Search Stories

Showing 960 - 980 of 1031 results

‘The Virtuous Company Is Not an Oxymoron But a Necessity’

Many applauded when the elite club of America’s top CEOs, the Business Roundtable, declared last month that corporations should have a sense of purpose beyond just profits—but skepticism abounded too. On the one hand, legal experts pointed out that shareholder primacy is still deeply embedded in corporate law, so companies will be held accountable mostly by their shareholders for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, cynics fueled a debate on whether the business group’s new statement of purpose was just empty rhetoric, a response to growing economic populism. Yet now a leading expert on giant corporations makes a cogent argument that “stakeholder capitalism”—in which big business should consider the interests not just of shareholders but also employees, customers, suppliers and community members—is not only commendable, but a much-needed corrective in today’s winners-take-all economy. “Cynicism in the face of pious corporate proclamations can be healthy. But there is increasing reason to think that the virtuous corporation is not an oxymoron but a necessity,” wrote Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and author of The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, in the New York Times. Wu argues that priorities in the world of business have become badly skewed, to the point where the sole focus on profits is simply unsustainable because of what it has done to the economic environment around them. Metaphorically, they have polluted the sea in which they swim. “Unfortunately, American corporate leadership, cheered on by Wall Street, has been steeped for several decades in a culture of profit-squeezing,” he writes. “In some cases this culture brought needed discipline to bloated industries. But what began as a campaign for greater management discipline has gone far too far, robbing corporate leaders of their natural social and moral instincts—often with disastrous consequences.” He cites the pharmaceutical industry as an egregious example, whose “narrow metrics of success has led not only to outrageous prices but also to great suffering, addiction and death.” The need for capitalism with a conscience is twofold, Wu argues: because businesses employ the vast majority of America’s workers and steer much of its economic activity, and because government has failed in many respects to build a fairer economy. Stronger laws and regulations will help as far as they go, but their more important impact will be in changing the culture. Concludes Wu: “Most of the men and women who lead corporations are decent people, yet too often they find themselves forced by the prevailing culture to ignore their better instincts.”

fromdayone | September 24, 2019

What Happens When Capitalists Follow Their Conscience

In his book Lab Rats: How Silicon Valley Made Work Miserable for the Rest of Us, author Dan Lyons argues that workplace practices and business models championed by empathy-impaired tech titans have shattered the social contract between companies and their employees. But it doesn’t have to be that way, as he illustrates in this chapter about Mitch Kapor and Freada Kapor Klein, who run an investment firm to fuel companies with a positive social impact. Lyons will be speaking this week at From Day One’s conference in Boston. Kapor Capital is based in Oakland. That one fact says a lot about what makes this venture capital firm different from all of the top VC investors in Silicon Valley. Most of the VC powerhouses have their headquarters 45 miles away, on a two-mile stretch of Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, Calif. They are nestled into sleepy, leafy little office parks, clustered right next to one another, in dead-quiet, understated Northern California buildings. To visit them, you drive way up in the hills above Stanford University, where the parking lots are filled with Teslas, birds chirp in the eucalyptus trees, and skinny Spandex-clad techies zip around on exotic carbon-fiber racing bikes that cost more than what some people pay for a car. By contrast, to visit Kapor Capital, you drive across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco, drop down off the highway, and drive through a vast homeless camp under a freeway overpass on Martin Luther King Jr. Way, past buildings decorated with graffiti art and pawn shops, bail bond services, and payday lenders. Oakland sits across the bay from San Francisco, but they’re remarkably different places. Oakland is a gritty, working-class city. It’s also an African-American city. For a long time, black people were the biggest ethnic group in Oakland, and while demographics have shifted recently, African Americans still represent about a quarter of the population. By setting up shop here in Oakland, Mitch Kapor and Freada Kapor Klein, the husband-and-wife team behind Kapor Capital, were sending a message—they were not part of that other world. Unlike those big venture capital firms over on Sand Hill Road, the Kapors are not trying to make as much money as possible by any means necessary. Instead, they have a social mission. Some call it impact investing. Or diversity-focused investing. Or mission-driven versus money-driven investing. The Kapors call their model “gap-closing investing,” meaning they will invest only in companies that are “serving low-income communities and/or communities of color to close gaps of access, opportunity, or outcome,” Freada says. The Kapors moved from San Francisco to Oakland in 2012 and bought a vacant building in Oakland’s Uptown neighborhood. In 2016 the one-time Pacific Telephone and Telegraph switching station opened as the Kapor Center for Social Impact, a nonprofit organization whose goal is to help underrepresented people of color get education in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and make careers in the tech industry. The Kapors make the center available to other organizations for conferences and workshops. The offices of Kapor Capital are housed inside the Kapor Center, along with another Kapor organization, the Level Playing Field Institute, a nonprofit that runs a summer math-and-science program for minority students. In addition to making a statement about their priorities, the Kapors’ move to Oakland has turned out to be a pretty smart investment. Oakland is on the rebound. New businesses are popping up—little coffee shops, brewpubs, farmers’ markets, and trendy restaurants catering to young professionals. Once considered one of the most dangerous cities in America, Oakland now makes the Forbes list of America’s Coolest Cities, with Uptown, the neighborhood where the Kapor Center is located, finding itself on the Forbes list of America’s Best Hipster Neighborhoods. “Here in Oakland we have a different story than in San Francisco,” Mitch says. It’s a Thursday evening in the summer. We’re eating takeout sushi in the Kapor Capital offices, while Dudley, the Kapors’ big Goldendoodle, sprawls out in the corner. “We have community engagement, and start-up weekends, and First Friday programs for Oakland entrepreneurs, where we get people together and talk about how you start a company.” Mitch is 68 years old with a shock of white hair and sometimes a white beard to match. He’s a one-time meditation instructor who became a software entrepreneur and got rich, almost by accident. Freada, 67, is a small woman with curly black hair and intense dark eyes. She grew up in Biloxi, Miss., and once saw her older brother, age seven, get beaten up for being Jewish. You get the sense that she’s been fighting ever since. In the early 1970s Frieda was a student activist and rape crisis counselor at UC-Berkeley. After graduation she founded an organization to combat sexual harassment in the workplace, wrote articles for a newsletter called Feminist Alliance Against Rape, and got a PhD in social policy and research from Brandeis. As Freada told an interviewer in 2018: “Diversity is all that’s ever mattered to me, for all the decades of my professional life.” THE RISE OF “IMPACT INVESTING” In a way what’s happening to Oakland is a metaphor for what the Kapors are hoping to do with the tech industry. Over the past ten or 20 years the industry has gone off the rails. The smash-and-grab, get-rich-quick, screw-the-workers business model has become deeply entrenched. That model has created a dysfunctional workplace culture where women are excluded or harassed, where “bros hire bros,” where employees are treated poorly, and where people of color are unwelcome. The industry’s lack of diversity is not just unfair, but it’s also bad business. Research by consulting firm McKinsey in 2015 found that companies in the top quartile for gender and racial diversity were 35% more likely to produce higher-than-average financial returns. More diverse companies are better able to recruit top talent and have higher employee satisfaction, McKinsey claims. Whether diversity makes people happier remains a subject of debate. Certainly, people who previously were excluded and now can get jobs are happier. But a 2014 MIT study suggests that diverse workplaces have more friction than workplaces with homogeneous cultures. Sara Ellison, the MIT economist who led the study, used the analogy of a baseball team made up entirely of catchers. They wouldn’t win many games, but they would probably get along great. In other words: diversity might not make everyone happy, but happiness in and of itself may not be the right goal. For decades the Kapors have been trying to boost the diversity of the tech industry. They’ve launched educational programs to teach girls and underprivileged kids how to write code, for example. But things haven’t gotten better; if anything, the industry seems to be moving backward. In 2012 the Kapors came up with the idea of yoking investment dollars to social change. This is not a new concept. Socially progressive mutual funds have been around for a long time. What’s different is that the Kapors are doing this with venture capital. Investing seed money means getting involved early and shaping a company’s culture, sometimes from day one. By making early-stage investments the Kapors can buy themselves a seat at the table. It’s not uncommon for venture capitalists to help start-ups assemble management teams and decide which executives to hire. The Kapors believe “impact investing” might accomplish things that nonprofits and philanthropic organizations cannot. “The world runs on business,” Mitch says. “We need to change working conditions. We need to create more good work where people are treated well. Philanthropy is not going to solve that problem.” The Kapors are part of a mission-driven movement that is springing up at the edges of Silicon Valley and has been starting to get traction. Company founders and company funders alike are pushing back against the rich-get-richer business model that traditional venture-capital firms have created over the past 20 years. That model has produced start-ups with toxic cultures, it has led to widening income inequality, and it has excluded women and people of color. A new generation of start-up founders are committing to building healthy and diverse corporate cultures, and they are supported by a handful of small venture-capital firms that share their values. Dan Lyons, author of Lab Rats: How Silicon Valley Made Work Miserable for the Rest of Us Kapor Capital doesn’t require that a company have a founder who is a woman or a person of color. They focus instead on the product or service the company creates. It has to be one that they consider “gap-closing” rather than “gap-widening.” Here’s a hypothetical example. A company that sells a really expensive service that helps rich kids do a little better on their SATs would be gap-widening; a service that helps poor immigrant kids get access to a good education would be gap-closing. Traditional venture capitalists don’t care about this. If anything, they prefer start-ups that sell stuff to rich people, for obvious reasons. That’s why the tech industry has been producing so many “mommy start-ups,” meaning companies started by young guys who want services to do things their moms used to do for them—like do their laundry (Washio, Cleanly, Rinse, FlyCleaners, Prim, Mulberrys) and bring them food (DoorDash, Instacart, Blue Apron, Maple, Sprig, Plated, and at least 60 others have been funded since 2011). There are start-ups that sell $500 “collectible” sneakers and one that uses robots to make pizza. TECH’S BIG DIVERSITY PROBLEM I saw the tech industry’s diversity problems firsthand when I was a fiftysomething guy struggling to fit in at a start-up where almost everyone was half my age. I’ve often been asked to talk about age bias and the plight of older workers, and I’m happy to do it—but bias based on race and gender is far worse—and all three are related. One young woman I interviewed was is the only black student in her computer-science class and was ignored by her white male colleagues. Another person I spoke with, an African- American guy, thought he did great in a phone interview, only to show up for the in-person interview and see the startled look in the young white guy’s eyes. “It was like, ‘Oh, I didn’t know you were—um, sorry, I didn’t know you were so tall.’” A friend I’ll call Alex, an Ivy League graduate with 20 years of tech experience, shows up to pitch his start-up to VCs and can tell by their expressions that they’re not going to fund him. Is it because he’s black? Or because he’s in his 50s? He can’t be sure. Every year, Apple, Google, and Facebook publish diversity reports, and every year they say the same thing: sorry, we still haven’t made much progress. The numbers are appalling. In some tech companies, black workers represent only 2% of the employee population; Latinos fare only slightly better. Only one-third of workers are female. There are fewer women working in Silicon Valley today than in the 1980s. In leadership ranks the imbalance is worse—management teams and boards of directors are loaded with white men. Somehow, over the past twenty years, Silicon Valley has gone backward. It’s even worse in the venture capital industry, where 1% of investment team members are black, and Latinos make up just over 2%, according to The Information, a Silicon Valley publica- tion. Women represent only 15% of decision-making roles. VCs claim that they make decisions based entirely on the strength of the company’s ideas, and without any regard for race or gender. But can you guess where the members of the White Man Club tend to put their money? “I can be tricked by anyone who looks like Mark Zuckerberg” is how Paul Graham, the founder of Y Combinator, a top Silicon Valley start-up incubator, once famously put it. Graham later claimed he was joking, but a glance through the roster of Y Combinator portfolio companies turns up an awful lot of nerdy young Zuckerberg clones. I’ve heard various theories for how things got so bad in Silicon Valley. One is that venture capitalists and tech companies are lazy about recruiting. Instead of casting a wide net, they hire kids out of Stanford and Berkeley, where black and Latino students are underrepresented.  