of academia, arguably one of the most oppressive industries.

Universities have to find a balance between upholding free speech and expression in their efforts to produce vetted and thoroughly critiqued research, and the protection of the dignity of the very individuals who are producing that research.

Long have I been a vocal critic of institutions like Cornell touting diverse demographics while practicing mediocre support of underrepresented populations and failing to challenge the dominant perspective, or to capitalize on the teachable aspects of encountered conflicts. It is not enough to handpick a few marginalized bodies, thrust them onto a college campus, and simply hope for the best. There must be some serious thought around the development of students from differing backgrounds, the support services that are needed, and ultimately an actual investment (read: real financial commitment) to implementing and sustaining these support services. To echo the author, these are not just academic resources. They are resources that support emotional and mental health. They are resources that support personal growth and development, as well as professional.

The very mission of higher education should be to challenge the status quo, to discover the unknown, and to (hopefully) produce responsible global citizens. In order to achieve that lofty aspiration, institutions cannot pretend that isms do not exist in the world; they cannot pretend that inequality is not the unfortunate bedrock of many systems; and they cannot pretend that oppression is not threaded into the fabric of many societies. Institutions not only have to acknowledge these facts, but they must ensure that their products — research and responsible global citizens — contribute to the dismantling of such atrocities.

Campuses are microcosms of society, and in a diverse society, we should expect diverse — and even disparate — perspectives and belief systems. Should campuses actively seek to ensure that any student who matriculates subscribes to a particular set of beliefs and/or does not hold “prejudices of any kind” as the author suggests? Asked differently: should colleges and universities brand themselves as safe spaces? A safe space, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is “a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.” At no point should there be condonation of discrimination, harassment, or physical harm to an individual. Admittedly, this conversation becomes much more challenging when we talk specifically about criticism and emotional harm — each having very real impacts.

As much as we would like to think that we walk through the world as objective beings, we are all prejudiced in some way. We all carry some biases that have been informed by our own experiences or by a lack of exposure to different people. Unfortunately, we all too often make many of our poorest decisions based on assumptions that we make about others. For colleges and universities in particular, it is impossible to guarantee a safe space for all under this definition. Administrators, faculty, and students alike would run themselves ragged trying to anticipate how every phrase, event, or shade of red will impact each individual member of the campus community.

Recently, we have heard tales of faculty making reprehensible statements in the classroom in the name of academic freedom. We have seen large-scale demonstrations followed by the dismissals (including resignations and “retirements”) of university officials for their response or lack thereof to such events. We have also seen a number of incidents like the one that sparked the original article, and the emergence of a robust debate around trigger warnings. At the same time, we have — thankfully — seen increased recognition of and discussion about the importance of mental health on college campuses. One of the most significant indicators of whether or not someone stays in an environment is an internal sense of belonging. Feeling that one is not welcome in a space, that they are not valued for who they are, and that they are not an essential part of a team can take a toll on someone’s mental health. This is especially relevant for students who often cope with feelings having to do with stereotype threat and impostor syndrome. There are also very real feelings of anxiety and increased stress — each of which can result in detrimental physical reactions — for those who have to worry about the threat to their physical safety on a regular basis. This cannot be dismissed.

Most, if not all, institutions have policies that prohibit violence, discrimination, and harassment, as well as provisions that address bias activity. Many institutions also have explicit protections of speech and expression — though they differ between public and private institutions — and processes to adjudicate conflicting speech. Most institutions, however, have opted to refrain from defining hate speech in favor of focusing policies on the prevention of specific acts and undesirable outcomes. Public institutions are especially wary of the very narrow rulings of the Supreme Court in First Amendment cases, though many private institutions do try to closely follow the same principles. Universities have to find a balance between upholding free speech and expression in their efforts to produce vetted and thoroughly critiqued research, and the protection of the dignity of the very individuals who are producing that research. That balance has not yet been found.