There’s the good-guy theory, which is when one guy tells another guy that a third guy is a “good guy,” meaning he’s one of us, go ahead and hire him. Another theory is that techies really believe that diversity would hurt their performance. The men who run VC firms and tech companies pay lip service to diversity, but deep down they believe that their current arrangement—hiring young men, mostly white, and building “bro” cultures—actually delivers the best results. Meanwhile the guys who run Silicon Valley came up with an excuse: we want to hire more women and people of color; we just can’t find any qualified candidates. I reached out to Mary Campbell, the president of Spelman College, a historically black college for women in Atlanta, Georgia, and asked her about this claim. Campbell explained that there’s more to improving diversity than just recruiting. For one thing, Spelman’s graduates in STEM fields are already in high demand, and they all find good jobs—just not in Silicon Valley. They’re working at Boeing and in biotech companies, rather than the “bro culture” tech companies. The bigger issue, Campbell said, is retaining black employees. Black graduates who go to Silicon Valley often feel unwanted or out of place, so they leave. To hang on to those people, Silicon Valley needs to become a place where those young people feel welcome. “It’s about having a community, having a local church you can go to, having the chance to meet a spouse,” Campbell says. How can it be that these “innovative” tech companies in Silicon Valley seem like some of the most backward organizations in the world? This is basically segregation, only instead of taking place at the University of Alabama in 1963, it’s happening in California in 2018. The consequences aren’t just moral failings—they’re financial. Freada Kapor has consulted with most big tech companies and produced voluminous research. Contrary to the prevailing opinion among bro-CEOs, Kapor argues that diversity produces better returns. A 2017 study by the Kapor Center estimated that employee turnover related to cultural issues was costing the tech industry $16 billion a year. Yet not much progress has been made, she concedes. “Google spent $289 million on diversity over the course of two years, and you show me what changed,” she says. Mitch cites a lack of interest on the part of CEOs as part of the problem. Without that push from the top, nothing happens. “It’s just not a top priority for Mark Zuckerberg,” Mitch says. “He has a lot of other stuff going on. It’s not really important to him. That’s my conclusion. If this were important at the CEO level, then you would see companies taking more dramatic action.” Also, these companies are making loads of money. “They’re doing swell. So it’s a case of, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” Kapor says. In recent years the Kapors started to dial back on trying to fix big tech companies. They believe they can have more impact by working with new start-ups. “We’re focusing on young companies,” Mitch says. “I think it’s more likely that a new generation of companies can do better. If you bake in a commitment to diversity and inclusion right from the start, it will still be part of the company when you get large.” BREAKING THE CODE OF SILENCE The Kapors have been activists, in one way or another, since the early 1970s, when Mitch was at Yale and Freada was at UC- Berkeley. They might have become just another kooky old hippie couple living in the Bay Area except that in the early 1980s Mitch became fantastically rich. This happened almost by accident. After graduation in 1971 he spent a decade bouncing around. He taught Transcendental Meditation. He worked as a DJ. In 1978 he bought an Apple II computer and taught himself to write programs, which landed him a job at VisiCorp, a tiny software developer near Boston. In 1982, Mitch founded Lotus Development, named after the lotus position used in meditation, to sell a software program called Lotus 1-2-3, a spreadsheet that ran on the recently introduced IBM personal computer. Kapor expected Lotus would generate $1 million in sales in its first year. Instead, sales topped $53 million, making Lotus one of the biggest software companies in the world. Within a decade annual sales would approach $1 billion. The company went public. Eventually it was acquired by IBM for $3.5 billion. Mitch the meditation instructor became Mitch the multimillionaire. Lotus became known for worker-friendly culture, with a goal to become the most progressive company in the U.S. Mitch told the venture capitalist who funded the company, “There are some things that are as important as making money and one is how I treat people.” The company offered a generous pension and 401(k) plan. Lotus also provided a sabbatical program and on-site day care. It was one of the first big companies to offer benefits for same-sex partners, and it stuck to its guns even when big institutional investors dumped their shares in protest. Managers went through rigorous diversity training. “We had lots of female executives. There was incredible social awareness,” recalls John Landry, a former chief technology officer. Carrie Griffen spent 17 years at Lotus, from 1983 to 2000, in a variety of communications and management roles. “We were happy at Lotus, not only because the company cared about its employees, but because the leadership fostered the right culture,” she says. “People work hard when they’re happy, and inspired, and when they are part of an honorable culture. That’s the Lotus I remember.” Lotus is also where Mitch and Freada met; she joined the company in 1984 as the head of employee relations, after completing her PhD at Brandeis, though they did not become romantically involved until later, in the 1990s. Mitch left Lotus in 1986, because he didn’t like running a big company, and frankly, he wasn’t very good at it. Freada left in 1987 and created a consultancy offering training on workplace bias. But the progressive culture they set in motion continued. After Lotus, Mitch went back to bouncing around. He developed a program called Agenda, which Lotus distributed. He moved to San Francisco and co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization that defends civil liberties, sort of a version of the ACLU for cyberspace. Mitch began investing in start-ups and had a sharp eye for picking winners. He put seed money into Dropcam, which was acquired by Google, and Twilio, which went public and now has a market value of nearly $4 billion. At that point, Mitch was just investing as an individual, but in 2009 he and Freada formed Kapor Capital. One of the first bets they made was on Uber. In October 2010, Kapor and 28 other Silicon Valley techies threw together $1.5 million in a seed round for the ride-sharing company, reportedly at a valuation of $4 million. By 2017, Uber’s valuation had skyrocketed to $70 billion. The early investors had made a killing. A stake that cost $20,000 in the seed round had ballooned in value to $40 million, by some estimates. (The Kapors won’t say how much they invested in Uber or what their stake is worth today. They also point out that they made the investment in Uber before they committed to social impact investing.) The big win on Uber came with baggage. Uber had built a toxic culture that was the antithesis of everything the Kapors stood for. There was no diversity. Women were treated horribly. So while the investment added to the Kapors’ bank account it also became a blot on their reputation. In February 2017 Uber was engulfed in scandal after Susan Fowler, a former engineer at the company, published an essay on Medium describing sexual harassment that had driven her to leave the company. Soon other women from Uber came forward with similar stories about an abusive workplace. Uber tried to put out the fire by creating a team to investigate the complaints, led by Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney. Still, the Kapors were fed up. They published an open letter saying that carrying out an investigation wasn’t going to be enough. They revealed that for years they had been working behind the scenes to get Uber to fix its “culture plagued by disrespect, exclusionary cliques, lack of diversity, and tolerance for bullying and harassment of every form.” Freada had given a talk at Uber and consulted with some of its executives. At this point, Uber needed a massive over-haul, and the company should “hold Uber leadership accountable, since all other mechanisms have failed,” they wrote. In essence the Kapors were calling for Uber’s board to fire the company’s founder and CEO, Travis Kalanick. Some fellow investors considered the move a betrayal. In Silicon Valley there’s an unspoken rule that investors should never do anything to hurt the valuation of the company, including criticizing management in public. In their open letter the Kapors said the code of silence needed to change. “As investors, we certainly want to see Uber succeed, but success must be measured in more than just financial terms,” they wrote. Other venture capitalists were quick to criticize the Kapors. “We broke the code by speaking,” Freada says. “We were supposed to give them our advice, but quietly. But we were frustrated. We had spent many hours with them, trying to counsel them. And they were not listening. We had been unable to influence them. We felt we had to hold them accountable. Uber’s culture was toxic.” A few months after the Kapors published their open letter, Uber’s board pushed Kalanick out as CEO. Six months after that, when investment firm SoftBank bought a chunk of Uber, the company’s valuation had dropped by about $20 billion. You can’t blame the Kapors for all of that. Uber had many bigger problems than their open letter. But the incident had been a defining moment. It showed that the Kapors would not be afraid to speak up, even if it could hurt them financially. If any companies were scared away, they were probably not companies that Kapor would want to fund anyway, Mitch says. “SAVING CAPITALISM FROM ITSELF” Nine years after its inception, Kapor Capital remains a relatively tiny firm, with only six investment partners in addition to the Kapors. Three are women. Three are Hispanic and three are black. One partner is Benjamin Jealous, the former president of the NAACP, who joined in 2013. “Entrepreneurs from diverse backgrounds look at our team page, and they can find someone who looks like them, and they think, ‘Hey, these people might have a sense of who I am,’” Mitch says. More than half of the companies they’ve invested in have been led by a founder who is a woman or a person of color. Unlike most venture capital firms, which get money from pension funds and college endowments, the Kapors invest only their own money. And since 2012, Kapor Capital has invested only in companies that they consider to be “gap-closing” and that they believe can have social impact at a very large scale. That radically reduces the number of deals they look at, and it means ruling out promising opportunities in areas like self-driving cars, virtual reality goggles, and robots that make pizza. What’s more, an investment from Kapor Capital comes with strings attached. Companies must abide by a set of principles that Kapor calls the Founders’ Commitment. That includes setting goals on diversity and inclusion, and producing a D&I progress report every quarter. Companies must invest in training on how to mitigate bias, give employees opportunities to do volunteer work, and participate in D&I workshops hosted by Kapor Capital. The result of the Kapors’ efforts is a new generation of companies that have healthier, more inclusive workplace cultures and are making products and services that are “gap-closing.” LendUp provides credit cards and small short-term loans to people with low credit scores, who might otherwise rely on predatory payday lenders. Pigeonly, founded by an ex-convict, helps inmates stay in touch with family and friends while they are incarcerated, sending photos and making low-cost phone calls. Thrive Market is a members-only online grocer that charges 25% less than traditional supermarkets and offers free memberships to veter- ans, public school teachers, and low-income families. HealthSherpa helps people find affordable health insurance plans. Genius Plaza  provides a bilingual curriculum for kids in low-income schools. The company now serves 2 million children in the U.S. and Latin America, and is growing rapidly. The Kapors are betting that gap-closing investments can deliver a good return to venture capitalists. They plan to publish a report on their fund performance in 2022, when the fund hits the ten-year mark. While it can take a while for startups to deliver returns, “we have many gap-closing companies across multiple sectors which are doing very well,” Freada says. In addition to investing, the Kapors are active philanthropists. Freada founded and chairs a nonprofit, SMASH, which offers a summer math and science program for minority students. In 2015 she co-founded a “diversity war room” called Project Include, which offers startup CEOs a set of principles even more comprehensive than the ones in the Kapor Capital Founders’ Commitment. Diversity-focused investment firms and start-up incubators are springing up around Silicon Valley. Outfits like NewME, Base Ventures, Cross Culture Ventures, Backstage Capital, and Precursor Ventures are run by people of color and lean toward investing in companies run by women and people of color. XFactor Ventures is a women-run firm that invests only in companies with at least one female co-founder. Social Capital, a VC firm with more than $1 bil- lion under management, has taken a stand on diversity: “I want the firm to look like what the world looks like. That means hiring and backing minorities and women,” says its founder, Chamath Palihapitiya, a former Facebook executive. To be sure, even if you pooled all of the resources of the diversity-focused venture capital firms and advocacy groups, they would still be tiny compared to the $70 billion that venture capital firms invest each year in the US. But the diversity team seems to be punching above their weight and creating a kind of movement. The stakes have never been higher. A few decades ago, the tech industry did not exert much influence on the overall economy. Today, technology is transforming every company. “Every business is a tech business,” Mitch says. The world’s five biggest companies, in terms of market valuation, are tech companies. That’s why the Kapors and others in the movement are feeling so urgent. They’re racing to fix the tech industry before its dysfunction spreads. As Mitch likes to say, “We’re trying to save capitalism from itself.” He’s only half joking. *** Dan Lyons is an author, screenwriter, and journalist. He is the author of two books about workplace culture in the digital age. His most recent book is Lab Rats: Tech Gurus, Junk Science and Management Fads—My Quest to Make Work Less Miserable. His previous book was Disrupted: My Misadventure in the Startup Bubble, which became a New York Times bestseller. Dan was also a writer on HBO’s hit comedy series Silicon Valley. Excerpted from “Lab Rats: Tech Gurus, Junk Science and Management Fads—My Quest to Make Work Less Miserable,” by Dan Lyons. Copyright ©2018 by Dan Lyons. Reprinted with permission from Hachette Books, a division of Hachette Brook Group, Inc.