Given that the context, meaning, and impact of many words have changed in the time since some of the last major rulings of the Court, I think there is much more room to discuss what words and phrases fall under the already adjudicated speech categories. Should racial and ethnic epithets now be categorized as obscene or even fall under the fighting words exception due to their impact? What would this mean for words or phrases that have been reclaimed as colloquialisms by marginalized groups, like Black-Americans or the LGBTQ community? These are just a couple of the questions that society finds itself again grappling with, and each comes with a multitude of scenarios and potential shortcomings.

Barring any imminent threat to the physical safety of those on campus, colleges and universities should welcome all different people. Yes, this means that there likely will be conflict between people. Conflict (not violence), however, is where the most learning occurs, and there are certainly effective ways to challenge speech with more speech. Just as I want my colleagues to better understand and empathize with my challenges as a queer person of color, I also want to learn from their experiences. I do not want to be shielded from unfamiliar ideas and contrary beliefs, but to be confronted with them, to learn from them, and to be armed with the tools to combat them, if necessary. In an ideal world, the inevitable isms of society would not exist and we would not have to teach generation after generation that they must continue the fight for their basic rights and dignity. I would not have to contemplate how I will have the conversation with my children about how they are likely to be valued less and mistreated more in society because of the color of their skin and the identity of their parents.

Until such a time when none of us have to ponder those conversations, yes, universities should be safer spaces relative to the rest of society. Therefore, institutions must ensure that their curricula include the development of interpersonal skills, that their values are clearly articulated, and that their actions and conflict resolution policies are consistent with those values in prohibiting violence, harassment, and discrimination. Furthermore, institutions must go beyond issuing statements and actually use any conflict that arises as a means to teach the campus community about the underlying issue, and how to move forward with understanding and compassion.

Institutions fail their students when they do not provide adequate support services and resources to ensure both their academic success and their continued personal development. Institutions fail their students when they do not leverage the breadth of perspectives present on their campuses or when they fail to use incidents, such as the ones we are seeing around race in the United States today, as opportunities to learn and to challenge ourselves to do better. Institutions, ultimately, fail the rest of society when they do not adequately prepare students to engage across difference and to seek to correct the social ills of the world.

We have to challenge ourselves to ask instead: What steps should we take as a society to ensure that educational institutions live up to their aspirational missions beyond simple statements of tolerance?

Feeling some type of way? Good. Let’s engage in the comments or connect with me directly. Response pieces welcomed and encouraged.

Ulysses J. Smith is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. You can connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Recently, I was asked to lead a discussion at a small tech firm about strategies that have had the most impact in advancing diversity in the tech industry. The session ran like any other — I spoke a bit about my background, gave a short talk, and the participants asked a series of questions to which I provided answers. There was one question, though, that struck me differently than the others. It wasn’t because I had not heard the question before. In this particular setting, it summed up the tone and tenor of the conversation around workplace diversity, particularly in tech, in a way that I had not thought to articulate.

How do we show that we care about diversity and avoid the perception that we don’t care because we may not attend a talk or an event? How do we avoid getting into any of these political discussions around diversity?

When the question was asked, **I heard**, “How do we give the appearance that we care about diversity while not actively participating in any efforts to foster inclusion? How do we assemble a diverse workforce and avoid engaging in difficult conversations around identity?” My colleagues and friends know that it is often difficult for me to give short answers to questions like this. There’s context; there’s history; there’s so much that has to be acknowledged in order to paint a picture that makes sense to the audience and is provocative enough to cause them to think critically, to question the status quo, and even to be moved to action. There wasn’t time for all of that in this session. Logically, taking to the blogs was the next best thing.

The short answer I provided in the moment was to first make it clear that if perception was the primary concern, then one should question the sincerity of the organization in launching any diversity and inclusion initiatives. The most important point I wanted to convey — which I’ll explore here — was that diversity is political because an individual’s very being is political. That does not cease to be the case when we walk into the workplace, no matter how hard many of us try. It is unrealistic to believe that we surrender being ourselves when we come to work. In fact, much of the conversation around both diversity and employee engagement is the idea of belonging and how employers can foster a culture that encourages everyone to be their full authentic selves. It is because of this that employers should dedicate more focus to creating space for authentic dialogue.