danlyons | September 16, 2019

When Companies Provide Help to Disaster Victims, the Benefits Are Mutual

As Hurricane Dorian tore through the Bahamas early this month, leaving a trail of destruction like none other in the islands’ history, many companies in the U.S. scrambled to coordinate disaster relief, while preparing for the storm’s prospective landfall on their own shores as well. One nonprofit, Good360, which partners with the likes of Home Depot, Nike, UPS, Gap, CVS, and other high-profile companies, gathered items they believed would be in high demand for survivors in the Bahamas. The emergency goods included bottled water, diapers, tarps, portable phone chargers, bedding goods, and personal-care items like toothbrushes and soap. Corporate America is increasingly stepping up to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies, supplementing the work of governmental efforts that have sometimes fallen short. When Hurricane Harvey struck Houston and Southeast Texas two years ago, causing an estimated $125 billion in damage, companies donated hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, goods and services, according to Inc., which named 25 such businesses ranging from Walmart to PetSmart. As hurricanes become more destructive, thanks to the effects of climate change, the corporate response to storms and other disasters has become even more essential. “Our work actually began well before Hurricane Dorian even formed in the Atlantic Ocean,” Shari Rudolph, chief marketing officer of Good360 told From Day One. “This has meant pre-positioning goods in our National Distribution Center in Omaha as well as in other managed warehouses in the Southeast. This early preparation puts us in a position to efficiently respond to the needs of our nonprofit partners in the immediate wake of a disaster.” Good360 specializes in “product philanthropy,” which means helping convey excess merchandise and other goods from major corporations to places where the items can help people in need. Besides handing out more than $300 million in goods each year, the organization also provides advice to their partners on the best ways to provide assistance, based on the type of disaster and the affected community’s needs. “On the disaster recovery front, we take a holistic, long-term approach, ensuring that we are always delivering the right goods to the right people at the right time during all stages of disaster recovery, from early preparedness through long-term recovery,” Rudolph says. Kaitlin FitzGerald, left, a disaster-recovery regional manager for Good360, with a Florida family the organization assisted after Hurricane Michael struck the panhandle region last year. Good360 partnered with the Bay Area Foundation and Rooms to go to help refurnish the homes of ten local teachers and their families (Photo courtesy of Good360) While some companies have in-house teams that coordinate their disaster-relief efforts, others seek external nonprofits that are equipped with specific resources, pertinent information, and team members with specialized training. Why do companies devote the money and effort? According to experts in the field, corporate rescue efforts provide an emotional boost to employees who see their companies demonstrating empathy and purpose. “I believe that that absolutely increases employee engagement, morale, connectedness to their place of work,” says Regine Webster, a vice president at the Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP), another nonprofit that helps execute disaster relief on behalf of donors. “We see that from some of our clients­–that they’re invested in what we do.” CDP provides companies with services including disaster grant-making, strategic planning, and technical assistance. CDP also conducts research and analysis with “attention to innovations in disaster management and humanitarian assistance,” the organization states, helping to adopt “new best practices from the field.” The client list at CDP includes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Schwab Charitable, a donor-fund division of the investment firm Charles Schwab, which Webster says is facilitating relief in the Bahamas through CDP. For many companies, the disasters hit close to home, affecting their own employees and the communities where they live and work. The number of organizations that build disaster-relief programs for affected employees and localities is multiplying—along with the number of companies investing in them. “This idea of protecting the employee, which essentially many [companies] say is their most important asset, is a newer thing, it is a newer concept to the market,” says Holly Welch Stubbing, acting president and CEO of E4E Relief, an organization that receives and distributes charitable gifts to employees of their partnered companies when catastrophe strikes. “The billion-dollar disasters over and over and over again is hitting the C-suites kind of squarely in the face, and [they’re] trying to figure out how to protect their businesses and their people.” When a natural disaster occurs, and an employee of a company that has an E4E Relief program needs help, they can apply for assistance over the phone, online, or even via smartphone app. Stubbing says 18 Fortune 100 companies are among the E4E Relief client base, which has collectively provided $50 million in gifts to disaster-affected employees in the past eight years. As Hurricane Dorian winds neared the Carolinas, E4E Relief not only received an uptick in employee-aid applications—mostly for help in evacuating their homes—but also calls from corporations looking to set up new programs. “It happens every year,” says Stubbing, “where maybe you’re talking to a company for six months about [partnering], and then something like this happens and they all of a sudden are in emergency mode—maybe a CEO of a company thinks [they] can do something, and all of a sudden we’re kicked into gear.” Companies who partner with nonprofits like the CDP, E4E Relief, Good360, and others that coordinate and execute disaster relief outreach find that there’s an intangible but important return on their investment. “Our company believes in making a difference in the communities we are privileged to serve,” says Nancy Klock Corey, vice president of Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate’s Southeast Florida region, which partnered with the nonprofit Global Empowerment Mission to distribute needed goods to the Bahamas after Hurricane Dorian. “After all, as realtors we understand that the quality of life and well-being of our communities depend on the support of all those who live and work there, and that includes us. … I am very proud of the service and commitment displayed by our support staff, sales associates and leadership team to our community and neighbors.” That sense of pride has a lasting impact on company workers, of all departments and ranks, who contributed to the outreach effort, in small ways or large. “The demonstration of being a responsible corporate citizen will help create positive brand awareness and good will,” says Thomas Smith, an independent public-relations consultant based in Atlanta. “It may result in garnering a greater sense of loyalty [and] commitment from its own employees over the long term.” And science backs this up. Psychology Today, covering the neuroscience behind the providing of charity, reports that when individuals give “out of altruism [t]hey feel satisfaction from providing a public good, like assistance to the needy, and they care only about how much benefit is offered and not the process by which it occurs.” Investing in disaster relief, then, appears to be a win-win-win. First and foremost, the individuals, families, and communities facing all the challenges a disaster brings get the vital assistance they need to recover. In turn, the nonprofit workers providing the relief continue to feel motivated by their good deeds, while the corporations investing in them can take pride in giving back to the communities and employees that helped make them a success in the first place. Michael Stahl is a freelance journalist, writer and editor based in New York City. He’s a staff writer at Mic, and a features editor at Narratively. His work has been published by Rolling Stone, Vulture, CityLab, Vice, Huffington Post, the Brooklyn Eagle, The Bridge and elsewhere Editor’s Note: the organizations Good360 and E4E have been sponsors at conferences hosted by From Day One.

Michael Stahl | September 11, 2019

Walmart's Dilemma: How to Respond To Calls For Greater Gun Safety

“As we’ve seen before, these horrific events occur and then the spotlight fades,” declared Doug McMillon, CEO of Walmart, America’s largest corporate employer. “We should not allow that to happen. Congress and the administration should act.” McMillon announced several moves that bring the spotlight back again. While big companies have traditionally shied away from politically polarized issues, that’s changing recently, with Walmart taking a more aggressive position on gun control. The company announced this week that it would stop selling ammunition for military-style assault rifles and handguns, it will begin “respectfully requesting” that customers refrain from openly carrying weapons inside the company’s stores, and it will ask Congress to increase background checks and consider bringing back the U.S. assault-weapons ban. McMillon had signaled earlier that the company would be making such moves in the aftermath of the mass shooting a month ago at a Walmart store in El Paso, where a gunman killed 22 people. Walmart is not only the largest U.S. retailer, with 4,000 stores, but also the largest seller of guns and ammo. For years, the company had been narrowing its selection of firearms, ending handgun sales in the 1990s (except for Alaska, where handgun sales will now end as well) and halting sales of assault rifles in 2015. Given the Walmart’s roots in Arkansas and its omnipresence in rural America, the company has moved only gradually on the issue, even as overall public sentiment in the U.S. has increasingly favored greater gun control. But events have pushed the company into a position of leadership, especially given its scale. “Any decision that a company that is that big and that ubiquitous makes is going to please some people and upset others,” Aron Cramer, chief executive of BSR, a nonprofit group that advocates social responsibility in business, told the New York Times. “It is extremely hard not to take action when people are dying at one of your stores.” Walmart will continue to sell more traditional hunting firearms, but it estimates that its share of the U.S. ammunition market will fall to about 6%, down from 20% currently. Despite Walmart’s huge small-town presence, the company has to consider the sentiments of its much more diverse stakeholders, who include urban and coastal customers as well as young people, all of whom tend to advocate stronger rules on gun safety. “The company is also trying to build its online business to compete with Amazon by recruiting younger engineers and developers, who are attracted to companies that profess social values that reflect their own,” the Times reported. One of the trickiest things to enforce of Walmart’s new positions is its request that customers refrain from openly carrying guns in its stores, even in states where doing so is legal. Not long after Walmart’s announcement, Cincinnati-based Kroger, the largest U.S. supermarket chain, asked that its customers stop openly carrying guns into its stores and called for stronger background checks on gun buyers. “The retailer will likely use new signage at entrances asking customers to leave weapons behind, but the retailer did not explain what store associates will do in the event a shopper shows up with a rifle slung over their shoulder or with a gun holstered on their hip,” the Cincinnati Enquirerreported.Thirty-one states allowthe open carrying of handguns without any license or permit, the result of dramatic changes in state laws over the past three decades to make such laws more lenient. Open carrying of long guns is permitted in 44 states. Could the moves by such retail giants embolden other companies? "It's a positive step in the right direction," said Mike Dowling, CEO of of Northwell Health, New York State's largest health-care provider and private employer, told CNN. Dowling, who who has written about gun violence as a "public health crisis," likened Walmart's move to CVS' decision to stop selling tobacco products in 2014 out of a concern for public health.

fromdayone | September 05, 2019

Work Flexibility Is Like a Puzzle. What Are the Keys to Solve It?

When Werk co-founders Anna Auerbach and Annie Dean met back in 2015, they were both at turning points in their lives and careers—on opposite sides of the country. Auerbach was living in Las Vegas and struggling to find the flexibility she needed to raise a four-month-old son. She found that she was not alone. “Las Vegas has a lot of transplants, and I found that a lot of the women I met were struggling to find an opportunity there,” she said. According to Auerbach, many of the women she met had moved to Las Vegas for their husbands’ career opportunities and found themselves stay-at-home parents for lack of sufficiently flexible work opportunities. On the other side of the U.S., Dean too was at a crossroads. She had been a corporate lawyer, but after the birth of her second child, she was looking to change paths. That’s when a mutual friend connected her with Auerbach. “I took the call, and the first thing I said was, ‘How can I help you?’” Over the course of the conversation, Auerbach said she mentioned that she’d been thinking about the lack of female representation in the executive suite, coupled with what she’d been seeing in Las Vegas. It all gave her an idea about creating a company dedicated to fixing workplace inequity at the source of the problem: inflexibility.  Dean’s response, an echo of Auerbach’s opening line: “Can I help you?” Over the course of six months, working nearly around the clock, across a time-zone difference, and amid the rigors of parenting young children, the two women joined forces to create what would become Werk, a first-of-its-kind people analytics platform that provides companies with data and recommendations to improve their flexibility performance.  Auerbach chatted with From Day One about the growing importance of workplace flexibility and how it impacts everything from diversity-and-inclusion success to employee engagement, not to mention a company’s bottom line. Why is the demand for flexibility so high now, and why does that need seem to be growing? If we think about when we developed the modern conceptions of work, it was pre-industrial, predominantly men, and not very diverse. Things have changed so much. The workforce has become more diverse, and I think that’s created an opportunity to find new ways to be more inclusive of our employees, not just in terms of gender and race, but also who they are, what their personalities and experiences are like, and how they work best. The more we think about flexibility as a way to customize employee experience, the more we can think about it in terms of inclusion. There’s no question that this disproportionately affects people’s careers, particularly for diverse populations. Can you elaborate on how that works in practice, in the way you approached diversity and inclusion?  We started with a focus on women in leadership. One of the first and more important supporters that we got was Ann-Marie Slaughter [author of Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family]. We cold emailed her and she really helped us center ourselves. One of the things we talked about was that we, as a country, chronically undervalue caregiving and dehumanize work, and this impacts primarily women.  We’re a for-profit company, but we want to make sure we’re doing the right things for the world. There’s been so much work done on diversity, but the challenge has been how we get that to work with inclusion. Often there’s a significant amount of flex inequity in diverse populations. Our software assess their needs, but also what type of flex they perceive they have access to and the specific modifications they’re able to do. We see significant demographic fault lines. If a company has access to a work-from-home day, you’d think everyone would have access. But we’re finding that women and people of color tend not to think they have as much access to that. The problem with flexibility is that the onus is on the employee to ask for it. That can trigger a lot of unconscious bias. Diverse groups don’t always feel entitled to ask. At the same time, we also see deeper needs in certain populations. For example, there are people who can’t afford to live as close to the office [as others], so they have longer commutes and might benefit from a modified start time. When you think about attracting and retaining diverse populations, you really have to think about how they work best. It’s part of inclusion. While flexibility is clearly a virtue, your company offers needed structure to make it happen, to accommodate different situations, is that right? You've identified some specific flexibility options, like MicroAgility and TraveLite. How do those work? Our company started as a job board. We started thinking about how to help companies communicate the types of flexibility they offer and how people package what they do. We took a look at every type of flexibility that any company on the board had offered, and broke them down into three component parts: where you are when you’re working, when you’re working, and how set or variable those two components are. We made sure those categories didn’t overlap and then broke them each into a sub-category, giving us six flexibility types.  We’ve found people are an average of two and a half flexibility types. Usually there’s one or two that really spike and then the others are less important. In the same way you have a Myers-Briggs personality type where you can say, “I’m INFJ,” you can say my flexibility type is MicroAgility [freedom to adapt], DeskPlus [location variety]. Being really distinct about what your type is—and how you work best—really helps others work with you as well. You produced a report that identifies a “flexibility gap.” Can you give an example of what that means or how companies are falling short? MicroAgility is a flexibility type that lets employees step away from their work for up to three hours to accommodate unexpected obligations. Three out of four employees say that they need access to MicroAgility but don’t have it, meaning that they can’t step out for a doctor’s appointment or a parent-teacher conference, but you can’t know that unless you have the data. That is the flexibility gap: the demand for a certain type of flexibility versus the actual supply or what employees perceive they have access to. What does Werk do that’s different from other programs and initiatives? There’s been so much talk about workplace flexibility and a bunch of companies have tried to address it. The term has been in play since the 1970s. We’re not inventing anything new here, but what we’ve done is we’ve injected data into the conversation. We’ve done that by using behavioral science. We collect granular human data, and we use an algorithm to translate that into visual information to companies. We take information, like how you commute, and then show your company how that affects happiness, productivity, loyalty. We show how measures like offering a work-from-home day boosts metrics like employee net promoter score (eNPS), as well as employee engagement, and reduces employee turnover And how do you turn that data into something actionable for companies? What we provide is ultimately an analytics software, with a psychometric assessment twice a year. We create a live, interactive dashboard that updates with new information and gives information on what type of flexibility is needed, what you’re delivering on, and provides a custom action plan for execution. We can provide an individual flexibility profile to each employee. I think all too often we’re missing the labels to explain what we need and how we work best. Flexibility-profile types help fill that gap. Where do companies get this right and where do they get it wrong? Any step forward is a right step. The companies that are really getting it right are thinking about this as a major people priority. Ultimately, most of the implementation is going to happen through managers, but there needs to be some top-level directive. The most heartening thing I’ve seen is that companies are really coming around to workplace flexibility. One of every two companies has some sort of top-level directive prioritizing it. There are companies where their CEOs are open about it, and they’re doing exceptionally well. Starting to gather some data is the best approach. A lot of companies we work with have gathered some kernels of data and are looking for a way to move forward. I think where companies falter is when they try something without data, when it’s not tracked or structured. This is not an understanding of this-is-my-schedule-and-how-I-work. Sometimes they backfire. When flexibility is applied without measures in place, it can become chaotic—just not aligned with the needs of the workforce. How do structured, thoughtful flexibility programs affect the bottom line for companies? We see companies that are prioritizing diversity and inclusion but still missing the mark or having trouble attracting talent. Or they're looking to reduce costs and having trouble managing real estate—all of these are actually symptoms where one of the root causes is lack of flexibility. The more people are able to work in a way that’s conducive to their lives and work styles, the more productive and engaged they’ll be.  Carina Livoti is a New York-based writer and editor. She earned a degree in English at Harvard and spends a lot of time wondering whether strangers wearing earbuds on the subway are actually listening to anything

carinalivoti | August 28, 2019

What Is Business for? Not Just Profits Anymore, Corporate Chiefs Declare

“Society gives each of us a license to operate. It’s a question of whether society trusts you or not. We need society to accept what it is that we do,” IBM CEO Ginni Rometty told Fortune for its September cover story. It was a notable statement of humility for a Fortune 500 chief—and it marks a turning point in the stated mission of Corporate America. For nearly a half century, big business has operated with a singular focus on delivering profits to its shareholders, with the rest of society taking a back seat. The result has been an era of massive profit growth, soaring CEO compensation, merger mania—and growing income inequality. But in a groundbreaking declaration published this week, the Business Roundtable, an association representing 200 CEOs of America’s biggest corporations, issued a new declaration of purpose that turned the old rule on its head. In a 300-word statement, the business leaders said they will embrace a new accountability to the larger community of stakeholders, pledging that they will deliver value to their customers, invest in their employees, deal fairly with their suppliers, and support the communities in which they work. Generating long-term value for shareholders was relegated to the last bullet point on the new agenda. While drafting the new declaration, “there were times I felt like Thomas Jefferson,” Alex Gorsky, CEO of Johnson & Johnson, who heads the group’s governance committee, told the New York Times. (The principles outlined by the CEOs happen to be the primary focus of From Day One, which was launched last year.) JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, the Roundtable’s chairman, said the statement “is an acknowledgment that business can do more to help the average American.” The new statement of purpose was driven by forces that have been building to a crescendo in recent times. “Capitalism, at least the kind practiced by large global corporations, was under assault from all sides, and CEOs were getting the message loud and clear,” Fortune chief Alan Murray wrote in the publication’s cover story, which broke the news of the Business Roundtable’s new code. The September cover of Fortune magazine, which was the first to report on the new CEO manifesto Why is this happening—and why now? The reckless financial engineering that sparked the Great Recession, the rise of socially disruptive tech platforms like Facebook and Uber, the scandals involving once-revered institutions ranging from Boeing to Wells Fargo—all contributed to a populist backlash against big-business-as-usual. It helped fuel the candidacies of not only President Trump but also his challengers from the left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who’ve proposed a dramatic increase in government oversight of business. CEOs don’t need a weatherman to know which way sentiment is gusting. Meanwhile, young people have professed a growing interest in the virtues of socialism, suggesting that this is not a short-term fad, but generational. “And here we are. Americans mistrust companies to such an extent that the very idea of capitalism is now being debated on the political stage,” observed Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin. Yet as much as corporations are mistrusted, trust in government is even worse, thanks to the era’s painfully polarized politics. By default, people are looking to business to get the job done. In the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer, a global survey, 75% of respondents said they trust “my employer” to do what’s right, a significantly higher show of faith than in other institutions or business in general. In part, business is feeling compelled to have a social conscience because their employees and customers demand it. “We are in a transformational moment,” Seth Green, executive lecturer at Loyola University Chicago’s Quinlan School of Business, told From Day One. “Trust in government to solve major social issues is declining rapidly. Increasingly, people expect and seek to work for companies that are committed to delivering social impact alongside shareholder value,”  said Green, founding director of the Baumhart Center on Social Enterprise and Responsibility. Ironically, what the corporate chieftains are now proposing looks like a U-turn back to values espoused by big business before the shareholders-first religion took over. Corporations of the mid 20th century, as Sorkin observes, “for the most part, were run for all stakeholders. It was a time defined by organized labor, corporate pension programs, gold-watch retirements and charitable gifts from companies that invested heavily in their communities and the kind of research that promised future growth.” Even in the emerging Silicon Valley culture of that era, the pioneering tech company Hewlett-Packard espoused “the HP Way,” which codified a deep commitment to employees and society at large. All that changed in the go-go, deal-focused business era of the 1970s and 1980s. As often cited this week, the guiding manifesto was a 1970 essay in the New York Times by the influential free-market economist Milton Friedman, who argued that corporations should focus purely on delivering value to shareholders. “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has responsibilities? Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades,” he wrote. However, after several decades during which shareholders and corporate chieftains thrived while workers fell behind, some forward-looking business leaders started sounding alarms that the system of shareholders-above-all was not sustainable. More than a decade ago, at the 2008 World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates called for a new “creative capitalism” that would have “a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don’t fully benefit from market forces.” In his Fortune piece, Murray ticks off a progression of business leaders calling for a new system, from Whole Foods cofounder John Mackey propounding “conscious capitalism” to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff writing a book on “compassionate capitalism.” More recently, Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest money-management firm (to the tune of almost $7 trillion), has been issuing annual letters imploring CEOs to put purpose on the same footing as profits. “Purpose unifies management, employees, and communities. It drives ethical behavior and creates an essential check on actions that go against the best interests of stakeholders,” he wrote in his 2019 letter. Well before the new approach was itemized in this week’s declaration, many CEOs have been acting as if guided by a new code. CEOs have spoken out on issues ranging from discrimination to gun safety to immigration. Corporations including Google and Microsoft have made major financial commitments to respond to housing shortages in their home regions. “In the past few years, it has become clear to met that something fundamental and profound has changed in the way they approach their jobs,” observed Murray. To be sure, the Roundtable’s new statement of purpose met plenty of skepticism from many camps, who variously found it appallingly late in arriving, or frustratingly vague, or a transparent attempt to pre-empt the politics of reformers like Sanders and Warren. “They’re responding to something in the zeitgeist,” Nancy Koehn, a historian at Harvard Business School, told the Times. “It’s an open question whether any of these companies will change the way they do business.” Sanders and Warren adopted a show-me attitude. “I don’t believe what they’re saying for a moment, said Sanders. “If they were sincere, they would talk about raising the minimum wage in this country to a living wage.” Said Warren in a statement: “Without real action, it’s meaningless.” For journalists reporting on the Roundtable statement, the go-to skeptic was Anand Giridharadas, author of the bestselling Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. In his view, all the corporate do-gooding is just for show unless companies (and elected officials) take stock of the real impact of their businesses on society. For example, when companies lobby the government on behalf of practices that promote economic inequality or pollute the environment, it may be “overruling the good effect you’re having on the world, maybe by the factor of a thousand,” Giridharadas said in June at a From Day One conference in Brooklyn, observing the increasingly contrite CEO class. Also scoffing loudly at the Roundtable’s declaration, but from another angle, was the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, which saw the new code as an abandonment of shareholders. The CEOs “know they are political targets,” the editors wrote. “The CEOs no doubt want to get out in front of this by showing what splendid corporate citizens they are. Yet these CEOs are fooling themselves if they think this new rhetoric will buy off Ms. Warren and the socialist left. It may even embolden them…” All of which seems likely to bring the role of big business into the thick of the political debate in the coming election year. Wrote Sorkin: “The fight for corporate identity is just beginning.” Steve Koepp is a co-founder of From Day One. Previously, he was editorial director of Time Inc. Books, executive editor of Fortune and deputy managing editor of Time

Stephen Koepp | August 20, 2019

Can Employees Actually Be Too Engaged in Their Work?

“Employee engagement” has become a mantra in Corporate America, for the most part signaling a healthy desire for their employees to feel fulfilled in their work—and thus productive too. But is there a point where this virtue becomes a vice? New academic research suggests that employees who become too devoted to the job can start to exhibit negative qualities. Among them: having unrealistic expectations of their co-workers, showing a disregard for rules and regulations, and having problems in their personal lives, reports journalist Alina Dizik in the Wall Street Journal. “Deeply engaged employees who become more difficult to manage can be overly demanding of superiors and become suspicious of their intentions, says Stuart Bunderson, professor of organizational ethics and governance at Washington University in St. Louis,” writes Dizik. “When Prof. Bunderson first started looking at how zookeepers derived meaning from their work, for example, he learned that many tend to look at their job as a calling. That, in turn, made them tougher to manage than less-engaged employees. They also expected more from those above them. The zookeepers objected to placing a carousel at the zoo, for instance, because they saw it as trivializing the zoo’s mission, until it was repositioned to promote conservation, Prof. Bunderson found.” The issue is relevant at a time when employee burnout has been recognized as a rising problem and hustle culture, particularly among millennial workers in the tech industry, has come under attack as unsustainable. The issue: at what point does having a moral purpose on the job go too far, to the point of workers losing perspective? “There’s no such thing as acceptable compromises or good enough when things are framed in moral terms,” said Prof. Bunderson. What can companies do to foster moderation? Some of the proposed solutions from researchers may raise eyebrows among human-resources executives.  Companies have come to believe that corporate social responsibility (CSR) and volunteerism are valuable tools for employee recruiting and retention, but some researchers on employee engagement think companies should lighten up on such programs. Instead, businesses should focus on the less-engaged employees rather than pushing programs across the board, Tomas Chamorro, chief talent scientist at staffing agency ManpowerGroup, told the Journal. “We still want them to be engaged, but moderately engaged,” he said. “A certain degree of dissatisfaction is very positive.”

fromdayone | August 16, 2019

After a Year of Setbacks, the Ranks of Women CEOs Are Growing Again

In Corporate America, the glass ceiling is cracking a bit more this year. The number of Fortune 500 companies with female CEOs had been steadily rising over two decades, until slipping backward last year, to just 24. But now a new record has been set, thanks to the appointment of Heyward Donigan as CEO of Pennsylvania-based Rite Aid, the third-largest U.S. drugstore chain. That brings the total to 36, says Fortune. Donigan, 58, had been CEO of Sapphire Digital, a platform for analyzing the differences in health-care plans. She joins several other women ascending to the top job in recent months. AutoNation, the Florida-based car retailer, last month named Cheryl Miller, 47, as its first-ever female CEO, a promotion from her previous role as CFO. In April, Minnesota-based Best Buy named Corie Barry, 44, to the top spot at the giant retailer; she too had previously served as CFO. However, Donigan’s new gig at Rite Aid “isn’t all popping champagne corks. Indeed, there’s plenty about it that screams ‘glass cliff!,’” wrote Fortune’s Kristen Bellstrom in the publication’s Broad Sheet newsletter, referring to the perception that women are often appointed to leadership roles when the situation is dire and the risk of failure is high. Marissa Mayer’s tenure at Yahoo comes to mind. Heyward Donigan, the new CEO of Rite Aid (Photo courtesy of Rite Aid) “Rite Aid has struggled mightily in recent years, as this Wall Street Journal story details,” wrote Bellstrom. “The company sold roughly half its stores to competitor Walgreens after regulators blocked a 2017 merger between the two. Then a deal to merge with grocery chain Albertsons fell apart, prompting the announcement that [Donigan’s predecessor John Standley] would step down and that the company would cut 400 corporate jobs. Since then, Rite Aid has seen its market share erode and its shares crater—the stock is down more than 50% this year.” But Donigan is undaunted. “I recognized the opportunity to really revitalize Rite Aid,” she told the Wall Street Journal. “It’s not just taking a hammer to the business. I have a strong point of view that pharmacies will continue to be physical,” suggesting that reports of the death of brick-and-mortar stores has been greatly exaggerated.  