My body is political, but I did not make it so.

Over the years, it has become relatively easy for companies to acknowledge the “business case” for diversity — introducing different perspectives and experiences leads to better products and outcomes — and subsequently, to enact a series of initiatives focused on recruiting underrepresented populations into the workforce. When it comes time to focus on workplace culture and engaging across identities, however, companies either quietly back away from the discussion or continue to operate in denial about the state of inclusion in the workplace. The focus cannot be on attracting a bunch of different people into an organization alone — there has to be a focus on what happens after a bunch of different people enter into that space. Assembling a workforce with pride in each person’s individual differences begins to feel insincere when we then choose to ignore each unique individual’s differences. To avoid acknowledging people’s histories and backgrounds prevents us from discussing historic injustices and barriers to institutions our organizations may be perpetuating. It leads us to continue to lean on the myth of meritocracy. To avoid having conversations around individual differences shields us from new perspectives and keeps us from the opportunity to briefly see the world through the lens of someone else. Avoiding these discussions ultimately prohibits progress toward inclusion and belonging.

My body is political, but I did not make it so. I am a Black, gay man living in the United States. My very being and presence is political. It became political when my ancestors were traded and sold as commodities. It became political when it was decided that people who looked like me did not count as a whole person under the Constitution. It became political when a war was fought and a debate began over whether or not I deserve equal protection under the law. It became political when my ability to marry whom I love, to go to school, to not be denied service, and to maintain employment were all questioned. If the ultimate goal is to create a space where everyone belongs, then you — as my employer — cannot ask me to ignore these parts of my history that I bring into the workplace every day.

Creating Space for Authentic Dialogue

Though the task of creating the space to have these authentic conversations in the workplace seems daunting, it is far from impossible. Here are some practical tips that can get you started:

Hone your listening skills. The best first steps is to be willing and able to actively and empathetically listen to others. Listening with empathy requires that you suspend your assumptions and judgements, set aside your roles and power dynamics, and seek to understand. When you actively listen with empathy, you are able to identify the core concerns or principles that someone is trying to express, and respond in a way that is true to the emotions you are feeling while indirectly conveying that you are not seeking to attack the person — that you are willing to advance a dialogue from which you could both benefit. Using models, like LARA, have proven to be effective in many spaces.

Create formal and informal learning opportunities. Listening is not the only skill that can be honed in the workplace. There are a number of great programs and learning opportunities around giving and receiving feedback, the role of managers in leading diverse teams, and other interpersonal skills that are valuable in the workplace. Additionally, informal learning opportunities such as ‘lunch-and-learns’, town halls or open forums, and thought provoking questions at the coffee machine provide opportunities for employees to learn from one another in less structured formats. Informal opportunities are essential because they are not associated with the stigma of mandatory diversity trainings and tend to put people at ease when discussing more controversial topics. They provide a brave space for people to share more personal experiences and to learn from missteps, rather than feel restricted by more formal spaces.

Push pause and check-in. One of the greatest things an employer can do is to encourage everybody to simply take a quick pause, particularly when the news of current events is unavoidable. All-company notes from leadership or town halls that humanize leaders and make them accessible can set the tone for how the rest of the organization engages or disengages in troubling times. Encouraging managers and leaders to check-in with their teams regularly is a great step, provided that these leaders are given the tools for engaging in the more personal, people development work that comes with being a leader. It’s not just about asking “how are you?” — it’s about sticking around to really listen to the answer and provide support. In her book, Bully in the Ivory Tower, Leah Hollis Ed.D studies the pervasiveness of workplace bullying and seeks to quantify its financial impact, noting how much money organizations lose due to employees spending more time processing trauma rather than being their most productive. In much the same way, employees who are dealing with trauma due to being bombarded by news of current events that impact them because of some part of their identity can disengage, particularly if there is no demonstration of concern on the part of an employer. A quirky representation of this was the viral “Call in Black” video, but the discussion and impacts are very real.

Remember that creating these spaces is not without its challenges, but the benefits of doing so are far greater than the sum of those challenges. Keep in mind that dialogue does not mean resolution. Those who are able to meaningfully participate in dialogue are not likely to walk away in total agreement with others. Rather, they will walk away with a better understanding of the experiences of others and how those individual differences can be valued in the workplace and beyond. Shying away from the difficult or ‘political’ discussions that come with diversity will only prove to inhibit any progress toward creating a culture of belonging.

Ulysses J. Smith is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Last week, we witnessed the latest blow to net neutrality, an outcome that many saw as inevitable under the current administration. What is peculiar, as the New York Times points out, is the almost deafening silence of many of the largest tech organizations. Yet, even more disturbing, is this silence against the backdrop of the tech industry’s newfound espoused commitments to diversity, inclusion, and social impact. All of a sudden, such commitments have now taken on an air of insincerity that the industry may find harder to overcome than its already problematic workforce composition struggle.

To look candidates from under-served communities in the face and tell them of your company’s commitment to inclusion, while consistently remaining silent when it comes to those critical moments of advocating for the very basic things they need to be successful is hypocritical at best.

At the onset, we should be fair to large companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix. Each of them did take some steps to demonstrate their position on net neutrality. For example, briefs and comments were filed with the F.C.C. and various executives posted statements or issued Twitter edicts and declarations. In the days following the decision, a few companies, like Netflix, have explicitly noted in stronger public statements that they are gearing up for long legal battles with the agency. Additionally, many of the most well-known tech brands have been working collectively within the Internet Association to address the matter.

These efforts, however, do not compare to the extensive marketing campaigns that are undertaken by these companies when they wish to reveal their newest feature or want us to purchase the latest product. Consumers are kept abreast of the top trending hashtags, constantly reminded of memories they shared with friends they no longer have, and regularly receive curated lists of things they do not need based on their browsing history (or some other nebulous metadata). I do recall seeing that #netneutrality was trending for quite some time on Twitter. I don’t recall seeing a Google Doodle drawing attention to the matter. I don’t recall a banner at the top of my Facebook news feed telling me to join in the fight to preserve the current rules the same way it reminds me to vote in local and national elections. I don’t recall a push notification from any of these major companies informing me of simple steps I could take to get involved or even telling me what these companies were doing to help protect my access to an open internet. The lack of overt demonstration of support for net neutrality flies in the face of all of the latest diversity and corporate social responsibility efforts that have become the topic of much discussion in tech.

It is no secret that the tech industry struggles with assembling a workforce that even roughly mirrors the demographics of the available work-eligible population, and continues to take heat for the lack of gender and racial parity across organizations. Over the last few years, companies have launched efforts to hire diversity and inclusion leaders and joined in to support a number of non-profits that aid in creating pipelines for women and underrepresented minorities. Many have even begun to make substantial investments in primary and secondary educational programs to bolster tech education and early exposure— investments largely undertaken in support of the myth that there is a dearth of minority talent skilled enough to be hired into tech roles currently, but great investments nonetheless. It is here where we arrive at this latest hypocrisy in tech.

Take Facebook, for example. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative was launched with the express mission of “advancing human potential and promoting equal opportunity.” Backed by the millions of dollars of the Facebook empire, the organization is poised to be the best-funded organization of its kind. Though the organizations operate separately, it is impossible to not view CZI as the ultimate corporate social responsibility arm of Facebook, making the lack of outward demonstration of support for net neutrality all the more ironic. Tech firms in the Bay Area are especially criticized for their role in the gentrification of San Francisco and for contributing to rising housing prices that have pushed so many out of the city or driven them to homelessness. As a result, most companies have some social impact or CSR function dedicated to giving back to the community in some way. Peruse any of these companies’ career sites to see pictures of them feeding the homeless, giving a sizable check to a local non-profit, or holding a large-scale event focused on diversity in tech. All of this is done with the intent to showcase their values and to market themselves as progressive and socially conscious companies. Providing examples of an organization’s activities around diversity and community impact is an appeal to top talent that values an inclusive company culture. The challenge is that companies must be consistent in demonstrating these values.