fromdayone | August 15, 2019

The Disability Equality Index: How Companies Are Using It to Foster Diversity

When companies work to build diversity into their work teams, they tend to focus on gender, race, and sexual orientation, but there’s an identity category that’s often left out of crucial conversations about an inclusive workforce: disability. When disability is mentioned in the same breath as other kinds of diversity, it often comes as a surprise. But that could be changing. New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli—who’s also the sole trustee of the $213.2 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund, the third largest public pension fund in the U.S.—made waves earlier this year when he called on 49 major corporations to participate in the Disability Equality Index (DEI) as a barometer of their disability inclusion practices and policies.  The DEI, piloted in 2014, is a comprehensive disability-inclusion benchmarking tool that serves 180 companies and counting. Participating companies self-report disability policies and practices, which are then scored on a scale of 0 to 100—the top number representing the most inclusive score. The index is a joint project between a national nonprofit, Disability:IN, and the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).  In his letter to top executives at such companies as 21st Century Fox, Nike, Apple and McDonald’s, DiNapoli wrote, “Studies have shown that businesses that commit to disability inclusion outperform their peers. Companies should seize the opportunity to join the growing number of corporations that recognize the benefits of disability inclusion and are reporting their efforts.” He urged companies to adopt the DEI as a barometer of their success thus far in terms of enabling and empowering their existing and future disabled employees.  Like DiNapoli, Disability:IN CEO Jill Houghton emphasizes that there’s not just an ethical case for disability inclusion, there’s also a business case. A recent report from Accenture, in partnership with Disability:IN and the AAPD, suggests that adopting more inclusive practices when it comes to disability in the workforce could improve a company’s bottom line.  The 45 companies in the study that were identified as highly engaged in best practices in terms of disability employment, inclusion and retention had “28% higher revenue, double the net income, and 30% higher economic profit margins than their peers” on average over the report’s four years of data. Moreover, “The Accenture research demonstrated that companies that participated in the Disability Equality Index and improved their score over time were four times more likely to have total shareholder returns that outperformed their peers,” said Houghton.   The report also found that there are stark disparities still at work when it comes to disabled applicants. Only about 29% of working-age individuals in the U.S. with disabilities participate in the workforce, compared with 75% of the nondisabled working-age population. This large swath of unemployed disabled individuals represents a diverse, untapped resource that companies can draw from to reach their goals.  What’s more: Disabled people make up about a fifth of the U.S. population, so it’s very likely that your work team already has multiple disabled members. “Seventy percent of us have disabilities that you can’t see, including myself. I have a learning disability,” said Houghton. This means that disability inclusion at work isn’t just about achieving greater accessibility or recruiting more employees with disabilities, but about creating workplaces where employees feel free to live authentically, she said.  “As we work with our partners, we see countless stories where people come out and say, hey, I’m a senior leader and I’ve led a large team for years, and I have multiple sclerosis,” Houghton said. “People have sometimes been afraid to speak their truth, but as they see their companies dig into disability inclusion, they start to tell their stories.”  To address those types of issues, the tool extends far beyond physical accessibility in the workplace, into areas like company culture, leadership, and community engagement, to create a holistic picture of what a truly welcoming workplace for people with disabilities might look like.  Backers of the DEI hope it will help integrate consideration of disability into the varied development programs within companies addressing retention, mentorship, and advancement policies. Those programs often specifically mention identity categories like race, gender, and sexual orientation, but fail to mention disability. Many businesses are already making significant moves towards greater disability inclusion. Companies already scoring 100% on the DEI include AT&T, Bank of America, Microsoft, and Walgreens, among many others. Houghton emphasizes that the index is not meant to be used as a tool for judgment but for empowerment. “It’s really there to help businesses celebrate their accomplishments and identify opportunities for improvement when it comes to disability inclusion,” she explained. So, how can companies become more welcoming to disabled applicants and existing employees today? Houghton suggests that companies start by making it clear that accommodations are available for those with disabilities. “In the Disability Equality Index, only 44% of the companies who responded made applicants aware that they could request accommodations during the application process,” she said.  Accessible tools and language that includes disability are also key components to add to  a company’s disability-inclusion playbook. “Utilize accessible tools. If you’re attracting your talent online and you’re not using accessible tools, you’re missing us. In your company diversity-and- inclusion statement, include disability alongside other identities. It’s often left out.” Feedback from businesses using the DEI has been primarily positive, says Houghton. In fact, many teams have started to come together around shared experiences of disability in ways they never expected.  “We hear time and time again that the Disability Equality Index created an opportunity for businesses to pull together across cross-functional teams to look at disability across the enterprise. This is not just a recruitment issue,” she said. “When talent with disability is included and welcomed, productivity increases, teams excel, and you’re ultimately going to develop more innovative and accessible products and services.” Laura Dorwart is a writer with bylines at HuffPost, VICE, Forbes, The New York Times, The Guardian, SELF, The Week, BuzzFeed, and others. She has a Ph.D. from UCSD, an MFA from Antioch University, and a B.A. from Barnard College. Follow her work at www.lauradorwart.com or on Twitter at @laurawritesit.

lauradorwart | August 14, 2019

She Leads: How Women Can Overcome Stubborn Obstacles in Business

At the center of She Leads, a panel discussion on fresh ways to support women in business, is a paradox. Women have essentially achieved parity with men in joining the workforce, representing 48% of employees in entry-level jobs, yet only about one in five C-suite leaders is a woman—and only one in 25 is a woman of color, according to the benchmark McKinsey study, Women in the Workplace. Despite all the progress, the impediments to advancement persist. “We’re here on a panel talking about our experiences as women, while men get to go on panels talking about what they do for a living, which is really good for their careers,” says Alexandra Cavoulacos, co-founder and president of The Muse, a platform to help next-gen workers research corporations and careers. Cavoulacos likens the issue to those faced by people of color, who typically are expected to talk about their experiences as minorities when it comes to diversity in the workplace, when they might have benefitted more from an opportunity to talk about their actual work performance. The opposite of this identity-focused discourse holds true as well. Hearing phrasings such as “things will be better when there are more women-led companies,” does sound well-natured and hopeful, but it carries its own issues. “It means that women are inherently responsible for fixing problems,” says Jenny Chiu, vice president of marketing for Maven, a digital clinic dedicated to women’s health. “Telling women, ‘Once you have the power, you can make this better,’ is completely crazy in an upside-down way and it removes any responsibility from non-women.” The stubborn disparities in how men and women are treated in business, and how to push back and work around them, was the focus of the panel at the From Day One conference in Brooklyn last month, moderated by journalist Sage Lazzaro. Among the takeaways: Make a Leap of Faith It never hurts to be a little bolder than one’s regular baseline, whether it means applying for a job or starting a business. Cavoulacos recalls wanting to start her own business, but being quite hesitant to leave out of loyalty to her boss. “Go do it and if it fails, call me, but go,” her boss responded, and Cavoulacos heeded their advice. In interviews, female candidates are often asked about what they have already accomplished, said Cavoulacos, “versus what is the vision” Similarly, Susan McPherson of McPherson Strategies, a consultancy focused on corporate responsibility, claims that she owes her success to her lack of fear. It all goes back, she said, to when she was young and her father told her, “Nothing is a prison sentence, except for a real prison sentence.” Assertiveness also comes in handy when dealing with senior figures. “No matter how senior someone you’re on the phone with is, they’re just another human being, so there’s no need to feel and act differently,” said Stacey Olive, vice president of talent acquisition for the New York Times. “Just speak fearlessly.” (Try) to Vanquish Unconscious Bias When it comes to job hunting, many women will see a job description with a laundry list of required skills and focus on the ones they don’t have, while men do the opposite, said Cavoulacos. “Every time you’re adding a bullet point to the [required] qualifications, you’re narrowing your pool of women,” she said, observing that men have no problem applying to a job if they meet five out of ten of the criteria, while women tend to do that when they have at least an 80% match in requirements. While women applicants may be overly humble, interviewers often judge them that way as well, barely getting past their first names. “What we do in in our team is to black out the names when we’re looking at CVs and resumes, so that we don’t go into any pre-conceived notions,” says McPherson. Made it to the interview rounds? Unfortunately, women are typically evaluated on prior experiences, while men are evaluated based on their potential. “Our questions are often about the past, about what we have accomplished and how we can replicate that, versus what is the vision,” says Cavoulacos. “Thing is, we would be excited to talk about the vision.” Cavoulacos suggests changing the performance-review scale, in which managers tend to pick out superstars, who wind up typically being men. “On a scale of 1-10, men are much more likely to get 10s than women. On a scale of 1-6, the gap lessens. By narrowing that, you’re actually giving other people a chance to be seen.” Child Care Is Teamwork Forty-three percent of women drop out of the workforce or significantly reduce their workload when they start a family, so when Chiu and her husband were planning for a baby, she noticed that the conversation focused a lot on the implications for her job, rather than his. “When are you telling your boss that you’re pregnant?,” he asked. “Why is the conversation always about me?” she retorted. “When are you going to tell your boss?” Don’t take your childcare provider for granted, advised Olive. When she was pregnant with her first child, she was really anxious: could she do both? Her boss told her, “What you can do, if you want to make this work, is find amazing childcare and treat that childcare provider really, really, really well,” Olive recalled. “I’ve had the same babysitter for 14 years. We’re thinking of transitioning out, but she’s part of the family. If you’re thinking of having a child, whether you’re the father or the mother, treat your childcare really, really well. Don’t be an ass---- to them.” Sometimes, The Effort Can Be Clumsy Good intentions do not always breed good results. At one of Chiu’s old jobs, there was once an eager push for diversity and inclusion, and her team was gathered in a room to help tackle the matter. “They had us go through our LinkedIn networks and submit contacts that we had that we thought could fit the ‘diversity inclusion’ role,” she recalls “When I was sitting in the room going through my contacts, I felt that it was so awkward. It was almost like racial profiling. How am I supposed to know if they’re experienced on the topic?” How to voice criticism to genuine effort, though? “Every company has to tackle their inclusion effort in a way that they feel sort of works for them,” says McPherson. “There’s no wrong or right answer, but the leadership of an organization needs to be held to account for what they are or are not doing. Don’t shy away from criticizing your directors, executive, or CEO for a lack of progress.” “Involve employees in decision-making progress,” is Olive’s advice, which comes from working at the Times, known for their activist employee base. However, it needs to be a targeted effort. Added Cavoulacos: “Ask better questions: What is the progress? When will we get the next update?” Angelica Frey is a writer and a translator based in Milan and Brooklyn

Angelica Frey | July 31, 2019

Facebook Will Pay a $5 Billion Fine, While Big Tech Gets Antitrust Scrutiny

At $5 billion, it’s the largest fine in U.S. history for a privacy violation—and it comes with an increased burden of government scrutiny for the next two decades. In the settlement between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Facebook, announced Wednesday after 16 months of investigation, the agency delivered a “stunning rebuke” to the social network as a repeat offender, as the Washington Post described it. “Despite repeated promises to its billions of users worldwide that they could control how their personal information is shared, Facebook undermined consumers’ choices,” FTC chairman Joe Simons said in a statement. Facebook’s general counsel, Colin Stretch, said the settlement would “mark a sharper turn toward privacy, on a different scale than anything we’ve done in the past.” In going after Facebook, the FTC accused the company of violating a consent decree it had struck with the agency in 2011, when Facebook promised to improve its privacy protections. After several more recent mishaps, most notably when the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica obtained personal data on 87 million Facebook users, the FTC renewed its pursuit of tougher consumer safeguards. Even with this new agreement, however, critics of the deal feel that Facebook got off lightly. The company didn’t have to admit guilt, its founder Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t singled out for rebuke in the settlement, and the deal doesn’t really challenge Facebook’s business model for monetizing its users’ information, critics said. The two Democrats on the FTC panel both voted to reject the deal, with member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter arguing that the FTC should have gone to court to pursue tougher fines and conditions, rather than settling. The decision comes at a time when America’s dominant tech platforms—in particular Amazon, Facebook and Google—have gone from being revered as economic superstars to serving as popular political targets. “Only Big Tech could bring together [Attorney General] Bill Barr and Elizabeth Warren,” declared CNBC. The companies are “politically caught in the crosshairs,” Brian Yacktman, founder of YCG Investments, told the network. “What’s bipartisan is that people are concerned about companies having too much power and too much control over data so they want regulation.” In a Presidential campaign season, the debate is broadly over how to curb that power, whether it’s by regulating the companies through new legislation, or by pursuing antitrust action to limit their powers. On the same day the FTC announced its Facebook action, Barr’s Justice Department opened a major antitrust investigation of the big tech companies to find out “whether their online platforms have hurt competition, suppressed innovation or otherwise harmed consumers,” the Associated Press reported. “Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsible to consumer demands,” the department’s chief antitrust officer, Makan Delrahim, said in a statement. The backlash against corporate invasion of privacy is happening not only at the federal level, but locally as well. The New York City Council, for example, is considering a bill to ban the sale of cellphone-location data. “The bill, which was introduced on Tuesday, would make it illegal for cellphone companies and mobile app developers to share location data gathered while a customer’s mobile device is within the five boroughs,” the New York Times reported. “Cellphone companies and mobile apps collect detailed geolocation data of their users and then sell that information to legitimate companies such as digital marketers, roadside emergency assistance services, retail advertisers, hedge funds or—in the case of a class-action lawsuit filed against AT&T—bounty hunters.” New York would be the first city to impose such a ban.

fromdayone | July 25, 2019

Facial Recognition: for Business and Society, What Is the Promise and Peril?

Facial recognition: those two words can conjure up extremes in our imagination. One is a future where your specific smile will effortlessly open doors and devices for you. The other is where your every movement is tracked by cameras, with the data routed to unknown companies—and authorities. In an increasingly connected world, facial-recognition software could potentially supercharge the rise of surveillance capitalism, in which our words and actions are harvested to feed the algorithms of advertising and marketing. As a result, it represents one of the next great debates about technology and privacy. In other words: now that iPhones can open by scanning your face, imagine what comes next. Corporations have clearly taken notice of the opportunities, charging full steam ahead with software that will monitor and influence our everyday interactions, both as citizens and consumers. So how can this technology be used in smart and strategic ways, with benefits to individuals and society? And what are the insidious risks? Those questions were up for debate Wednesday in a panel discussion at NYU’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, organized by the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. The most visible manifestations of the facial-recognition revolution are the security cameras bristling from our buildings and lamp posts. New York City reportedly has more than 18,000 cameras watching the city’s 8.5 million residents and tens of millions of visitors. Imagery from those cameras help the New York City Police Department (NYPD) track down alleged criminals in an “investigative-driven” format, said Assistant Chief Jason Wilcox, who works in the department’s Detective Bureau. If photographs are taken by the victim, or by a surveillance camera—say during an assault on the subway— the department will try to match the facial features with photos already in the NYPD’s massive database from prior arrests. “When they [run] the technology, and get a match, and it comes back to a person that has been arrested,” he explained, it’s a lead to be used in building a case, but not yet probably cause for arrest. “So we give it back to the investigator we got it from, and now we say, ‘Okay, now you have to go do your work, and make a proper identification, and make an arrest.’” Speakers at the panel discussion in Brooklyn, moderated by Tyler Woods, at far right (Photo courtesy of Downtown Brooklyn Partnership) Wilcox asserted that the department does not use cameras en masse, a la Minority Report, to pinpoint who is wanted on the streets of New York City. A reason to investigate must first be in place, before the department activates the software. (Research has found that the technology has allowed for detectives to make at least 2,900 arrests in over five years of usage.) In terms of pro-and-con impacts, “The bottom-line pro, the way we apply it, is to make New York City safer. And we do it fairly, and responsibly,” Wilcox said. “The cons, the concerns, are the things that we steer away from: the mass viewing, the people walking down the street, trying to identify, profiling, or anything like that. That is not what we use it for." With this in mind, Noah Levenson, an artist and technologist in residence at the Mozilla Foundation, said the software has dramatic implications for the future of marketing. “Smart ads” have already popped up in Europe, he said. People passing a billboard in Oslo, Norway, were scanned to identify their gender; women were shown a salad, while men were shown a sausage pizza. But it goes beyond merely identification: emotion recognition, he said, is the next frontier for researchers, and companies. “So is this person happy? Are they angry? Are they drunk? Are they on illegal drugs? Are they mentally ill? Will we eventually be able to learn something about the human face such that we can predict when someone's about to commit a crime, without knowing anything else about them?” he asked. “These are some of the things that are coming next. And I mostly look at how this stuff is going to wind up in consumer products, and household applications.” Levenson cited Snapchat as an example. In 2018, the social-media platform’s patent was approved by the U.S. government to use facial recognition software in detecting mood at certain places. What does that mean for users? That out of the bazillions of selfies taken per day, Snapchat will soon be able to match your expression to your geolocation, thereby understanding how you feel at a particular place and time. “Then they're going to sell that data to the organizers of public events, concert promoters, or organizers of political rallies, talks, meetups,” he said. “And whoever else, we don't know.” And this software can be used on the backend of capitalism, too, Levenson said. Major companies like Unilever and Goldman Sachs have begun to incorporate facial recognition software into employee recruitment. By analyzing features like body language, tone, and key words that the company can enter into the system, AI can help do the work of finding the “ideal candidate,” goes the thinking. But, of course, all this potential is not without peril, according to those who worry about the technology overstepping its bounds. Jonathan Stribling-Uss, a technologist fellow at the New York City chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), flagged particular worries that his organization had with the dragnet capabilities of the NYPD and other government agencies. He mentioned a recent story about how the police put a photo of Woody Harrelson through its software to track a suspected beer thief, after the fuzzy security-camera photo came up with no match, but to human eyes the suspect looked a lot like the actor. (Wilcox contended that this was not standard protocol.) In the future, would the faces of an audience like the one at Wednesday’s panel discussion be scanned to find out names, addresses—and emotions? (Photo courtesy of Downtown Brooklyn Partnership) “I think it's important for people to understand that this is something that's happening right now,” Stribling-Uss said. He then asked the audience to raise their hand if they were taught not to give out their name to strangers when they were children. “Unfortunately that's what facial recognition dragnets do: they give out name and address by default ... and this is what we're seeing happening with law enforcement.” This concern, he said, has led to bans of facial recognition software in such cities as Oakland, Calif., and Somerville, Mass. Stribling-Uss said the scenarios that keeps privacy advocates up at night is something akin to the social-credit system arising in China, where citizens are tracked and punished with bans on travel or other activities based on social taboos they have committed, like not paying their debts. “I think we're coming closer to that,” he argued. Prospectively, “people can be tracked and banned on the basis of characteristics they can't change.” Facial recognition is also not without its vulnerabilities. While machine learning is constantly improving, it’s important to be cognizant of its limitations, said Nasir Memon, a professor of computer science at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. Sure, you might be able to have your front door open for you one day, or have a coffee bought at your local cafe without pulling out your wallet, but things can go wrong. Memon outlined four ways that pattern recognition—which is what the software ultimately is, he said—can be hacked: through a mask, or spoofed appearance; through understanding the model’s loopholes; through a picture; or through a “master face,” like the universal key that has been used to fool fingerprint-scanning software, he said. “So what has to counter all of these possibilities? And they'll always be there: security is a cat-and-mouse game,” he explained. “But the danger, I think, is to anonymity.” A citizen should have the right to stay anonymous, if they choose to, said Memon, whether it’s Snapchat scanning our selfies for marketing purposes, or governments using cameras for surveillance purposes. Without that ability, dissent can be discouraged, he added, which harms the health of one’s freedom and society overall. “It's how we evolve our society,” he said. “And if everybody is recognized everywhere all the time, you have a problem.” John Surico is a freelance journalist and researcher, based in New York City. His reporting has appeared in the New York Times, VICE, and a number of other local and national publications    

johnsurico | July 25, 2019

With a Community of 50,000 Women, This Founder Is Taking on Sexism in Tech

Welcome to She Leads, a series digging into the good, the bad, and the ugly of being a woman in business. In each piece, we’ll chat with a different founder about her experiences, the issues women face in business, and how they’re powering through in the face of adversity. When Allison Esposito Medina gathered 20 women working in tech to chat about their experiences in the industry, she had no idea the group would quickly grow to 100, then 1,000, then in just three years 50,000. Revelations from that first meeting make clear why it did.  “I started to realize that the same things I was experiencing were happening to all of them, too,” she told From Day One. “And that was really validating and really useful, so we naturally just kept growing out of that meet up.” It turned out they’d all experienced workplace sexism, harassment, gendered microaggressions, and the like. They’d all wondered, “Am I making this up?” And working in a male-dominated industry, they’d all been without a place to turn for support, guidance, and camaraderie.  Esposito Medina eventually stopped working for tech companies to start her own — one dedicated to supporting women (trans and non-binary included) in the industry and making the infamously male-dominated field not just more diverse, but more inclusive as well. In 2016, she officially launched Tech Ladies, which operates both as a global community for women in tech and a job board matching some of the world’s biggest tech companies to diverse hires. Members have landed jobs at Samsung, PayPal, Slack, Square, Adobe, Trello, and Etsy, among others. They have access to Tech Ladies resources and events, like webinars and workshops co-hosted with companies like BuzzFeed. And on the daily, Tech Ladies provides women a community platform for discussing issues, asking for advice, celebrating achievements, and navigating their careers for success.   We chatted with Esposito Medina to learn more about Tech Ladies, community building, and how companies can be more inclusive: What experiences did you find were common among those first women you met up with that inspired you to grow this community? Everything from the big issues you hear about (like being paid less than men) to workplace microaggressions—everyone was struggling with the same things. It became clear that gathering everybody together is one way of solving these issues. Being able to read about what other people are going through and having that sense of camaraderie is a huge step.  "You can hire in a very diverse way, fill up a room, and just expect it to take care of itself, but it will not. You have to make sure that people are protected and that their contributions are taken seriously," Esposito Medina said. What’s an example of how Tech Ladies members swap information and support? One thing we do is our anonymous #HELPASISTEROUT hashtag, which invites people to email us so we can anonymize their question and share it with the group. That’s been really great because if you’re having issues with your boss, for example, you’d never want to put it out publicly.  The comments on those threads contain so much wisdom and help from everybody that it’s been really surprising to me to see how willing strangers are to give their time and expertise. It really gives you faith in humanity. People write us back saying, ‘Reading the responses gave me the strength and skills I needed to ask for more money at work and I got it.’ Or in a really toxic situation, ‘I realized it wasn’t just me. It was toxic, and I left and I found a new job.’ It’s actually having an impact on people’s lives. And why do women need a community like this? What we hear so often is ‘I’m the only woman,’ ‘I’m the only person of color,’ or ‘I’m the only non-binary person,” either on a team or at an entire company. It’s just really nice to have a place where you’re not the only one. A place where you can bounce questions and ideas off people who come across the same issues you do. Just having that kind of connection is really powerful. It’s been really cool to see it grow because the more people who join, the more voices and perspectives we have. Some people say that women-only groups and environments are counterproductive to inclusion. What are your thoughts on that? I think that’s one of those things where I hope it will be true someday. And it will be true when things are more equal. But the reason I don’t think it’s true now is because the reality is that we see so many people who don’t have any camaraderie because they’re the only woman at work — especially at tech companies and in engineering roles.  I think you also need a network with men in it, too. But I feel it’s easier for that to happen naturally, because most of the people you’re going to work with and forge relationships with—your bosses,  mentors, and mentees—are probably going to be men in this industry anyways. I have tons of men in my circle who help me with so much. But I also think it’s nice to have a space for women and non-binary people because it can feel a little bit safer, especially around in-person events and networking. Or if you’re going to be vulnerable in an online community and post, you might feel more comfortable doing that with people who understand where you’re coming from. That’s why I think it’s still really valuable.  What steps can companies take to create work environments that are not just more diverse, but also more inclusive?  That’s such a good question because you can hire in a very diverse way, fill up a room, and just expect it to take care of itself, but it will not. You have to make sure that people are protected and that their contributions are taken seriously. You need to look at whether you’re structuring meetings so that everybody’s voice is heard. You need to truly take action to make pay and raises fair. You need to be transparent about your growth, so people don’t feel like they’re the outliers and the only one for too long. Do you have a great maternity and paternity policy? Do you have policies that help people who are trans? Even if you’ve never had a trans person on your team, start thinking about it. If you don’t have a pregnant person on your team yet, what happens when you do? It’s very easy for companies to just wait until these issues pop up and then try to figure them out, but that’s where a lot of people get into trouble. Figure it out as early as you can.  The one thing we tell companies that seems so common sense to us, but always seems to blow their minds, is to just sit down and have one meeting to talk about ways to be inclusive. I’m not talking about having one meeting and never implementing any of it, but there are so many simple things. Make the bathroom for all genders. Hire an HR person, even freelance if you’re not making much money yet. There are online tools for anonymous feedback. Every company can do that for free. Just set yourself up to be receptive to change in small ways, build up a culture of inclusion, and stay committed to it.  This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Sage Lazzaro is a NYC-based journalist covering diversity, inclusion, and social justice across tech, business, and politics. Her work has appeared in Refinery29, VICE, Medium, The New York Observer, and more. Follow her on Twitter here.

sagelazzaro | July 22, 2019

Airbnb Open Homes: A Tourism Platform Becomes a Disaster-relief Network

When a 7.1-magnitude earthquake bucked through the Mexican states of Puebla and Morelos on Sept. 19, 2017, it caused the walls and foundations of schools, apartments and offices a hundred miles away in Mexico City to tremble and, in some cases, topple. Residents watched the buildings teeter and knew they needed to leave immediately. Thousands of miles away, alerts flickered on in the security-response offices of Airbnb, which now operates three hubs—Annapolis, Md; Capetown, South Africa; and Singapore—to monitor intelligence reports of global disasters. As news reports of the Puebla earthquake rolled in, the disaster-response team deployed a process they call “hitting the button,” activating the Airbnb Open Homes network. The home-sharing tourism company, usually aimed at helping visitors enjoy a weekend away, had converted its infrastructure into an evacuee-housing network. Across Mexico City, Airbnb hosts received the Open Homes alert, letting them know they were near the disaster zone and asking them if they’d like to volunteer to shelter evacuees from the earthquake. About14,500 hosts and guests received the notification, enabling communication for those trying to find temporary housing outside the rubble of the catastrophe zone. It was the first time the Open Homes network had been activated in Mexico. Eighty one hosts signed up to house evacuees. Kellie Bentz, head of Airbnb's disaster-relief efforts. Kellie Bentz pilots these relief efforts for Airbnb, using the platform’s infrastructure to connect hosts who want to help people in need. “In a disaster, there is a 72-hour window when media is super high and people are trying to take action,” Bentz told From Day One. “This falls into the bucket of donating in kind, which is volunteering your time and space.” To date, Airbnb Open Homes has helped people from 61 countries and housed nearly 25,000 people. The seeds of the Open Homes program were planted in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, when Brooklyn-based Michelle (“Shell”) Martinez invited neighbors from flood-damaged New York City neighborhoods including Dumbo, the Rockaways,and the Lower East Side, to camp out in her 6,000-sq.-ft. loft on higher ground. Airbnb sent out an urgent notification about the offer to its network in Brooklyn, and soon it was Martinez’s email inbox that flooded. “Half of it was other hosts saying, ‘How do we do this? My house is empty too,’” recalls Shell (who has since used the Airbnb platform in controversial ways). As wave after wave of storm refugees navigated dark streets to arrive at Martinez’s apartment, Airbnb engineers in San Francisco worked around the clock to recode the platform for something it had never done before: make apartments available for free to those in need. The impromptu program that lodged 20 storm refugees and FEMA workers on day beds in Martinez’s apartment has since grown into Airbnb’s multi-country disaster-response network, Open Homes, which Bentz sees as a natural pivot for social good. Bentz cut her teeth on disaster response after Hurricane Katrina, when she founded a relief program called Hands On New Orleans, and later as the leader of global-crisis management at Target. In her role at Airbnb, she expected to focus on the escalating intensity and number of climate-change-related disasters. But she has been surprised to see that the program has a part to play in other kinds of emergencies, including mass-casualty events. Her most powerful memory is of the Pulse Nightclub shooting in 2016 in Orlando. Working with JetBlue, Uber and the Florida Department of Emergency Management, Airbnb set up at the airport in Miami as friends and family of victims, mostly from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, flew in to visit loved ones in the hospital or to recover remains. “Most people who showed up at the airport that day didn’t think about where they were going to stay. They just got on a plane,” recalls Bentz. “It’s much more than providing that roof; it’s in a moment that they need something and they don’t have to think about it.” Bentz works with other shared-economy companies like Lyft and Uber to understand how they can use their own platforms to connect people who want to help with those in need. She coaches them to make sure tech companies understand the issue before creating a solution. “The key for businesses to think about is not, ‘What is the solution I think the community needs?’ It’s what do you have to offer and where are you meeting a local need, versus trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just to do something good,” she says. The Open Homes platform has since extended beyond disaster relief to include refugees from mass- migration movements and medical stays, so families and patients can easily access hospitals that aren’t close to home. “I think it’s wonderful and amazing and I get chills,” Martinez says of how big the program has grown. “But I’m also not surprised. This is who people are: always looking for ways to contribute and ways to help each other out. If you make it available and you make it easy, then we want to do our part.” Emily Ludolph is a senior editor at 99U and an alum of TED Conferences and Vassar College. She has published in the New York Times, the Atlantic, Narratively, Artsy, 99U, Quartz, and Design Observer

emilyludolph | July 18, 2019

Equal Pay Gets Its Due on a World Stage. Is Change Any Closer?

Not since NFL players took a knee during the national anthem has a social issue got such a boost from a sporting event. When the U.S. Women’s Nation Team (USWNT) won its record fourth World Cup soccer championship on Sunday, jubilant spectators chanted not only “U-S-A” but also “Equal pay!” The U.S. team’s victory, its second consecutive World Cup, backed up their campaign for equal pay with their male counterparts by presenting another dramatic example of the pay gap having nothing to do with performance. The U.S. men’s team, in contrast, failed even to qualify for the 2018 World Cup tournament and on Sunday lost to its rival Mexico in a regional championship. In March, 28 members of the women’s team filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation for alleged discrimination “for substantially equal work and by denying them at least equal playing, training, and travel conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal support and development for their games; and other terms and conditions of employment equal to the [Men’s National Team].” “Critics of women’s sports have long argued that poor performance and general lack of interest are valid reasons to not pay female athletes the same as their male counterparts, but do those arguments hold up?,” asks writer Lydia Dishman in Fast Company. Not hardly, she reports. The victories speak for themselves. “As for lack of interest, according to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue for the USSF than U.S. men’s games over the past three years. And according to FIFA, television ratings for the women’s final shattered records both here and abroad, with 28.1 million viewers worldwide and 6.1 million in the U.S.—despite not being on during prime time.” “U.S. Soccer has welcomed the team’s success,” reported the New York Times, “even as it has challenged the players’ math, arguing that the situation is complicated by a compensation structure negotiated by each team that pays the men and women differently.” Yet the women’s team could credibly argue that they have moved the ball, not only on the playing field and in court, but also in the realm of public opinion. “I think we’re done with: Are we worth it? Should we have equal pay? Is the market the same? Yada yada,” the American midfielder Megan Rapinoe said, adding: “We—all players, every player at this World Cup—put on the most incredible show that you could ever ask for. We can’t do anything more, to impress more, to be better ambassadors, to take on more, to play better, to do anything. It’s time to move that conversation forward to the next step.” Following the World Cup victory, U.S. Soccer and the women’s team are expected to go into mediation for the lawsuit, Dishman reported. “With their win at the World Cup, the [women’s team] is hot right now, and a prompt mediation may be more beneficial for both parties than lengthy legal proceedings,” said Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, an attorney with the Pay Equity Practice Group of Fisher Phillips, a national labor and employment law firm that represents employers, in a statement. The notorious gender-pay gap, of course, isn’t confined to sports. It persists across a wide array of industries and has proven a stubborn problem to fix. “Retaining women and minorities, resolving pay gaps in compensation and increasing equity in the workplace take an unrelenting focus on structural obstacles, unconventional approaches to human resources and an uncompromising commitment to fostering a place where people want to stick around,” observed the Washington Post last month.

fromdayone | July 09, 2019

Trust: How Can Companies Earn It—and Keep It?

“Being trustworthy is about doing trustworthy things,” said Howard Sherman, CEO of Good360, an organization that has distributed about $9 billion in surplus products to people in need. Sherman’s point—that trust comes from keeping promises—may seem like something we all learned in kindergarten, but lately the leaders of several major corporations seem to have forgot the lesson. Sherman was among the speakers at the From Day One conference in Brooklyn on June 19 on a panel focused on “Building (and Rebuilding) Trust in Your Company,” at a time when trust in big organizations is on shaky ground. On the one hand, people tend to trust companies when they work with them at close range. In the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer, a global survey, 75% of respondents said they trust “my employer” to do what is right, a higher rate than for business in general. On the other hand, trust-breaching actions by companies ranging from Boeing to Facebook to Wells Fargo have prompted rising scrutiny of corporate behavior. And Democratic Presidential candidates have seized the opportunity to turn up the heat. Building trust needs to be a core value, since “trust is incumbent to buying,” noted the panel’s moderator, Damian Slattery, vice president of marketing at Fast Company. Slattery asked the panelists what it takes to create that trust among consumers, and the speakers tended to agree that it starts within the company, with employees trusting in their own organization. Katherine Hand, global head of strategic communications on sustainability and social innovation at HP Inc. (formerly known as Hewlett-Packard), said that at a time when other technology companies have become notorious for mottos like “move fast and break things,” her company has made a virtue out of longer-term thinking. “HP is Silicon Valley’s ‘designated driver,’” Hand said. “We may not be the coolest, but we do things the right way.” “We may not be the coolest, but we do things the right way,” said HP’s Hand In HP’s case, the right way is a deliberate and coordinated effort to appeal to the side of employees and customers that wants consistency and continuity, Hand said. HP puts an abiding emphasis on diversity and inclusion, an area where Silicon Valley companies often struggle to make progress. HP is actively tackling the issue of plastic waste, including the growing concern around ocean plastic. On the day of the conference HP was issuing a Sustainable Impact Report, noting that they've upcycled about 700,000 lbs. of ocean-bound plastic in the last two and a half years. Colleen Devery, vice president of strategy for NAF, said her organization runs on trust because it relies on cooperation among leaders in education, business and communities to help high-school students—particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds—to be ready for the workplaces of the future. Devery said that their students need to develop a bond of trust with NAF employees, who operate academies within traditional high schools, before they can be expected to trust their mentors at the paid internships the company finds for them. “Kids make mistakes all the time,” Devery noted. Her organization teaches them to “own up to their mistakes and be transparent” about why things happened the way they did. The point is to teach young people accountability, and have them expect it in others, including the big organizations they will encounter in life.. Sherman, whose organization assists in the redistribution of excess goods from companies including Amazon and Walmart to non-profits, took the idea of trust a step further in suggesting that the most beneficial dynamic is what he called mutualism. In that kind of situation, “everybody in the stakeholder ecosystem benefits,” Sherman said, which “works better than altruism,” in which a participant’s motivation for doing good might not be as clear. What happens when there’s a breach of trust that tarnishes a company’s image? Hand said that it is important for companies and organizations to show that they are taking action to correct a mistake not just because they “got caught,” but because they hold a collective belief within the company that it is the right thing to do. Sherman added that difficult situations for companies can actually be good opportunities for them to build stronger relationships with their ecosystem. “The thing that makes you stand out is doing trustworthy things during challenging times. That’s the best opportunity to build trust,” he said. Devery said her organization teaches young people to “own up to their mistakes and be transparent” Some companies have succeeded in fostering trust by allying with social-media influencers. “Institutions tend to disappoint us,” Sherman observed. “Influencers are an extension of the peer-to-peer relationship, and we trust peers more than we trust institutions.” But there is risk involved. Influencers can fail when they are inauthentic or too opportunistic. A similar risk presents itself when companies take a stand on such political hot-button issues as LGBTQ rights, gun ownership and abortion. Should a company take a stand one way or the other? Will that stand cost them customers? Will it bring more in? Should it matter? “For us it’s critical to think about how it is authentic to our business,” Hand said. She advocated that companies can take a stance on a divisive issue if their stance accurately reflects past company behavior and stated goals. If the stance runs counter to that, they can risk the backlash of being viewed as opportunistic and insincere. Sherman concurred, citing the example of Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack, who after the Parkland high-school shootings in Florida had his stores remove all assault-style weapons from their inventory and mandated a 21-year minimum age for purchase of any firearms. The decision was controversial, but Stack maintained that the position was consistent with the company’s advocacy in favor of gun-safety measures. After all the talk of trust-building, Slattery concluded the discussion by stating that he had never met any of the participants before the panel, but now was inclined to trust them with “my children, my dog and my career.” A moment of levity, no doubt, but their candid and transparent answers to his questions must have had an influence. In fireside chats and breakout sessions following the panel, Hiren Shukla of EY talked about unlocking the talent of today through neurodiversity; Katie Coupe of BetterUp spoke about the human side of business transformation; Héber Manual Delgado-Medrano and Jenic Mantashian of BVA Nudge Unit USA conducted a workshop on simple behavioral nudges that turn intention into action; and Zac Stein of Lattice spoke about the uncomfortable art of giving feedback. Patrick Smith has written for NBC.com, the New York Daily News, and TheUptowner.org. He was a producer for the 2016 Olympics coverage at NBC Sports and a field producer for New York 1 News. He’s a graduate of Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism and has an MA in international relations from Johns Hopkins

patricksmith | July 02, 2019

What It Takes for Inclusion to Be More Than a Buzzword

At this point in the evolution of Corporate America, almost nobody questions the importance of diversity and inclusion. Studies have repeatedly shown that companies that rank in the upper quartile for gender and racial diversity are more likely to see greater returns than the industry average. Not only that, but companies with greater inclusion are linked with higher degrees of productivity and innovation. But inclusion isn’t necessarily easy to achieve. Unlike diversity, which can be measured in numbers, inclusion is less tangible. It’s partly a feeling of belonging, of one’s voice being heard. “We very much view it as everyone has an opportunity to be a valuable player of the team. But we also want to make sure that once you're on that team, you have equal access and opportunity to advance the game,” said Lauren Lopez, using a sports metaphor perhaps inspired by her role as global senior director of human resources for the National Basketball Association. Lopez was among the speakers on a panel entitled “New Frontiers of Inclusion” at the From Day One conference June 19 in Brooklyn, where the panelists explored aspects of inclusion ranging from the wage gap to technology. Among the highlights: Artificial intelligence is among the tech tools that help build a diverse workforce, said the NBA’s Lopez Inclusive Leadership Marisa Grimes, the director of inclusion and diversity at Mastercard, said that inclusion starts with leadership. Employees who step into leadership roles must see inclusion as yet another skill set to craft, just like building business acumen and executive presence. “When we talk about what an inclusive leader looks like, we think about it in terms of someone who can build and maintain diverse teams,” Grimes said. “That's something that all of our leaders need to be able to do.” To foster that growth, Grimes said her team has begun embedding inclusion in the leadership-development program. It has also trickled down into hiring practices. “We look for things like people who are intellectually curious; people who have an open mindset; people who demonstrate that they have self-awareness.” IQ and EQ, she said, are as important as “DQ,” or a “decency quotient.” “Again, we see this as a muscle that needs to be exercised. It needs to be developed, and it needs to be maintained,” she added. Jazmine Boatman, the general manager of New York operations at DDI, a leadership consulting firm, said that inclusion means “a leader who brings out the best in people.” That, she explained, is someone who creates a work environment where perspectives and feedback are welcome. With that in mind, her firm, which specializes in talent management, focuses on interpersonal and communication skills. In hiring, leaders need to beware of “Mini-Me syndrome,” she said, in which recruiters look for people who went to the same school, for example, or have the same work experience. “When we think about, from a business perspective, what we're competing against,” she said, “we're going to need more variety of perspectives in order to understand our customers, who ideally are getting more and more diverse.” Equal Access to Benefits For Tammy Sun, the co-founder of Carrot, a startup which helps companies develop fertility plans for employees, the service itself—accessing fertility care—informs her idea of inclusion. “For us, we think about ‘What does the modern workplace mean?’ and ‘What does the future of work mean when we think about families and how we define families?’” That has inspired training in health care and fertility care for transgender clients, Sun said, and thinking about how different countries can perceive fertility care. “We think about inclusion from the perspective of equal access for everyone for fertility care,” she said. “In our world, we built a platform and program to try to offer that access.” Emma Hinchliffe, an associate editor at Fortune who moderated the panel, asked Sun about her perspective as a company founder. “What are the challenges of working on inclusion at a smaller company versus a large global company?” she asked. Carrot was launched with an inclusive nature, Sun said. More than half of the employees are female, and her co-founders are both male and female, from different work backgrounds. With a smaller size, the company is nimble in identifying issues—and trying to fix them. “Because of the way we operate the business and the leadership styles that are brought to the table, we have seen our company grow in a very diverse and interesting way across every single sector: age, sexual orientation, gender,” she said. In hiring, Mastercard looks for “people who are intellectually curious; people who have an open mindset,” said Grimes Tech for Inclusion Increasingly, new tech tools have emerged to help companies foster more inclusion in their workplaces. At the NBA, artificial intelligence has made strides in the recruitment space, with better systems to eliminate hiring biases by covering up last names on applications, and singling out skill sets and experiences needed to do a specific job. “I'm really supportive of that, not only as someone who has recruited for years, but also a Latina female, who has had similar struggles in terms of getting interviews, or applying to roles and not hearing back,” she said. “It's important [for recruiters] to be able to stick to what you need to know.” Lopez said that when her job was focused on recruiting talent, she placed less emphasis on formal education, and more on life experience. Utilizing AI to foster that approach, she said, is a huge help. At DDI, Boatman said her team is exploring virtual reality as a way to expose employees to situations they may not be familiar with. “You can put yourself in the experience of someone who is excluded from a meeting, where you're not being heard, people keep talking over you, and there's verbal and non-verbal cues,” she said. “You're actually at the table as that person, and see that experience.” The reactions afterward, she said, have been “really powerful.” They help break down barriers for people who may have trouble understanding inclusion as an abstract concept. “Everyone had a similar experience, so we can talk about how that made you feel,” she said. The Wage Gap Hinchliffe asked the panelists how the gender wage gap intersects with inclusion. Sun said that a benefit like fertility care becomes part of the wage gap, “when you think about who has access and who doesn't,” she said. “If you don't have that access at work as a fundamental part of your health-care coverage, that means that you are paying for it somewhere else.” Sun said she had to pay $40,000 herself to freeze her eggs—an experience that inspired her to start Carrot. The NBA’s Lopez said she hopes that going forward, employers focus more on the entire life cycle of an employee. If companies want their employees to be more worldly and a valuable team asset, she said, they have to think about student loan debt that may be preventing employees from traveling. Or paying for quality day care, she added, so employees can show up “with a clear mind day-to-day to do your job.” “Those are the things that I think are extremely important for inclusion,” she concluded. When companies leave them out of the picture, “they lead to the inequality we see in work.” In a following session, Ellie Bertani, senior director of learning strategy and innovation for Walmart, talked with Rachel Carlson, CEO of Guild Education, about how companies like Walmart are combating the student-debt crisis with new education programs. John Surico is a freelance journalist and researcher, based in New York City. His reporting has appeared in the New York Times, VICE, and a number of other local and national publications

johnsurico | June 27, 2019

Is Elite Generosity Just a Cover for a Rigged Game?

As a journalist and iconoclast, Anand Giridharadas has been stirring up the status quo lately by confronting one of the great economic disparities of the 21st Century. “The extraordinary elite helpfulness of our time is how we maintain the extraordinary elite hoarding of our time,” he says, summing up a central theme of his bestselling book, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Giridharadas, who spoke at the From Day One conference in Brooklyn last week, raises provocative questions about esteemed individuals and organizations: the billionaires, philanthropies and Fortune 500 companies that claim to be making the world a better place. But are they fighting for equality and justice, he asks, or just trying to make the best of a system that’s rigged against the same people the benefactors purport to help? Or worse: to obscure their own role in the system? Giridharadas, a Time editor-at-large interviewed at the conference by fellow Time editor Lucas Wittmann,  sees our current state of society and business as one marked by drastic extremes. “We live in a time of extraordinary generosity,” he acknowledges, embodied by a prevalent commitment by billionaires toward giving, as well as major new philanthropies and businesses that devote enormous budgets to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and often mobilize their workforces toward community service. At the same time we witness this display of largesse, however, we live in a state of rampant wealth and income inequality. Winners Take All points out that Americans born in 1984 have been siphoned into two groups: those from the top of the family-income ladder, with a 70% chance of doing better than their parents, and those close to the bottom, who are pushing against a 35% chance of exceeding their parents’ economic status. That split is extraordinary, says Giridharadas, given the technological revolutions of the last three decades, including the internet, wireless, genomics and artificial intelligence. “It takes a tremendous amount of rigging and walling off for that much innovation to fail to translate into progress for that many people,” he says. In fact, after much research, Giridharadas now sees those two trends—extreme generosity and drastic inequality—as two sides of the same coin. According to this theory, the rise of billionaire foundations, CSR departments and CEOs on the boards of nonprofits are ways for the winners of the capitalist economy to subtly keep their hands on the tiller of social  change to make sure it doesn’t upset fundamental power equations. Giridharadas was interviewed at the event by his fellow Time editor Lucas Wittmann The alternative would be political change, via legislation to provide more concrete benefits to the have-nots. Example: while more and more companies offer paid family leave, the U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t guarantee it by law. Instead of real, across-the-board programs that would address economic inequality, the so-called winners “have managed to defang change, to push these facsimiles of change that have managed to change very little,” Giridharadas said. There’s a lot to be learned from history here, he said. America has come a long way from the days of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. When those prototypes of one-percenters first attempted philanthropy, America was wary. At the start of the 20th century, when Rockefeller tried to create the first foundation, Congress raised obstacles, Giridharadas said. Political leaders were wary over the exertion of power through giving, as well as the prospect of reputation-laundering through philanthropy. The skepticism wore away over time, allowing philanthropy to grow to a $400 billion industry in the U.S. But times are a-changing. “There is a reckoning happening, in which we are starting to reclaim a bit of that intelligent skepticism from a hundred years ago,” Giridharadas said. Fair enough, but what should people do if their work in Corporate America involves the very thing he’s questioning? Think beyond your pay grade, he suggests, as some tech workers have notably done lately. The first thing to do, Giridharadas recommends, is get up to speed on what your company’s footprint in Washington looks like. Companies spend many millions a year on government lobbying. Those D.C. colleagues, said Giridharadas, may be “overruling the good effect you’re having on the world, maybe by the factor of a thousand.” A company may be “virtue signaling” about one thing and creating a mess somewhere else. Employees should push for their right to know what issues are being lobbied and seek an annual report how much is being spent to do it. Meanwhile, billionaire spending doesn’t need to stop cold turkey. There’s a space for philanthropy in places like foreign aid—like the Gates Foundation’s work on malaria—and experimentation and innovation, where government typically moves slowly. While the present power imbalance feels daunting, even for those on the inside, Giridharadas sees evidence that society can change when he looks at historical reform movements like women’s suffrage, social security, and child-labor laws. The question he asks is: “Do we have what it takes to do what is next, which is to usher in the age of reform? “ Emily Ludolph is a senior editor at 99U and an alum of TED Conferences and Vassar College. She has published in the New York Times, the Atlantic, Narratively, Artsy, 99U, Quartz, and Design Observer  

emilyludolph | June 26, 2019

These Are the Best Places for Women to Work in 2019

This story originally appeared on Fairygodboss and is used with permission. Today, we’re having more impactful conversations than ever about how to make workplaces truly gender equal. In the midst of those conversations, though, it’s important to take a moment to highlight which companies are currently doing right by their female talent. And who better to identify those best-in-class workplaces than the women who work there? For our 2019 Best Companies for Women rankings, released annually by Fairygodboss, companies’ scores were based entirely on women’s employee review data. In order to qualify for the rankings, companies first needed to have received more than 30 reviews on Fairygodboss. Scores were then determined by averaging women’s responses to three standard review questions addressing overall job satisfaction, equal treatment at work, and whether the reviewer would recommend the company to other women. In determining our Best Companies Where CEOs Support Gender Diversity ranking, women’s responses to the review question — “Do you think your CEO supports gender diversity?” — were averaged to determine the companies’ scores. “From our research at Fairygodboss, we know that women's job satisfaction is directly related to the amount of gender equality she experiences at work,” our Fairygodboss Co-founder and CEO, Georgene Huang, said. “We’re excited to showcase these top companies and CEOs as leaders in the movement for gender equality in the workplace and they should be proud that their female employees feel so strongly that they’re great places for women to work.” Outside of the overall Best Companies for Women ranking, additional categories include: Best Technology Companies for Women; Best Finance Companies for Women; Best Companies Where CEOs Support Gender Diversity; and a brand-new category, Best Consulting Companies for Women. See the full list of 2019 winners below: The Best Companies for Women In 2019: Pariveda Solutions Ultimate Software Protiviti ZS Boston Scientific ADP Continental Quicken Loans, Inc. Boston Consulting Group CDW Corporation Hilton E&J Gallo Capital One Financial Corporation Capital Group AppNexus Thomson Reuters United Technologies Terex The Hartford Facebook IBM Johnson & Johnson PepsiCo Southern California Edison Dell Charles Schwab Cisco General Electric Starbucks Corporation Salesforce PwC Best Technology Companies for Women in 2019: Ultimate Software CDW Corporation AppNexus Facebook IBM Dell Cisco Salesforce Intuit Ericsson Apple LinkedIn Seagate Technology Microsoft Google Cognizant Intel Corporation Hewlett Packard Enterprise HP Inc. SAP Oracle Corporation Best Finance Companies for Women in 2019: Quicken Loans Inc. Capital One Financial Corporation Capital Group Charles Schwab Fidelity Investments Vanguard Group American Express Company PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Goldman Sachs JPMorgan Chase & Co. Best Companies Where CEOs Support Gender Diversity in 2019: Ultimate Software NCC Media Pariveda Solutions Deloitte AppNexus Cisco IBM Protiviti ADP ZS Thomson Reuters Boston Consulting Group PepsiCo Hilton PwC CDW Corporation Boston Scientific Best Consulting Companies for Women in 2019: Pariveda Solutions Protiviti ZS Boston Consulting Group PwC Accenture Deloitte McKinsey & Company EY KPMG Fairygodboss is devoted to improving the workplace for women by increasing transparency — and these lists are designed to support that mission. By highlighting employers who are leading by example, we hope to raise the bar and improve gender equality across all industries.  

fromdayone | June 26, 2019

Wayfair, the Home-furnishings Giant, Is Hit by a Worker Protest

In a profile of the online home-goods giant Wayfair in this year’s Fortune 500 issue, writer Jeff O’Brien describes having lunch with co-founder Niraj Shah in the Boston-based company’s cafeteria “in the midst of a near monoculture of twentysomethings.” Turns out the young rank-and-file workers have minds of their own. More than 500 employees have signed a letter to the company’s leadership protesting Wayfair’s sale of $200,000 worth of bedroom furniture to a government contractor that operates shelters for migrant children on the southwestern border. The workers called for Wayfair to halt all business with the nonprofit contractor, BCFS, and to create a code of ethics for dealing with business-to-business customers. Because the company refused to change course, dissident employees plan to walk out of the company’s headquarters this afternoon. Their protest has drawn national attention as well as support from Democratic lawmakers, including U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who tweeted: “This is what solidarity looks like—a reminder that everyday people have real power, as long as we’re brave enough to use it.” While a business is not a democracy, workers have been making their voices heard lately in high-profile actions to protest company policies. At Google, employees walked out last year to object to the company’s handling of sexual-harassment complaints. At Microsoft, workers protested the company’s $480 million contract to sell its Hololens augmented-reality technology to the U.S. Army, saying the company had “crossed the line” into weapons development. The Wayfair protest comes at a time of increased scrutiny of the treatment of migrant children in overcrowded shelters along the U.S.-Mexico border. The publication of a disturbing photo of the bodies of a father and 23-month-old daughter who drowned crossing the Rio Grande heightened the sense of tragedy. “Knowing what’s going on at the southern border and knowing that Wayfair has the potential to profit from it is pretty scary,” Elizabeth Good, a Wayfair manager and one of the walkout’s organizers, told the New York Times. “I want to work at a company where the standards we hold ourselves to are the same standards that we hold our customers and our partners to.” Wayfair executives met with about 500 employees Tuesday afternoon in a town-hall meeting that “was heated at times,” according to a Boston Globe report. Company co-founder Steve Conine told workers he objected to the detention centers but that blocking a lawful customer’s purchase would be heading down a “slippery slope,” he said, according to a recording provided to the Globe. “The level of your citizenship as citizens is really the appropriate channel to try and attack an issue like this. To pull a business into it—we’re not a political entity. We’re not trying to take a political side,” Conine told employees. He did agree, however, to establish a code of ethics for corporate clients. The tech-driven Wayfair has been growing rapidly, entering the Fortune 500 this year at No. 446, with $6.8 billion in revenues and more than 12,000 employees. However, “there’s a black mark on the company. It’s deep in the red,” Fortune reported, with losses of $504 million last year. Fortune quoted a marketing professor who said the company is spending too much, about $88, to bring in every new customer. What remains to be seen is whether a high-profile protest will make it even harder to bring in those new sofa buyers.

fromdayone | June 26, 2019