There are many misguiding doomsday scenarios about net neutrality circulating across the internet. Consumers should not expect to see major shifts in prices or a cessation of services in the very near future. That said, the repeal of net neutrality could have far greater implications for some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States — the same populations that tech has evangelized about hiring and supporting. The Pew Research Center found that disparities in access to broadband internet still persist “based on factors such as age, income, education and community type.” Years of data have also shown that income and educational attainment in the U.S. are also significantly linked to race. Rural communities and low-income areas that lack the infrastructure to support broadband internet are already limited in their access to the opportunities afforded by tech. The repeal of net neutrality rules has the potential to further exacerbate these disparities.

Net neutrality rules protect consumers and internet companies from being charged premiums and tolls by internet service providers (ISPs) for access to some of the websites that have become almost ubiquitous to so many. Take a hypothetical scenario where priority high-speed access to social media sites is now available for a premium. Something like access to Facebook or LinkedIn seems like a ‘nice to have’ rather than a necessity for many. The reality, however, is that the tech industry in particular has become dependent on sites like LinkedIn for the outreach to and the recruiting of top talent. Knowledge of available opportunities in tech is most widely accessible via social media, not so much through postings in printed materials and periodicals. Access to the sites that provide free or low-cost options for individuals to develop the skills that are necessary to be qualified for such positions, such as Lynda.com or Khan Academy, could also now be even more limited. Educational opportunity, income security, and social mobility then start to become that much more unattainable to populations that already struggle to get even the most basic access.

While the focus of the net neutrality discussion is largely on the potential costs to consumers, Business Insider makes the observation that the repeal of net neutrality rules could make large internet companies even more powerful. This is disturbing when one considers the impact on minority entrepreneurs. Recently, Melinda Gates penned a piece discussing the lack of investment by venture capitalists in women and minority-owned startups. She presents dismal figures including, “only 3 percent of respondents rated diversity as one of their top concerns,” and “fifty-nine percent of them said their firms didn’t support any diversity initiatives for founders.” Despite persistent claims that there are just not that many women and minority startup founders, the reality is that these founders often are not given the same access to VCs or the networks that would connect them to the resources they need to be successful. With the repeal of net neutrality rules, smaller startups and fledgling internet companies will likely be unable to afford any of the tolls or premiums charged by ISPs to get their products and content to consumers, while the Googles and Facebooks will have no trouble footing these bills — though they may not like it. Not only does this limit competition, it could effectively lock smaller companies — disproportionately those helmed by underrepresented groups — out of the market. These companies are already under-resourced and overlooked by VCs, and now they could be charged premiums that they cannot afford in order to gain access to their target audiences.

The tech industry often discusses diversity in a context that acknowledges the business case, but is divorced from other actions that continue to solidify barriers for underrepresented populations. If our goal is to attract a workforce that is as diverse as the broader population and to reach a point of parity at all levels of an organization, then we need to have a difficult conversation about our complicity in perpetuating a range of isms. Effective diversity and corporate social responsibility models depend on the actions taken by organizations, not on how much money is thrown at various initiatives. To look candidates from under-served communities in the face and tell them of your company’s commitment to inclusion, while consistently remaining silent when it comes to those critical moments of advocating for the very basic things they need to be successful is hypocritical at best. At worst, it’s a sign to the most vulnerable groups that your values will only be demonstrated and your advocacy efforts will only happen when most convenient for you.

Ulysses J. Smith is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. You can connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter.