Search Stories

Showing 980 - 1000 of 1031 results

How Employees Thrive on Recognition—and Frank Feedback

What usually persuades us to accept a job offer? The paycheck and the benefit package, for starters. What, however, makes one want to stay at a certain company? It goes beyond cold, hard cash and, say, a gym-membership reimbursement. Worker satisfaction upticks when employees feel like they contribute in a way that makes them more than cogs in a machine. Often it comes down to a moment of recognition. When Alex Seiler, senior director and HR global business partner at WeWork, was in a previous job, the company had just lost its director of diversity. Since Seiler had told his supervisors that he had worked in personal-inclusion initiatives in the past, a couple of months later he was offered the open position. “I thought that was one conversation—and that nobody was listening,” he told the audience at the From Day One conference in Brooklyn last week on a panel called “What Really Matters in Employee Satisfaction. “So I felt super heard and appreciated.” For Toby Hervey, the co-founder and CEO of Bravely, which connects employees with professional coaches, the “feeling heard” moment happened when he was 23. Hervey was mainly doing clerical work, and tirelessly nudged higher-ups to hand him the presentation decks that he needed to format for an offsite meeting. After the presentation was over, the president emailed him, thanking him for the work he did, and handed him a bonus. The money was a welcome surprise, but not the main point. “People were paying attention to to the work I was doing,” Hervey said. Moderated by journalist Lydia Dishman of Fast Company, the panel on “What Really Matters in Employee Satisfaction” included Martha Delehanty, senior vice president of HR for Verizon; Christopher Rotolo, vice president of global talent management and organization for PepsiCo; and Alyssa Schaefer, chief marketing officer for Laurel Road, a student-loan refinancing platform.  Among the main takeaways: recognition is crucial, but so is constructive feedback, which needs to be done frankly yet thoughtfully. HR panelists Seiler, left, and Rotolo Lose the Sandwich When you use the “sandwich technique” for negative feedback, meaning starting with something nice, then saying something critical, only to conclude with a pleasantry, people get confused. “We trained our managers and leaders not to do the sandwich,” said Rotolo. “What happens is, your mind is waiting for the shoe to drop.” In fact, as Delehanty put it, “nothing that comes after the ‘but’ is good.  Best thing is just to get to it.” Added Seiler: “You can be honest and direct but still compassionate. It doesn’t mean you have to lose your sense of humanity.” Find Fairness in the Facts “The real problem,” said Hervey, “is how to say the hard things.” Calling out people in a healthy way requires a careful strategy. Ideally, you provide context explaining where you’re coming from; you can make it more observational, focusing on things you witness instead of feelings. Managers can practice the conversation with some role-playing and imagining likely scenarios. “People are challenged with the how: What are the literal words that are going to come out of my mouth?” Stop Thinking Vertically Why should feedback be confined to a top-to-bottom scheme? “Feedback comes from anyone who works with you,” said Seiler, who recalls once making a rushed hire, which his co-workers were not happy with. “I recognize that peer-to-peer feedback is very difficult, but it’s something that people need to get better at doing.” Schaefer said teams can benefit from the natural tendency to name informal leaders among peers.  When it comes to feedback, “People tend to go to them and trust them,” she said. “Giving peer-to-peer feedback can be uncomfortable, but when there’s an informal leader in the team, sometimes it can work even better,” she said. Use Slack Wisely Willie Jackson of ReadySet led a workshop on new ways to foster critical conversations about difference and equality Just to clarify, Slack in this context refers to the workplace-friendly collaboration tool, not the act of avoiding work. Slack has enabled a dynamic based on rapid response, as well as a level of conversation we didn’t have before: Would you have dared reply to your boss with an emoji? Tread carefully, though. “There is a big risk, with tech, that something will be misinterpreted and assumed,” said Schaefer. “Assuming positive intent is really important.” What’s more, be concise. Slack is great for its immediacy, but, the panelists concurred, people have started expressing themselves on the platform as if they were writing novels. “Don’t share sensitive info through Slack,” Seiler warns. Make “The Middle” Feel Heard A disproportionate amount of management attention goes to the stars at the top of the rating scale and the poor performers at the bottom. People in the middle tend to get overlooked, especially if managers are consistently relying on electronic communications or drive-by recognitions. “There’s the big middle where actually all the work gets done,” said Delehanty. “You have to be willing, though, to have folks from the big middle shine.” Added Hervey: “Equalize access. Then you can help them advance when they really want to, especially when you think of the bias that goes into selection processes. There’s a lot of overlooked talent because they might not talk or socialize like you.” In a session following the panel talk, Willie Jackson, a diversity, equity and inclusion facilitator for ReadySet, led an ally-skills workshop to help position people of color and their allies to foster critical conversations and healthy workplaces. Angelica Frey is a writer and a translator based in Milan and Brooklyn

Angelica Frey | June 24, 2019

How a Giant Consulting Firm Opened Its Eyes about Gender Diversity

McKinsey & Co., the prestigious management-consulting firm, takes pride in giving advice to the world’s largest corporations about the smartest business practices. But a few years ago, McKinsey discovered it had a blind spot in its own workplace. At a time when companies are valuing diversity more than ever, the firm had a notable gender imbalance: far too few female hires and promotions. McKinsey resolved not only to bring its own practices up to date, but also to become a leading authority on the issue. Since 2015, working with LeanIn.Org, the firm has published Women in the Workplace, a benchmark study. (For the 2018 report, 279 companies and 64,000 employees were surveyed.) A champion of McKinsey’s crusade for gender diversity happens to be a male executive, Kausik Rajgopal, the managing partner for the western U.S., whose office leads the firm’s work on the issue. He spoke with From Day One about the firm’s progress on the issue and the life experiences that made him an advocate. Excerpts: Kausik Rajgopal is the Managing Partner for McKinsey & Company’s Western U.S. Region; his office leads the the firm's work on gender diversity FD1: When did the firm’s recent path to gender diversity begin? Rajgopal:  We were having conversations about how do we grow the representation of women in the partnership.  And I remember many years before that, one of my mentees was a woman who came to me and told me that she was leaving the firm.  And she said something that stuck with me because she was about to become a mother.  She said, “Management consulting and motherhood are mutually exclusive.” I just remember being shocked by that. And that led me and several others to think about how we can build a profession, and certainly an institution, that not just attracts women but retains them at greater rates. But then you fast forward to 2012-13, that’s when we started looking at the questions of representation systematically. And we said—quite logically, right?—if you want greater representation, you need to have it in our incoming recruiting classes. And we found that it was actually quite a bit below where we needed to be.  So that conversation on recruiting classes was probably the catalyst for a lot of the work that we’ve done on this. Once you realized the situation, what were the next steps toward action?   I think three big ones. One was to get our recruiting teams to be aware and make this a priority  reach out to women more systematically. So, for example, at Stanford, instead of just doing a single information session, which we had done historically, we said, “Why don’t we go do an event as well with the with the [dual-degree] women engineers?” So you reach out in a much more intimate, narrowcast way, as opposed to, “Here is a big company and show up to a single session and apply,” which has more of a factory feel to it.  And so that was one: using multiple venues to reach out to women who might be interested. The second thing was to understand our own unconscious biases in recruiting. As an example, after interviewing candidates, we have a decision meeting where the partners who conduct interviews discuss all the candidates together. We began designating one of the partners in the room as the “debiasing advocate.” So everybody else in the room then expected them to push back on the questions. If somebody said, “Well, I found Jane to be very sharp and her resume’s impressive, but I’m not sure about her presence,” the debiasing advocate would then say, “Are you saying that because she’s a woman?” And that led to a much more overt discussion, putting the bias on the table and being able to do that without judgment because we all have unconscious biases about lots of things. It doesn’t mean that we’re bad people.  But having the awareness and giving someone else the permission to name it and tease it out, and then have a discussion about what that means for what we’re trying to accomplish, was very powerful.  It was a real unlock for us. The third factor was in reflecting on the face we present in recruiting, like who shows up from the firm to recruit. Getting that to be much more gender-balanced was a key part of that.  Do you look like a firm that welcomes gender diversity?  So we encouraged women to be ambassadors, to be more visible in the cultivation of candidates. When did you start to see tangible results, to feel like, “Okay, we’re getting traction”?  I would say it took a couple of years for all three of these pieces to come together. But once it did, the power of all three of these integrating created a multiplier effect, a sort of virtuous cycle. This year, the incoming class has reached virtual gender parity. Along the way to that milestone, did your clients help push you in that direction? Quite early on.  I would say culturally we are a very client-centric firm. We kind of wake up in the morning with benefits for them on our minds. I think culturally it’s very anticipant and appropriate, whenever we’re starting out to do something new and different, to get our clients’ advice and feedback. And for many of our clients, better diversity was already a priority. So we were already starting to get feedback like, “In your team rooms, we’d like to see more women, like in the teams that you bring to serve us.” So our clients are typically not shy about giving out that feedback and when we posited the idea of doing the research with them, their advice to us was, “If you’re going to do it, just make sure that you are also institutionally committed to this as a priority and making that [representative] of your own commitments.”  How did you decide to go about making this report—and making it a definitive one? Three quick thoughts on that.  One is we quickly said we can’t do this on our own.  So we do this in partnership with LeanIn.Org and the Wall Street Journal. And Lean In, independently, obviously, had been thinking about this and advocating for gender diversity and parity in the workplace. So that was a natural notion. The second thing we said was that we need to make this a multiyear commitment. This can’t be a one-and-done. So we expect it will be an indefinite commitment, really, which was our clients’ early feedback to us.  And then the third piece was we wanted to make sure that it was grounded in real data and not in anecdote.  So the methodology of the report is very much empirical.  We go out, we now survey more than 300 companies in Corporate America. We get data from them at every level, on everything from recruiting to performance evaluation to promotions, representation at different levels. It’s a pretty exhaustive look. We’re very thoughtful about privacy of personal information, but on our blinded database we actually get a pretty detailed and rich dataset that we can then look at for patterns and trends year over year. And over time, as we build that methodology and approach, we’ve also overlaid on it specific questions in areas of interest. For example, the most recent report goes quite deep into women of color and their experience in the workplace, the particular challenges they face.  And in each report. I think we’ll do something like that, where we go deep on a particular question. What trends have you found over several years now? Longitudinally we see very little movement in the percentage of women who rise to the top. So when we look at representation of women in the C-suite, that number doesn’t really raise significantly over time.  The other thing that’s quite striking is there is, I think, a loose cultural assumption that some of the lack of representation is actually a choice by women.  That women, for example, after they have children, become less ambitious. Or they don’t want to make it to the top.  And we found quite recently in our research that that is not true. That they want to progress, they want to make it to the top. So those were striking assumptions. The most recent report shows that the first promotion is actually quite significant. Women are falling behind early, because first promotions are most inequitable. Women are 21% less likely than men to be promoted to manager. Black women are particularly disadvantaged, as they are 40% less likely than men to be promoted to manager. Then you can imagine how it compounds from there. What other kinds of connections that you were able to make? One of the critical things that the report validated is the importance of sponsorship. And we often talk about the distinction between a mentor and a sponsor. A mentor is somebody who may occasionally give you advice, who sort of cares about you. A sponsor is somebody who really creates opportunity for you and is committed to your career and to your success. We saw quite frequently in the research that women who had been successful in rising to the top had a much greater and more consistent preponderance of sponsors—and not just mentors.  As somebody said to me, advice is cheap.  Consistent support is what matters. The other really striking observation, which is a little sad, is that a stunningly large percentage of men believe that this is not a problem.  In a company where only one in ten senior leaders is a woman, nearly 45% of men think women are well represented in the leadership. Even more stunningly, a significant percentage of women, 28%, agree. To us, that suggests a little bit about the anchoring bias and the visibility bias, when you look at a leadership team and say, “Oh, there’s ten people there and there’s two women on there, so clearly women can make it.” So that was kind of an eye opener for us. The mindset was much more pervasive than we expected. One other one: We’re doing a fair amount of research on what I call the “only” phenomenon, which is often in a room, or a team at any level, there’s only one woman in the mix. And that can be a lonely experience. So far, a lot of what we’ve talked about [in Corporate America] is diversity. The more powerful and more important bit over time is inclusion. And this dynamic where we’re going to have one woman at every level can actually a quite isolating experience for the woman. Have experiences in your life inspired you to feel strongly about this issue? It’s very personal for me. I’m the only child of an Indian mother who has a college degree.  She graduated from college in 1962 and she’s one of the smartest, most thoughtful, most proactive people I know. And for cultural reasons she stayed home to take care of me and raise me. It would be a mistake to say she never worked—she worked a lot—but she never worked in the workforce. And I always thought that that was a stunning waste of human capital for the world. My wife, I’d say, is another role model for me.  She’s a software engineer, has worked in Silicon Valley for most of her career. And I remember when I shared with her some of the insights we had on unconscious bias, kind of in the early days of the journey that I was describing to you, she said to me, “It’s great that you are now admiring the problem. Are you actually going to solve it?” I think both of those are quite personal motivations for me. So I’ve personally been a pretty active sponsor and supporter of women. Another part of your job is co-leading the firm’s global efforts in financial technology. What patterns do you see regarding the role of women in technology? Around the world, there’s a stunning lack of adequate female representation in the workplace. In my travels globally, yeah, there are cultural differences, some nuance. But in general the patterns that I describe, which are based on research in an American context—I think they’re all true. This is a global issue. 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 | June 06, 2019

Your Chocolate Bar Is Probably the Result of Child Labor

The guilty pleasure of having a candy bar just got a little guiltier. “The odds are substantial that a chocolate bar bought in the U.S. is the product of child labor,” the Washington Post reports, based on an 11-day reporting tour through the Ivory Coast’s cocoa farms by a reporter and photographer. The journalists interviewed 12 boys who gave their ages ranging from 13 to 18. “The boys were working on farms harvesting cocoa, clearing brush with machetes and doing other work associated with cocoa production,” their account said. This has been going on awhile, but the big chocolate makers including Mars, Nestlé and Hershey pledged nearly two decades ago to stop using cocoa harvested by children. Yet it continues. In the Ivory Coast, “hundreds of thousands of small farms have been carved out of the forest,” the Post reports, “the setting for an epidemic of child labor.” About two-thirds of the world’s cocoa supply comes from the region, where more than 2 million children are employed in the industry, according to a 2015 U.S. Labor Department report. The big chocolate makers have missed several deadlines for halting the practice. One reason is the murkiness of the supply chain. Chocolate companies can’t identify where much of their cocoa comes from, “let alone whether child labor was used in producing it,” the Post said. If that gives you second thoughts about your chocolate craving, don’t seek refuge in your favorite hazelnut spread. That crop carries a similar taint. Syrian refugees have been toiling on Turkey’s hazelnut farms with little to show for it, according to the New York Times. Turkey produces about 70% of the world’s hazelnut crop on about 600,000 small farms. The harvest supplies the key ingredient for products like Nutella spread made by Ferrero, as well as candy bars from Nestlé and Godiva. “Few consumers know that behind each of these treats is a crop that has long been notorious for its hazards and hardships, as well as the prevalence of child labor,” the Times reported. “Now, a growing number of seasonal hazelnut workers are Syrian refugees, a cohort with a unique set of vulnerabilities. Few have work permits, meaning they lack legal protections.” “In six years of monitoring, we have never found a single hazelnut farm in Turkey in which all decent work principle standards are met,” said Richa Mittal, the director of innovation and research for the Fair Labor Association, which has done fieldwork on Turkey’s hazelnut crop. “Across the board. Not one.” According to the Times, “No buyer is bigger or more secretive than Ferrero. It won’t name a single farm that its suppliers buy from, although simple arithmetic suggests that the answer is ‘most of them.’” While child labor in agriculture is common in the developing world, the U.S. is no exception. “More than half of work-related deaths among children in the U.S. occur in agriculture, according to a new US government report,” Human Rights Watch reported. “This happens despite the fact that farms employ less than 6% of child workers, highlighting the devastating consequences of weak laws and regulations that don’t properly protect child farmworkers.”

fromdayone | June 06, 2019

Why Big Companies Are Wading Into Heated Political Issues

Coming from the CEO of the Walt Disney Co., the political statement about one state’s new law had an impact far beyond the place he was talking about. “I think if it becomes law, it will be very difficult to produce there. I rather doubt we will,” said Disney’s Bob Iger about the state of Georgia, where a stringent anti-abortion law is due to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Iger gave practical reasons for the company’s position, but the issue is unavoidably divisive nonetheless. “I think many people who work for us will not want to work there. And we’ll have to heed their wishes in that regard,” he said. Disney has plenty of company in its peer group. Major corporations including Microsoft, Delta Air Lines, Starbucks and Salesforce have recently taken positions on the most polarizing of issues, including gun control and immigration. This is a major change in corporate posture. When it comes to political issues, big businesses have traditionally tried to be like Switzerland: steadfastly neutral. But as customers increasingly prefer to align themselves with companies that reflect their personal values, companies increasingly find themselves taking a stand. Surprisingly enough, it can be good for business, even if it alienates some groups. “A virtuous cycle between social and financial performance is especially strong when it helps to deepen relationships with customers, employees, investors, or other stakeholders by helping them understand the values and motivations of the company,” wrote management experts Daniel Korschun and N. Craig Smith last year in the Harvard Business Review. “It’s time to stop treating political issues as a third rail.” Georgia’s abortion law, which will prohibit abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, is similar to new legislation in several other states aimed at overturning the Roe v. Wade doctrine. The reason Georgia became such a high-profile target for a business boycott is that the state, which offers lucrative tax breaks for video production, now outpaces even California in its output. Filmmaking is a $9.6 billion industry in the state, creating more than 90,000 jobs last year. Netflix, AMC Networks and WarnerMedia have suggested that they too would avoid doing business in the state if the law survives court challenges and goes into effect. The prospective boycott is already drawing heat from the other side, with Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network calling for a counter-boycott of Disney and Netflix. Even the tactics for opposing the Georgia law is a matter of debate. Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat who nearly won the state’s gubernatorial election last year, has urged Hollywood to stick around and support efforts to challenge the law, organizing a coalition under the name #StayAndFight. Just as radioactive an issue is gun control, which several companies have publicly supported, typically pointing to America’s epidemic of mass shootings as the reason. While Congress has avoided new restrictions, companies have imposed their own. Salesforce, the business-software giant, recently told its customer Camping World and other gun retailers that they should “stop selling military-style rifles, or stop using our software,” as the Washington Post reported. Earlier this year, Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling guns and ammunition entirely at 125 of its 720 stores; last year Walmart raised the minimum age for buying guns and ammo from 18 to 21. Can a position by a business made a difference? One notable case was Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 2015, which was condemned by civil-rights groups as likely to foster discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. After the law prompted a clamorous backlash from organizations ranging from Apple to the NCAA, then-Gov. Mike Pence signed a revision of the law to “make it clear that business owners will not be allowed to discriminate when providing services,” the IndyStar reported. (Photo by Stephen Koepp) One company recently made news just by trying to avoid politics altogether. An official of Dunkin’, formerly known as Dunkin’ Donuts, said in a private meeting with about 30 academics at a trade conference that the company doesn’t want to take sides, an obvious comparison to its more activist rival. “We are not Starbucks, we aren’t political—we aren’t gonna put stuff on our cups to start conversations,” said Drayton Martin, the company’s vice president of brand stewardship. “We don’t want to engage you in political conversation, we want to get you in and out of our store in seconds. It’s donuts and ice cream—just be happy,” said Martin, whose remarks were promptly tweeted by University of New Hampshire law professor Alexandra Roberts, who was in the room. The tweet quickly drew thousands of likes. “It was really surprising to me, frankly,” Roberts told the Boston Globe. “I wouldn’t have expected a message about a brand choosing to be apolitical to be perceived as so political.” Navigating the political waters is a skill that many companies are still learning, especially when it comes to social media. One notabler example emerged from Britain’s wave of milkshake protests, in which liberal activists have doused supporters of Brexit and other divisive politicians with milkshakes they have conveniently picked up at chain stores. A Burger King representative apparently decided to capitalize on the controversy, “seeming in response to the news that a McDonald’s near the site of a [Nigel] Farage rally in Edinburgh had been asked to halt sales of milkshakes and ice cream,” the Washington Post reported. Burger King mischievously tweeted, “Dear people of Scotland, we’re selling milkshakes all weekend. Have fun. Love BK #justsaying.” While the tweet drew its share of likes, others protested, saying the tweet could incite violence. Burger King quickly backed off its cheeky approach, tweeting: “We’d never endorse violence—or wasting our delicious milkshakes! So enjoy the weekend and please drink responsibly people.” 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 | June 05, 2019

Why More CEOs Are Getting Bounced for Ethical Lapses

What gets a CEO fired? Traditionally, poor financial performance has been the leading cause of corporate boards dumping their chief executive. But last year was different: 39% of CEOs were dismissed for ethical lapses, vs. 35% for financial reasons, according to a study of the 2,500 largest global public companies by Strategy&, a consulting arm of PwC. It was the first time in the 19-year history of the study that unethical conduct doomed more CEOs than any other reason. “There’s a new call for transparency and accountability, especially with issues regarding the #MeToo movement and other indiscretions for which there is increasingly zero tolerance,” said Martha Turner, a partner with Strategy&. Has CEO behavior gotten worse? More likely, the reason behind the trend is that standards have been raised, wrote Robert Prentice, a professor of business law and ethics at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas. “Formerly, corporate boards were too often inclined to hunker down and ride out a storm of controversy over a misbehaving CEO who was, nonetheless, getting the financial results that the board desired,” notes Prentice. “Today, thanks to the #MeToo movement, that is not a viable strategy for corporate boards. The heat from the headlines is too intense.” The most notorious case in 2018, when the study counted 89 forced CEO departures, was that of CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves, who resigned over sexual-misconduct allegations and didn’t go away quietly. Other CEOs departed from Lululemon, WPP, Intel and Barnes & Noble following charges of sexual misconduct or other ethical lapses. “Boards feel they have to hold their CEOs accountable to the code of conduct in the same way they would with [other] employees,” Bill George, a senior fellow at Harvard Business School and former CEO of Medtronic, told the Washington Post. “There’s a strong feeling from boards they have to do it.” Another factor is increased pressure from employees reacting to misconduct at the top, he added. “That’s a very important factor today that didn’t exist 10 years ago.” The new climate probably will claim quite a few more CEOs, management experts predict. “The first wave of #MeToo took out some of the most high-profile figures," John Paul Rollert, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies the ethics of leadership, told NPR. "What we're beginning to see in this second and now third wave is Corporate America taking responsibility for itself," he said. "There are clearly a lot of bad actors who are still hiding in the shadows that need to be swept out." Is there something about chief executives that makes them step over the line? Well, yes, in many cases. “The population of psychopaths is still overrepresented in the C-Suite,” wrote Prentice, the University of Texas professor. “The professional success corporate CEOs have enjoyed often leads them to be particularly vulnerable to the overconfidence bias and the self-serving bias.  They will continue to tend toward having an unrealistic view of how moral they are and how important they are to their firm’s success,” he wrote, adding: “They will continue to be more likely than others to mistakenly believe that others agree with them.  And, the science shows, they will be particularly adept at rationalizing their wrongdoing.”

fromdayone | May 29, 2019

Will Tech Destroy the World (Or Save It)? The Arguments Both Ways

“It’s undeniable that our use of technology has outstripped our infrastructure” of legal, ethical and social standards, observed Cathy Bessant, chief operations and technology officer for Bank of America. “We’re using it before we know how to manage it.” Her remarks in an onstage interview aptly captured the sentiment last week at Techonomy NYC 19, a conference that explored bright and dark sides of technology, which right now seem almost as polarized as America’s politics. The organizers titled their conference “Collaborating for Responsible Growth,” they explained, “because unless we get better at working together for society’s benefit, we’re all in trouble.” With an eclectic array of speakers, Techonomy explored such wide-ranging issues as social media’s crisis, women in technology, hackers, Amazon, the internet of things, China, food and podcasts. Several highlights from the first day of the two-day conference: Technologies of Togetherness “We are in the cave-man era of bringing people together,” declared Scott Heiferman, the chairman of Meetup, the community-building startup he co-founded in 2003. In saying that, Heiferman was being optimistic. He believes the current crisis in social media, plagued by propaganda and privacy issues, could be worked out by innovation and public debate. Heiferman, in an interview with Techonomy founder David Kirkpatrick, said he thinks the business model of advertising-driven platforms like Facebook and Google will have to evolve, bemoaning “the fact that the greatest minds of our generation are focused on getting people to click on ads.” Yet he recognized that moving to a new business model, like paid subscriptions, would require an epic change for those companies. “Should the whole world be paying cash money to Facebook? The reality is that if your core business is to get people to stare at a screen, you’re going to get people to stare at a screen,” he said. Digital platforms like Uber, however, which has been accused of exploiting its drivers, could be rivaled in the gig economy by the emergence of so-called platform cooperatives, Heiferman noted. In those organizations, the administrative layer is thinner and more revenue goes to the workers. Meetup, which was bought in 2017 by WeWork, makes money by charging a fee to organizers of groups. The company decided early on to avoid going to an ad-driven model, which made Heiferman nervous at the time about how customers would judge the service, he said. “If we go to a pay model, their expectations are going to be really high,” he told one of his investors, Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay. Responded Omidyar: “Exactly!” Creating an Inclusive Tech Industry “Having diversity at the table when solutions are proposed leads to different solutions,” said Kimberly Bryant, founder and CEO of Black Girls Code, a nonprofit that provides young and pre-teen girls of color opportunities to learn skills in tech and computer-programming. Bryant, a technologist with experience at Genentech, Pfizer and Merck, launched Black Girls Code as a pilot project in 2011. It now has programs in 15 cities, partnering with school districts and corporations. Bryant observed that with technology as a tool, girls can address issues that “young women of color face in the community.” Safety, for example. Her daughter, at age 13, worked with her peers at a hackathon to develop a wearable device, called Ohana, that could act as an alarm if they were to feel unsafe in a particular area. A push of a button would notify their key contacts or the authorities. Participants in Black Girls Code can start early and stick with the program for several years, with year-round workshops. While Bryant’s daughter is now studying computer science in college, other participants have used the program as a springboard to other careers. One of them is getting “a full ride” at the University of California, Berkeley, where she’s studying to become a doctor, Bryant said. But does Black Girls Code exclude people by its nature?, a member of the audience asked. “Black Girl’s Code is a term of affirmation, not of segregation,” Bryant said. “It’s OK for these girls to be their full selves.” Kimberly Bryant, right, founder and CEO of Black Girls Code, speaking at the Techonomy conference (Photo by Stephen Koepp) Partnering for Good When corporations launch programs to have a positive social impact, they’re well-advised to leverage their strengths by finding a partner like MedShare. The humanitarian aid organization delivers surplus medical supplies and equipment to communities in need around the world. The group has delivered $220 million worth of gear so far, “things that would have wound up in a landfill,” having outlived their use in the developed world, said Charles Redding, the group’s CEO. One of MedShare’s partners is Philips, the Dutch electronics giant. The company currently focuses heavily on health-care technology, “everything from MRI machines to the Sonicare toothbrush,” said Rob Stevens, the company’s general manager of health-system services. Medical equipment typically becomes surplus when a hospital or other health-care provider upgrades to more modern gear, at which point a company like Philips can find a new home for the still-functional devices. “We don’t just donate the gear, we also provide all the manuals so they can have another useful life,” said Stevens. “It’s important that that the local team knows how to service the product and use it to its full potential.” The second-hand gear can be life-saving in parts of the world where modern health facilities are scarce. “The ultrasounds are literally a godsend for us,” said Redding, referring to the use of the devices for pre-natal monitoring. He told of a situation in Nicaragua where an expectant mother was in physical distress. An ultrasound exam showed the mother to be “very low on amniotic fluid,” a hazardous condition. The mother was rushed to surgery for a C-section, which saved both the mother and child, he said. MedShare is a major logistical operation, having moved 13.5 million lbs. of equipment and supplies, operating three warehouses to handle it all, and coordinating 20,000 volunteers a year to get the job done, Redding said. Hacking a More Secure Society Everyone from credit-card holders to Pentagon generals worries about digital mayhem, with new episodes making headlines constantly. Two weeks ago, hackers seized parts of the computer systems that run Baltimore’s government, demanding ransom. “Here’s the bad news: Nobody wants to be hacked, but everybody gets hacked,” said Mårten Mickos, CEO of the cybersecurity company HackerOne. The good news, he added, is that “the younger generation is fixing it for us.” HackerOne has an unusual business model in the $120 billion cyber-security industry. HackerOne encourages its army of 400,000 freelance hackers to try to infiltrate the systems of its customers, then pays a bounty when the hackers find a bug. “If the good guys can break in, the bad guys can break in too.” HackerOne’s workforce ranges from students to corporate professionals, with half of the hackers age 24 or younger. While some hackers might earn only small amounts, several stars have emerged. One is 19-year-old Santiago Lopez of Buenos Aires, the first HackerOne freelancer to earn $1 million. Lopez has found 1,607 flaws at recent count, having scrutinized the IT systems at companies including Goldman Sachs and Verizon, Mickos said. “Software can be wrong in so many ways,” he said, comparing freelance hacking to the production of open-source software. “It’s the only way to deal with it,” Mickos said of fighting cybercrime, which he called “asymmetrical threat, in that those who do it are very few, who can do huge damage.” HackerOne has worked with the Defense Department to carry out the program Hack the Pentagon, which uses the crowdsourcing method to secure its IT systems. In that case of that program, the Pentagon does background checks on the good-guy hackers, who are required to be law-abiding, U.S. citizens. Asked about the worst digital security threat, Mickos answers: “The problem is you and me. Human beings are not disciplined, they’re vulnerable.” For his part, “I’ve become very disciplined with my own passwords.” Can Anyone Beat Amazon? “The reality is, in the short or medium term, nobody can beat Amazon. If you try to run up against amazon directly, it’s like going up against Usain Bolt in the 100 meters,” said Chieh Huang, CEO of Boxed, the e-commerce company he co-founded in 2013. OK, so how did Boxed become a juggernaut of its own, attracting $244 million of venture-capital funding so far? “We didn’t understand why Amazon didn’t sell really big packages,” said Huang, who started selling wholesale volumes of toilet paper out of a garage in New Jersey. “Timing was everything,” he said. At the time, investors were wary of e-commerce, so the partners did things for themselves, selling $40,000 worth of bulk products in their first year, mainly to business customers. They limited themselves “to selling only the wholesale package and not trying to be the Everything Store,” he said. “There’s a fine line between hubris and being naïve.” Part of Boxed’s current business model is to build its own propriety technology for inventory management and other parts of the business, in which they can incorporate higher-value features. Among e-commerce sites, “We’re the only national retailer that tells you the expiration date of the product you’re buying,” Huang said. “If there’s a recall of beef jerky,” he said, the company knows exactly which customers to notify. While automating his warehouse in New Jersey has replaced people with machines to some extent, Huang said the growth of his revenues has led to a net increase in jobs. Plus, technology has its limits, for now. “It’s hard to simulate the dexterity of the human hand to pick up things,” he said. Asked what keeps him up at night, the entrepreneur said: “The ever-rising bar of the consumer. Consumers don’t care where that innovation comes, but they see it and then they want it across the whole spectrum of retail,” he said, giving the example of two-day shipping leading to one-day shipping and now same-day delivery. The Internet Civil War Techonomy founder Kirkpatrick set the table for this panel discussion with a cover story in the company’s magazine, in which he took stock of divergent powerful interests that could render the term “world wide web” obsolete. Already, the trend has given rise to a new term for the frayed global connections: the “splinternet.” “On the one hand, a small band of huge global technology companies have achieved a scale and influence that dwarfs most countries, even as they have shown insufficient concern for public welfare,” Kirkpatrick wrote. At the same time, “an existential split over the internet has emerged between nations. Is it a vehicle for freedom and the empowerment of individuals?” as the U.S. and Europe have generally believed, “or is it a means for state control, surveillance, and the muzzling of political speech?” as China notably practices, with countries like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Hungary leaning in that direction. The risk, he concludes, is that the internet becomes balkanized and loses its global potency. In the shadow of the Big Tech companies, “we are living in a commercial zone that lacks any regulatory standards,” said Dipayan Ghosh, a fellow in the platform-accountability project at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. “Tradition in this country has always been to put the markets first,” Ghosh said. With the rise of Facebook and Google, we have seen the emergence of a dominant business model involving several insidious factors: “compelling platforms fostering addiction,” the “uninhibited collection of data on users,” and “the creation and refinement of algorithms that are sophisticated and opaque,” he said. With companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon dominating their fields, “you could make the case that in each of these silos is a monopoly and potentially damaging our media ecosystem,” said Ghosh, who said that citizens should call for establishing some borders around those business models “to give the consumer some power back.” Indeed, he predicted “over the next year we’re seeing a tsunami of regulation coming to Silicon Valley, from around the world. I hope the industry can come together with legislators for some improvements in transparency.” In terms of totalitarian countries building walls to separate themselves from the internet, what’s the worst scenario? “The one I’m most worried about is that countries see a security threat,” said Scott Malcomson, director of special projects at the Strategic Insight Group. “They see a threat to their physical safety” from losing control of the web, he said. “Once you get onto that escalator, it’s hard to get off.” Will Tech Unify or Divide? Bank of America’s Bessant, who warns of technology’s tendency to race ahead of our ability to deal with the effects, said, “We have to choose the path of good, but it won’t be the path of least resistance.” Of particular concern, she said, is a worsening of income inequality. “I’m optimistic by nature,” she noted, but “what happens when we’re 5G [wireless] enabled and all of us have five to six devices?” she asked. “What happens in parts of the world that can’t afford it? Rich kids will have it, but poor kids won’t. From the outset, that has to be unacceptable to us.” Banks should care about the widening economic divide because one of their core missions is “democratizing the safety of money. We have to stand for equality and justice,” she said. That’s a practical concern too, since banks do better in societies with economic diversity. “We know that vibrant markets are better for banking.” Bessant said that even bankers worry about the economic fallout of technology. “Whenever you use the word transformation in front of an employee, they think, ‘Yeah, you’re going to transform me out of a job.’” That’s one reason she has a monthly conference call with thousands of employees, during which they can ask questions freely and anonymously.

fromdayone | May 23, 2019

Are There Times When Gender Role Playing Is OK? This Founder Thinks So

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. There’s a lot of talk about female founders, but what happens to their experiences when you throw a man into the mix? Despite how supportive a male-female founding dynamic may be, it’s not always possible to shake the gendered differences in how the partners are received by others. Chiara Adin is a founder who shares her role with a man — one she truly respects and loves working with. She’s the chief creative officer, and he’s the go-to for all things technical. Together, they founded N/A Collective, an NYC-based experiential marketing firm that works with companies like Twitter, SoundCloud, Casper, Tommy Hilfiger, and Revlon. But when it comes to having certain conversations with the team or presenting to clients, the duo will often strategize who does what, aware they may be received differently. Adin doesn’t quite see this as a bad thing and is happy to play to her strengths. A positive person by default, she feels society has come far in the last few years and that discussions — like this one — are what’s made it possible. We chatted with Adin to learn more about her experiences and advice for other female founders: You have a male co-founder, Aaron Mason. Do you ever find that certain conversations with investors, partners, teams, or clients go differently when led by you versus him? Yeah, I definitely find that there are really interesting differences. We try to use the fact that one of us is female and the other male to our benefit; for better or worse it works, but it is sad that we know there are certain circumstances where one of is better suited to communicate something. There are certain instances where a female has the ability to speak more openly, especially with female employees. We don’t necessarily have to be as concerned with tone because generally speaking, we’re fairly calm and level-headed. So I’m able to have some of the more stern conversations with the team, but at the same time, clients sometimes will be more receptive to him because I’m a female sitting in a room with all males. So it really depends, but I think the greatest part about having a male partner is having the ability to play with whichever situation makes the most sense. He’s a wonderful partner and we know and play to our strengths. I haven’t necessarily had any issues with gender in the workplace. It’s more just about playing to the audience, what makes the most sense, and who it’s going to be better received coming from. A still from "Cocktails and Cons," a SXSW event N/A Collective created to launch the show's second season on Bravo. This was a topic that got a lot of attention in 2017 when two women entrepreneurs made up a fake third co-founder, Keith, to further avoid discrimination. It worked — replies emailed to Keith were much more timely and respectful. Did you hear about this at the time? What do you think of it? I didn’t hear about that particularly, but I have a friend, a good friend of mine actually, who created a fake employee as well. She was the sole owner and basically created a Head of Accounting named Stewart. She found that people wouldn’t respond to her request to pay invoices, but they would respond to his, which I think in general is really interesting and really disappointing. Like why would you assume that just because somebody’s name is Stewart that he would be more suited to collect checks? It doesn’t make any sense. I can understand it given some of the panels and discussions I’ve been a part of and experienced at events like SXSW and others. I definitely believe that happened, and it’s a shame that they would have to create a fake employee or a fake partner just to get their funding. There are definitely circumstances where people unfortunately come up against that wall, but I personally have to say that I would never create a fake employee. I would just be loud and proud of who we are and what we do and who I am as a female. Even though you haven’t experienced a lot of it yourself, do you feel like some people are still quick to either intentionally or subconsciously see the man as the authority figure? Not so much anymore, but I definitely think that two years ago, the world was a different place. If anything, we get a lot of interest because we have a female founder. I actually just got a few emails the other day from people hoping we were more than 50 percent female-owned. Unfortunately we’re not, but I think it’s becoming more and more of a positive than it is a negative. But I also think it’s taking all of these discussions and articles to get there. We were not there two years ago, but I think we will get there and that we’re almost there. I mean, maybe not almost, but we’re on the right path. What advice would you give to other women founders? I’m not a super cocky person and am sometimes a little uncomfortable talking really proudly about everything that we do, but if you’re not your biggest cheerleader, nobody else will be. You can’t assume that anybody else will be as excited, dedicated, and passionate as you are about your business. And you don’t have to put your blood, sweat, tears and not do anything but work 24 hours a day to get off the ground, but you have to be smart and efficient and make sure that you’re talking about it. You should talk to anyone and everyone you know. Be vocal, talk to people you trust, and do whatever you can to make it a reality. Have a devil’s advocate to force you to think through your ideas. Find the people you respect who have a proven track record and ask them to mentor you through the process. Hone in on those people, and especially people from different backgrounds or different walks who can give you really well rounded opinions. Don’t be too humble, don’t keep it to yourself. Don’t think ‘Oh, I could never do this.’ If you have a brilliant idea, it’s worth at least investigating. But don’t just talk about it—you gotta make some action happen. 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 | May 22, 2019

How to Fix Big Tech? The Debate Heats Up

The 22 year old who emerged from the elevator early one morning in the late summer of 2006 didn’t look like he would soon become one of the most influential people in the world. He was dressed like a college kid, which until recently he had been, and seemed kind of sleepy. But he was a young man on a mission. He had arrived to show a handful of journalists at Time, where I was an editor, a transformative new feature of his two-year-old website, Facebook. “Mark?” I asked, having never met him before. He perked up as we walked to a conference room, where his Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, his sandy hair nearly covering his eyes, was standing by with a laptop for a demonstration. Facebook already had 10 million users at that point, but the website was still a fairly static experience. The new feature, News Feed, would change all that, our guest, Mark Zuckerberg, declared, by connecting people more closely to the world around them. World domination and harmful side effects were not part of the conversation that day. Thirteen years later, that’s what everyone is talking about, including Zuckerberg’s erstwhile colleague Hughes, who last week published a passionate manifesto calling for the dismantling of the social-media behemoth he helped create: “It is time to break up Facebook,” he wrote in the New York Times. “I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders.” Facebook, now with more than 2 billion users, draws the most heated criticism amid a global backlash against Big Tech, but it has plenty of company among its peers. The very thing that Silicon Valley worships—scale—is now problematic for the industry’s behemoths. Amazon, Google and Facebook totally dominate e-commerce, internet search, and social media. “If you try to run up against Amazon directly, it’s like going up against Usain Bolt in the 100-meter race,” said Chieh Huang, founder and CEO of e-commerce site Boxed, at a Techonomy conference this week. Because of their outsized economic power, the giants have increasingly become engaged in public conflicts when they try to push into even more lines of businesses, coming off as bullies. “Amazon is embroiled in controversies over the use of its facial-recognition software, the treatment of both its warehouse workers and its delivery drivers, whether its talking speakers violate child-protection rules, how much it is really lowering prices at Whole Foods, and whether or not its Ring doorbell-camera subsidiary is protecting users’ privacy,” said the Wall Street Journal last week in making a case that “Amazon’s size is becoming a problem—for Amazon.” Photo by Bryan Angelo on Unsplash Not all big tech companies face the same criticisms, of course. Facebook and Google take the most flak as privacy invaders, since their business models depend on what author Shoshana Zuboff has dubbed surveillance capitalism, in which “predictions of our behavior are bought and sold” without our knowledge. Uber, which has been accused of building its empire on the backs of its drivers, suffered a disappointing initial public offering (IPO) this week, which some critics attributed to a warped winner-take-all mentality that has taken over Silicon Valley. Apple, for its part, touts its respect for privacy “as a fundamental human right,” but has its own dominance issues with the power of its App Store. The U.S. Supreme Court this week allowed a class-action lawsuit to move forward, giving consumers the opportunity to make the case that Apple has used monopoly power to raise the price of iPhone apps. In an almost cartoon-like scenario, Apple has even been accused of cracking down on apps that fight iPhone addiction, according to an analysis by the New York Times and Sensor Tower, an app-data firm. “Why is one company—with no mechanism for democratic oversight—the primary and most zealous guardian of user privacy and security?,” the Times asked in a follow-up editorial. The growing public consensus is that society has to reign in the giants, which has given the 20-and-more Democratic Presidential candidates a big problem to tackle. The question is, how? Among the chief proposals: break up some of the giants to level the playing field, pass legislation to regulate them, and tax them in various ways to influence their behavior. “The good news is that we’re onto them. They’re on the defensive,” said Zuboff last week in a panel discussion on digital privacy at the Brooklyn Historical Society. Her fellow panelist, author Douglas Rushkoff, pointed out that in the early days of the internet, it was seen as a benign force to connect humanity. “It used to seem like the government was the enemy,” he said, whereas now it’s “technologies that divide and alienate us.” To get ahead of the backlash, the tech giants have gone on image-boosting campaigns, touting their benefits to society and their ability to self-regulate. Amazon released a report during National Small Business Week that said it helped mom-and-pop companies create 1.6 million jobs last year, up from 900,000 the year before. Meanwhile, Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote a piece for the New York Times, declaring that the company’s approach to privacy adheres to its egalitarian, “for everyone” philosophy about its products. “For us, that means privacy cannot be a luxury good offered only to people who can afford to buy premium products and services. Privacy must be equally available to everyone in the world,” he wrote, mentioning several new privacy features the company is introducing. At Facebook, Zuckerberg announced late last year that he plans to create a Facebook Oversight Board of outside advisors to help the company in its efforts to moderate harmful content. Facebook is looking for feedback about the board, “partly through some roundtables held around the world with policy experts,” The Week reported. Testifying before Congress last month, Zuckerberg said that his company could live with regulation, but noted that “details matter.” Yesterday, Facebook announced that it would put more restrictions on the use of its live video service. As the big tech companies scramble to adapt to much greater public scrutiny, here are some of the latest proposals for reining them in: BREAK THEM UP “Today’s big tech companies have too much power—too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy,” Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren wrote in March. “They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. … That’s why my administration will make big, structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition—including breaking up Amazon, Facebook, and Google.” Lately, candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have made similar statements. In his specific call to bust up Facebook, citing the historical anti-trust examples of AT&T and Standard Oil, co-founder Hughes argued that too much power is in the hands of one person. “Mark’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government. He controls three core communications platforms—Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp—that billions of people use every day.” That’s where Hughes draws the dotted line for breaking up the company, which he feels should never have been allowed by the federal government to acquire the two other platforms. “How would a breakup work? Facebook would have a brief period to spin off the Instagram and WhatsApp businesses, and the three would become distinct companies, most likely publicly traded.” Photo by Rajeshwar Bachu on Unsplash REGULATE THEM To some degree, tech companies already face regulation by the federal government, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Any day now, Facebook and the FTC are expected to announce that the company will pay a penalty of $3 billion to $5 billion to settle claims that it mishandled users’ personal data. “The case is being closely watched globally as a litmus test on how the U.S. government will police the country’s tech giants,” reported the New York Times. Even so, existing U.S. laws have failed to keep up with the rapid growth of market power in Big Tech. Europe, instead, has taken the lead in new legislation, particularly in the realm of privacy. “If you want to understand where the world’s most powerful industry is heading, look not to Washington and California, but to Brussels and Berlin. In an inversion of the rule of thumb, while America dithers the European Union is acting,” wrote The Economist in a recent cover package, published the same week European Union authorities fined Google $1.7 billion for antitrust violations in the digital ad market. Last year, Europe adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a sweeping new law that defines personal data and a citizen’s rights in regard to its use. The GDPR is “an important milestone,” said Zuboff, “but it’s based on data ownership, which is a problem. It’s hard to get back.” What Zuboff calls “the public text,” or the information that users willingly give to tech platforms, is “only the little crust of ice on top of the iceberg of information turned into knowledge that they have about us. It’s the shadow text, a massive knowledge base about us.” In the U.S., Europe’s new law inspired the state of California to quickly pass a Consumer Privacy Act of its own, due to take effect in 2020. But that only served to kick the debate over regulation into high gear. “The business community so thoroughly dislikes the California law that there’s broad agreement on passing federal legislation in Washington to preempt that and other potential local directives, possibly this year,” wrote Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky. “This is one area where it doesn’t make sense to have a patchwork of laws,” Michael Beckerman, CEO of the Internet Association, a 45-member trade group, told Lashinsky. “It’s almost like having different electricity standards between states.” One idea that Silicon Valley is coming to grips with is the establishment of a singular regulatory agency focused on the digital realm. PUT TAXES ON THEM While most proposals to get a handle big tech companies focus on anti-trust actions and regulation, economist Paul Romer, a Nobel laureate who advised the Justice Department in its antitrust case against Microsoft, has proposed another solution: taxes. “Instead of banning the current business model—in which platform companies harvest user information to sell targeted digital ads—new legislation could establish a tax that would encourage platform companies to shift toward a healthier, more traditional model,” Romer wrote. “The tax that I propose would be applied to revenue from sales of targeted digital ads, which are the key to the operation of Facebook, Google and the like. At the federal level, Congress could add it as a surcharge to the corporate income tax. At the state level, a legislature could adopt it as a type of sales tax on the revenue a company collects for displaying ads to residents of the state.” Romer argues for the tax approach because the tech companies may already be too big to regulate, in the sense that powerful companies can often undermine their regulators. “Of course, companies are incredibly clever about avoiding taxes,” he acknowledged. “But in this case, that’s a good thing for all of us. This tax would spur their creativity. Ad-driven platform companies could avoid the tax entirely by switching to the business model that many digital companies already offer: an ad-free subscription.” A tax-the-tech movement is catching on locally as well. In San Francisco, where a wave of initial public offerings (IPOs) have aggravated the hot-button issue of income inequality, city supervisor Gordon Mar has proposed a so-called IPO tax that would raise the levy on companies for stock-based compensation to 1.5%, about quadruple the current rate. Mar estimates the tax would generate as much as $200 million over two years, which the city could spend on housing, transportation and health programs. “San Francisco in 2019 is in a radically different place as a city than we were just a decade ago,” Mar told the Wall Street Journal. “I think there is broad support to reset our relationship with the tech sector.” Indeed, a broad rethinking of society’s relationship with digital technology is underway, and it won’t be settled overnight. “The solution is more democracy. Only coming together in the service of political power and political pressure” will work to persuade legislators that they need to act, says Zuboff, who says it will take “five to ten years, not the work of a day or year. Democracy says that humans have the right to rule themselves, and I don’t see ourselves giving up on that power.” 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 | May 17, 2019

Working While Black: Why Many Employees Leave Their ‘True Selves’ at Home

Queirra was a second-year nurse who worked in the intensive-care unit at her local hospital when she began feeling like her workplace culture made her uncomfortable as a black woman. It was the small things, but they added up. “I didn’t truly begin to feel that way until subtle micro-aggressions began to happen to me,” she said. “One of them was, ‘Once I tan after this vacation, I’ll be almost as dark as you!’ Another was, ‘I like you because you are different than other black people,’” recalled Queirra, who asked to be identified only by her first name. She also found herself feeling obliged to speak up and act as an ambassador for all things black in her workplace. “It made me feel like I was the ‘token’ black person—as if my voice represented that of the entire community.” Being one of few nonwhites also caused her emotional discomfort. She felt under constant pressure to alter her speaking style and hide her personal interests to avoid making her coworkers uncomfortable. Until she’d had enough. “It impacted me enough to quit. But mainly, it began to be almost painful for me to hide my blackness. I was always self-conscious of how I wore my hair, how I dressed, and how I spoke because I wanted to appear that I ‘belonged.’” She didn’t feel she could showcase her true self, so she left. Keenan White, a black man who spent several years working as a pharmacy technician, recalls a similar discomfort with workplace professionalism and company culture. “I felt like I had to change who I was to avoid coming off as threating or aggressive,” he says. Unfortunately, neither of their experiences is unique for black Americans in the workforce. They often feel constant pressure to adapt to workplace culture and often feel conflict about “opening up” about their personal lives, according to research by three management professors who reported their findings in Harvard Business Review last year. “Building workplace relationships across racial boundaries can be difficult. Given the obstacles minorities face in navigating a corporate culture, this may seem minor. It is not,” the researchers said in their report. “Opening yourself to others requires risk taking and trust, but without it employees are less likely to build the deeper relationships that lead both to success and to more happiness at work.” (Photo by Tinpixels/iStock by Getty Images) Amber Hewitt, a counseling psychologist with expertise in African-American identity development and well being, believes the assumptions of what is professional can alienate people of color. “Mainstream depictions of ‘professionalism’ center on whiteness and a Western worldview. I think the real issue is the culture of some work settings and how they can be toxic and promote race-related stress for black Americans,” says Hewitt. Cultural insensitivity in the workplace can range from subtle to overt. Tzynya Pinchback, a content developer in the technology industry, says she has experienced a wide range of comments questioning her abilities, but one of the most grating interactions involved a coworker making comments about her hair. “I was cautioned by my superior that the hair products I used when I wore my hair natural had an offensive smell and, in one case, made someone nauseated,” she recalls. Interestingly, Pinchback hadn’t recently switched hair-care products, but she had switched her hair from its initial straight style she wore in her earlier days of employment to a natural one. Her hair products were mainstream. “At the time, the same as now, I used Pantene co-wash and argon oil regardless of how I wore my hair, so it was nonsensical [to think] my hair only produced an odor when it was natural,” she says. A black female attorney who asked not to be identified said she was once forbidden to speak to a judge because she was carrying an afro pick for her hair, which security officials perceived as a potential weapon. Ironically, she needed to see the judge because she had been assigned to provide technical support to a jurisdiction seeking to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the operation of their juvenile-justice system. “I, as a black woman and attorney, have to confront the fact that my personal-grooming products are weaponized,” she said. “If I had a regular comb, it would not have been a problem. However, my afro pick was considered a threat. Therefore, I was considered a threat.” Cultural bias on the job is just one of many ways that African Americans suffer from perceptions of inferiority that limit their economic opportunity. Hiring discrimination is as bad for black people as it was nearly 30 years ago. Wage disparities fuel the continuation of our nation’s wealth gaps. And unconscious bias is fuel for the fire. More than half of black Americans report facing discrimination at work. Some industries, notably the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math) have low levels of black employees and high rates of reported slights and inequities. And frankly, it hurts. “Pressure to change oneself in the workplace because of your race/ethnicity/culture, coupled with feelings of invisibility, can contribute to feelings of hopelessness, despair and anger,” says Hewitt. Aggravating the situation, black employees often feel reluctant to complain about negative experiences for fear of being perceived as “playing the race card,” says Hewitt. “It’s disheartening that this takes place, since the beauty of diversity-and-inclusion work is that it creates an opportunity for voices that are often marginalized to add value and help shape the work environment,” says Hewitt. For Pinchback, the lack of feeling accepted was enough to lead to a new job search. “It was like being the kid with a ‘Kick Me’sign on their back. My stomach would be in knots the whole time I was at work. I left the company as soon as I found another opportunity, taking a significant pay cut,” says Pinchback. She believes many established workplace protections are simply “band-aid solutions” that ignore the lack of diversity in company leadership and society at large. “The workplace is a microcosm of the greater society. People bring their personal biases along with them wherever they go,” she says. What are the solutions? The results are mixed on the most effective way to prevent these occurrences. A growing body of research suggests that diversity education can often lead to unintended consequences, like fueling separatism or encouraging resistance and jokes. But we can’t leave things the way they are, and the answer is likely multi-faceted. Most companies push the importance of diversity, which has become a catch-all term for general differences, yet they have made little progress in terms of identifying bias. Anti-bias training, which has a focus on equity and active inclusion, has the potential to make marginalized employees feel validated in their experience, with a corresponding beneficial influence on their mental health. The most prominent example of a company-wide teachable moment came last year when Starbucks closed all of its stores for a four-hour, mandatory anti-bias training session after two black businessmen were accused of “loitering” while waiting in a store to meet a colleague. Psychologist Hewitt emphasizes the importance of diversity education being one aspect of a larger strategy. When incorporating anti-bias materials, they work best as one of many conversations on the importance of inclusion, as opposed to occasional training workshops. Developing an equitable environment requires making sure every aspect of the company, from hiring to corporate partnerships, promote anti-bias measures. Companies can try a host of measures including mentorships and transparency in pay, hiring and promotions. Having a diverse team of leaders to pursue creative solutions to issues is another important measure to promote inclusion. Companies like Bank of America, Starbucks and Google have taken action to be transparent around their employee demographics, affirming the importance of  making improvements and being open to hard conversations. It’s a start, but business leaders need to be reminded frequently that inclusion is not just good for the health of their black and other minority workers, but for the health of their business. Rochaun Meadows-Fernandez is a diversity content specialist whose work can be seen in The Washington Post, The Guardian, Glamour, and many more    

armeadowsfernandez | May 02, 2019

With Radical Transparency, a Garment Maker Wears Its Values on Its Sleeve

If you try to learn more about the sweater you’re wearing, you might not find much more than a label that says "Made in Bangladesh." But when you order items from Everlane, you get a virtual factory tour, including information about the cost of labor and materials. It's part of a corporate trend called radical transparency, and Everlane is a leading practitioner. But it didn't start out as a self-conscious sales pitch to customers; according to Chief Creative Officer Alexandra Spunt, that narrative grew more out of nature than strategy. “It’s not like we set out with a super, super clear plan. I think it just felt sort of inevitable to us,” she said in a conversation with ABC7 News reporter Kate Larsen at the From Day One Conference in San Francisco earlier this month. Spunt went on to say that Everlane’s founder and CEO, Michael Preysman, went into business searching for better ways to do just about everything. Spunt had a journalism background, “so that sort of truth-seeking was always in my way of thinking,” she said. Everlane’s early employees, including Spunt, were surprised at how much customers cared about how garments are made Everlane started in 2010, arguably ahead of sustainable and transparent fashion trends. Larsen asked Spunt if she and Preysman were concerned that consumers would not be interested in what the company was doing behind the scenes; Spunt said that while they didn’t worry, they also didn’t realize just how big an impact they would make. “When we started the manufacturing process, we were like, ‘This is crazy, you make a T-shirt like this for $5, a very high-quality T-shirt, made in America’—and we looked around and there were some boutique brands selling the same shirt for 50 bucks, 60 bucks,” she said. In response to the markups they saw, they started with radical transparency around pricing. Right on launch day, they showed the cost of making the T-shirt. Spunt said it resonated with people immediately. “We were like, ‘Oh, OK, this is a thing, people care about this.’ And that was our first indicator, and of course that gives you more confidence to keep pushing.” And keep pushing they did. The company expanded, from high-quality T-shirts made in downtown Los Angeles to ethically made products crafted throughout the world, all in meticulously selected factories. The company’s website offers a look inside all of its factories, with photo galleries and information on materials, ethical standards, factory owners, and more. For example, Everlane works with a factory in Southern China that donates a percentage of profits to primary schools in rural parts of the country. The factory, which has about 500 workers, has an average employee retention period of 10 years, four times the local average. Everlane sets standards for factory safety and working conditions, but is development-minded as well, so it’s willing to work with factory owners and managers to get them up to speed. “On a real human-to-human level, really getting to know the people who run the factory is probably still one of the best ways to make that kind of judgment call,” Spunt said. Everlane is transparent about environmental sustainability as well. The company has launched products made from 100% recycled plastic and partnered with a sustainable denim factory in Vietnam that recycles 98% of its water, relies on alternative energy sources, and repurposes denim-production byproducts. The commitment to transparency and sustainability is not limited to the manufacturing process. According to Spunt, in order for the company’s values to work, they have to extend into its own corporate culture. Spunt was interviewed by ABC7 News reporter Kate Larsen “We’re transparent. We present all of our board decks to the whole company and let everyone ask questions, because we have to be transparent, because this is what we talk about,” she said. The green initiatives are woven into the fabric of Everlane’s internal culture as well. The company aims to eliminate all virgin plastic from its supply chain, including their offices, by 2021. It’s challenging, since everything from snacks to office supplies comes packaged in plastic, but for Spunt it’s a matter of practicing what you preach—and doing so consistency. Larsen asked what advice Spunt had for companies trying to pivot toward making social causes part of their brand. Spunt had two key pieces of advice. “If you’re a founder or you’re a part of the leadership team, make sure that the thing you’re choosing to espouse is actually very meaningful to you. Make sure you and your leadership team genuinely care about it.” Then, once you’ve found something meaningful to pursue, Spunt said it was equally important to make sure that it connects with your business and corporate culture. “Figure out how it connects from a storytelling perspective, because you’re going to have to tell that story to your employees and you’re going to have to tell it to the world. So make sure it connects. Building on that, think about ways to bring it into your own culture within the company.” Carina Livoti is a New York-based writer. 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 | April 30, 2019

Best Buy’s New Chief Shows Promising Career Path for Female CEOs

When Corie Barry was named the new CEO of Best Buy on April 15, her route to the top drew attention as a promising career path up through the glass ceiling. Barry had been the Minnesota-based company’s chief financial officer (CFO), a post increasingly occupied by women. The number of female CFOs among the S&P 500 and Fortune 500 rose to 84 last year, an all time high, reported Bloomberg, calling Barry’s promotion “a positive sign for the rising number of women who are taking on finance jobs at the largest U.S. companies.” The number of women CEOs among the Fortune 500 has been rising steadily and reached an all-time high of 32 in 2017, but slid back to 24 last year. Barry, 44, takes over from Hubert Joly, 59, who is credited with rescuing the company during his seven-year tenure, a time of massive disruption in the retail industry. Barry, who led the company’s pivot into services, including tech help for consumers, will face the challenge of keeping that momentum going. “There’s no room for mediocrity in retail,” she said in a call with reporters. “Anytime it’s easier to do something digital—whether that’s booking a plane ticket or purchasing a TV—your expectations as a customer are constantly rising.” Not long after Barry’s promotion was announced, the largest U.S. banking company, JPMorgan Chase, announced the elevation of two women to top positions. Marianne Lake, currently the bank’s CFO, was promoted to CEO of the bank’s consumer-lending operations, while Jennifer Piepszak was promoted to CFO. “For years, Lake’s name has come up as a potential successor to the company’s current CEO Jamie Dimon, which would make her the first female chief executive officer of a U.S. bank,” reported Forbes. Piepszak’s promotion, meanwhile, adds another potential contender to that succession race.

fromdayone | April 25, 2019

Companies With a Cause: Finding Purpose Beyond Profits

Most businesses can’t focus only on making money these days. Consumers and employees expect more of them, including a social cause to support. But finding one that’s worthy and relevant to a corporation’s business can be a complicated process, one that balances passion with logic. To arrive at the right intersection of a brand’s identity and society’s needs, companies should seek guidance from their consumers, employees, and prospective nonprofit partners, according to a panel of experts at the From Day One conference April 9 in San Francisco, moderated by Mary Huss, president and publisher of the San Francisco Business Times and the Silicon Valley Business Journal. “Our approach to finding that authenticity, that transparency, is starting with your people. Figure out what your people care about, figure out what resonates with them, what organizations they already are engaged with. Figure out what consumers care about,” said Brittany Hill, CEO and co-founder of Catalist, a matchmaking platform that connects companies with causes and partnerships. “It has to be linked to the core of the business but also something that’s passionate for the employees,” said Kevin McAndrew, the senior director of social innovation partnerships for Save the Children. “It has to be something that people can get behind and understand, both on the consumer side and on the employee side, so it has longevity.” Health-care giant McKesson found a cause by looking at what some of its employees and patients deal with each day: cancer care. According to Christine Lopez, vice president of corporate citizenship and president of the McKesson Foundation, choosing to stand behind cancer care was an “authentic” choice for the company. Once McKesson chose its cause, the next step was figuring out how the company should focus its efforts. Lopez explained that through a listening tour, in which company representatives spoke with oncologists, nurses, and social workers, the company discovered several opportunities. One of them was to provide cancer-care packages called Giving Comfort, which contain handcrafted items made by McKesson volunteers. Not only do such gestures provide emotional support for the patients, but they create a stronger bond between the company and its employees. If the employees feel that they are part of a company that is making a difference, retention increases, which in turn helps McKesson too. “We have a model that says ‘It’s not just a package, it’s a patient,’” Lopez said. “When employees start to see the difference, the engagement levels really rise.” "I truly believe that social impact, infusing a cause into your brand, is a marathon, not a sprint," said panelist Hill For Mastercard, identifying the right purpose for the company was a bit more pragmatic. Paul Musser, a senior vice president who leads the company’s humanitarian and economic-development efforts, pointed out that the company’s business is about facilitating financial transactions. And one way to do that is to deploy Mastercard’s infrastructure in regions of the world where economic development is lagging or natural disasters have struck. “In our case, the company has made a significant set of investments around inclusive growth because, quite frankly, communities that are not growing inclusively don’t drive transactions,” said Musser. “So if all the wealth happens to sit in the 1% of the population, you don’t make as much money. That sounds mercenary, but it is clear.” When it comes to humanitarian aid, supplies, including food, are important in the short run, but over time what these communities need is economic recovery, according to Musser. That’s when Mastercard steps in to provide a pipeline for financial assistance. “Let’s give cash instead of a bag of rice,” he said. While charitable giving can be helpful in the right situations, the panelists emphasized that companies can have more social impact if they work with the right partners and collaborators. “The philanthropy and the grants still have a role to play, but increasingly what we see is that the way to approach this is very multifaceted,” said McAndrew. “Think about your brand and your consumers, think about the communities where you operate. And then who are the partners that you need to have to enable all of those things? Because you’re probably not going to be able to go it alone.” Companies have come to realize that finding a cause means more than picking from a list of societal needs and forcing one to mold with the company’s brand. It requires introspection. McKinsey & Co., the global management-consulting firm, had to discover what gender inclusivity meant within its own corporation before advising other businesses on the issue. Kausik Rajgopal, managing partner for the firm’s western U.S. region, said that in 2013, the firm found that its incoming recruiting class was only 22% female. “When we started our gender-diversity research, we tested it with a few clients, and the thing we got from clients was ‘You better look in the mirror before you start going out and doing research on gender diversity.’ That actually led us to a pretty soul-searching and internal conversation about what were the sources of the challenges that we were having,” Rajgopal said, including such factors as unconscious bias. Having done its homework, McKinsey & Co. now champions gender diversity as a business priority in corporate America. The firm’s annual study, Women in the Workplace, is the “definitive benchmark” for gender diversity, according to Rajgopal, drawing on data from 279 companies as well as a survey of more than 64,000 employees. All told, businesses in search of a cause must “think really hard” about what is it that they do best and how their expertise can contribute to improving communities, said McAndrew. Those causes “will be the hardest to do, but they’ll be the ones worth doing and you’ll get the best return.” Jackson, left, and Wilkins led an ally-skills workshop In a series of four breakout sessions before the panel, business leaders talked about a variety of issues related to corporate values: ­–Jonathan Raymond, CEO of Refound, and Allan Swan, president of Panasonic Energy, spoke about the responsibility of leaders to be “high touch in a high-tech world.” –Willie Jackson, DEI consultant and facilitator with ReadySet, and Maurice Wilkins, DEI manager for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, led an ally-skills workshop, focusing on new ways to foster critical conversations about different and equality. –Kevin Yip, co-founder and CEO of Blueboard, an employee rewards and recognition platform, led a conversation called “Survive or Thrive: A lesson from elephants and rates for developing organizational empathy.” –Jennifer VanderWeele, regional vice president of BetterUp, gave a presentation titled “The Human Side of Business Transformation,” which focused on “the science behind lasting behavior change and how to incorporate purpose into your strategy.” Julie Madsen studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and works as a freelance journalist and a beat reporter for the Daily Californian, where she covers higher education and breaking news. Follow her on Twitter

juliemadsen | April 24, 2019

Why Quick Fixes Aren’t Enough to Create Real Diversity

In recent years, Corporate America has made increasing use of two words: diversity and inclusion. Both internally and in public, businesses have pledged to increase and retain the proportion of women and minorities in their leadership ranks. Still, progress has been slow. Major gaps still persist, notably in tech-driven industries. Part of the reason is that human behavior can be hard to change. For example, nearly three-quarters of executives choose protégés who look just like them, according to a recent survey of 3,200 white-collar workers by the Center for Talent Innovation. What’s becoming clear is that attempts at quick or narrow fixes don’t work. “I think one reason why this has been such a persistent issue is because when companies typically approach it, they treated it like a one-off program where you have a series of trainings and everybody goes back to their workplaces and nobody really pursues things until the next training,” said Phyllis James, the chief diversity and corporate-responsibility officer for MGM Resorts International, who spoke on a panel of experts at the From Day One conference on April 9 in San Francisco, moderated by Katy Steinmetz, San Francisco bureau chief for TIME. More often than not, there’s an urgency among executives to confront the issue, but making real progress calls for “behavior changes that are required every single day from every single leader, so culture becomes the most important thing,” said Michele Nyrop, senior vice president of human resources at Banana Republic and Gap Inc. “The level of accountability required to get that is a long, hard road.” James said she still has to explain to managers why diversity is important, both for business and moral reasons. “I know that we want to think the best of everyone, but everyone does not accept that as a basic premise,” she said. Talking About Systemic Issues Tyler Muse, founder & CEO of Lingo Live, which offers language coaching for multilingual employees, said companies shouldn’t just preach the gospel of D&I, but take time to listen to underrepresented groups talk about political and social issues that may affect them. These topics could include Black Lives Matter, #MeToo or the lack of an adequate pipeline for developing diverse talent. Talking about these larger news stories can create empathy inside the company, Muse said. “If you ignore the bigger picture, if you don’t talk about it as a company, then you’re going to be really limited in fostering that conversation about what diversity and inclusion really look like,” Muse said. “Being open with our data was a big win for us,” said Ernst Using Advanced Sourcing Tools Another technique that companies can use to boost diversity hiring is to use artificial intelligence and other technologies to help, for example in reducing unconscious bias on the part of recruiters. According to Rachel Ernst, vice president of employee success at Reflektive, a people-management company, the single biggest action that increased diversity at her company was using a sourcing tool requiring a certain number of candidates come from underrepresented backgrounds. After starting the practice last year, half of all new hires have been women, she said. Making Inclusion Part of Day-to-day Work Salesforce, the customer-relationship management giant, made equality a core value of the company, said Molly Ford, the company’s director of global equality, who said it’s a “north star” that guides the company when making big decisions. It also helps bring diversity to the daily work lives of Salesforce employees, Ford said. This involves keeping in mind details like having pronoun pins for employees to wear or gender-neutral bathrooms at Salesforce events. But it also involves creating actionable suggestions for employees who want to be an ally to people of diverse backgrounds. If an employee wants to go to a Salesforce-sponsored Diwali Festival, for example, they would need to sign up for training to learn about the cultural significance of wearing a Sari, Ford said. Salesforce also suggests that allies ask people about their journey to equality, listen with empathy, and speak up when they see something wrong, such as harassment or a racist joke. Additionally, managers at Salesforce receive a monthly scorecard with data about hires, attrition and promotions of women and underrepresented minorities. At MGM Resorts, the company’s 80,000 employees participate in an annual diversity-and-inclusion survey that asks questions about daily interactions with colleagues and managers. “It doesn’t matter how many platitudes or slogans companies give lip service to if it’s not really lived in the daily workplace of the organization,” James said. Reflektive, too, uses employee surveys, Ernst said. And it’s important that companies are transparent about the results of those surveys, so employees know their responses are being heard. “Being open with our data was a big win for us,” Ernst said. Similarly, Muse said Lingo Live uses a Slack bot called Allie that sends out questions about inclusion a few times per month. The biggest pattern gleaned from Allie was that employees felt alienated by the fact that there weren’t enough women in leadership. “We got called out for that,” he said. What Didn’t Work Reaching out to diverse employees and asking them for hiring referrals from their professional networks wasn’t successful, said Ford. Salesforce is just too big to follow up effectively with employees who referred someone for an open role. “We honestly felt like we disrespected you a little bit if we tapped your network and then you didn’t feel like it paid off,” Ford said. "The instant you look at a resume, you're biased," said Sloyan Everyone Is Responsible The lack of diversity in some fields, notably tech and finance, is often blamed on the so-called pipeline problem, which holds that companies don’t have enough qualified candidates coming though the educational system and workforce-development programs. Yet to some extent, that’s passing the blame, experts say. Changing recruiting strategy to focus on more geographically diverse areas may help, but companies should also look at employee experience, leadership behavior, and making sure diversity is reflected in marketing materials and product operations, each with their own set of initiatives. “It really has to be treated as a serious business imperative that has all of the complexity and dimensions of other business problems,” James said. “Your D&I team is there to be a catalyst to integrate diversity and inclusion into the core fabric of your culture. They’re not there to do few programs now and then, but achieving meaningful and impactful inclusion is the responsibility of every different part of the organization.” In a presentation following the diversity panel, Tigran Sloyan, CEO of CodeSignal, explained why the hiring process needs to move beyond the resume. CodeSignal produces industry-standard assessments of job applicants so that companies can make data-driven hiring decisions. “The instant you look at a resume, you’re biased. The proxies we use today,” he said, “are getting less reliable all the time.” Rachel Sandler is a freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. She covers business, technology, local real-estate development and housing policy. Follow her on Twitter at @rachsandl

rachelsandler | April 16, 2019

Does Your Team Leader Matter More Than Your Corporate Culture?

While most self-respecting corporations tout their corporate culture as an important recruiting tool, a new book makes the case that culture can’t be reliably measured across big organizations. For a new, research-driven book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World, from Harvard Business Review Press, authors Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall asked employees at many different companies to evaluate statements like, “At work, I clearly understand what is expected of me,” and, “Do I have the chance to use my strengths every day?” to evaluate the workers’ experience. The authors found that within most companies, the answers varied greatly from department to department. In an interview with HuffPost, Buckingham, who studies people and performance at the ADP Research, said the celebrated rankings of “best companies to work for” serve a valid purpose, but more attention should be paid to Individual leaders, especially by prospective job seekers. “For an individual employee, it means the most important thing for you is your local team. Find out as much as you can, and whenever you get worried that the team leader you’re joining is somebody that you can’t click with or don’t trust, take that really seriously,” said Buckingham. Top executives at a company, and their vision, are important too, since it’s hard to work for an organization where you don’t respect the leadership. However, “your actual experience of working is the day-to-day people who just keep showing up every day, working next to you and bringing their work and bringing themselves,” Buckingham told Huffpost. “The good news is it’s much easier to control the experience on a team than it is to try to shift an entire aircraft carrier of a company.”

fromdayone | April 15, 2019

Speak up, Employees! Why Companies Need to Foster Feedback

Disagreements inside some of America’s largest tech companies, including Google and Facebook, have made headlines in the past year, bringing up issues of inclusion, social justice and dissatisfaction with workplace culture. But before it gets to that point—and even during times of public turmoil—it’s important for companies to provide an outlet for employees to make themselves heard, according to panelists at the From Day One conference in San Francisco on April 9. What can businesses do to make that happen? Among other things, leaders should show a vulnerable side with employees, said Jack Altman, founder and CEO of Lattice, a people-management company. Leaders should talk about the company’s missteps and solicit employee feedback in earnest, he said. In the long run, it creates a culture where employees aren’t just “screaming into the void” and actually want to contribute their ideas. “I think vulnerability gives employees a sort of slack for the company that leads to forgiveness,” Altman said during the panel, which was titled “How companies can foster bold ideas—and dissenting ones” and was moderated by San Francisco Chronicle tech reporter Melia Russell. While employee-engagement surveys have become commonplace, there’s more that companies can do to encourage employees to speak out. In fact, companies should have multiple ways for people to express their grievances and concerns, said Nancy Vitale, chief human-resources officer at Genentech. Access to Leadership The larger companies get, the more intentional they have to be in creating instances when employees can talk to senior leadership about and bring up issues about the company. Altman said that since his company, Lattice, is housed in one office with less than 100 people, employees naturally interact with senior leadership frequently. In bigger companies, that just isn’t possible. At Genentech, a biotech giant with 14,000 employees in the U.S., groups of about 18 to 20 staffers meet in informal “coffee chats” with top executives, Vitale said. “We create a living-room-style format that’s casual and informal [and] gives people access to senior leadership. No agenda, just Q&A  and dialogue.” Rajeev Singh, CEO of Accolade, a health-care benefits advisory firm, said he has begun implementing listening sessions where employees and management have a conversation about what they each need from one other, instead of just talking at one another. The sessions, Singh said, have often turned into emotional interactions. “That has been a profound change in the way our teams interact, which we would not have thought of prior to opening up some of these listening panels,” he said. Executives listen to every piece of feedback and respond, even if they don’t agree. Singh said. The hope is that by being transparent, even when times are tough or there’s tension, executives will be more credible in the long run. “Sometimes it’s a little sticky, but it’s a good kind of sticky,” he said. Once-a-year performance reviews, Singh said, can't keep up with the pace of business GE Digital, a software division of General Electric Co., has a 30-minute, all-hands meeting every other Thursday. The session has no formal agenda, and employees use a digital tool called Slido to submit questions for executives. Employees can also upvote other people’s questions they want answered. “This is something we started doing six months ago to deal with the fact we didn’t have a lot to share and employees assumed that’s because we were hiding things,” said Heather Whiteman, GE Digital’s head of people strategy, analytics, digital learning and HR. “But it gave us the opportunity to say, ‘Just ask.’ In harder times, there’s something to that, to let them know that every other week we’ll be here. ‘Just ask, we’ll answer.’” A Room of Their Own Before going straight to the top, employee-resource groups (ERGs) can be an avenue for employees to share experiences and ideas about company culture. These groups are typically centered around a shared identity, such as a women’s group or a Latinx group. “I think those play a really important role in terms of connection and communication within the organization,” Vitale said. She added that companies should also think about intersectionality when encouraging these groups, since employees have multiple aspects to their identities. An example would be a group specifically for black women, or for LGBTQ women. The most powerful outcome of Genentech’s ERGs, Vitale said, is that representatives from different groups have started meeting to discuss how to best support and be better allies to each other. Speeding up the Feedback Cycle Increasingly, companies are starting to move away from a once-a-year schedule for performance reviews and goal-setting. It’s just too slow, Singh said, and can prevent employees from knowing how they’re doing, and responding to feedback, in a timely way. “We believe that the old mode of annual coaching plans and annual objectives just doesn’t keep pace with the pace of the business,” Singh said. Shane Metcalf of 15Five, a people-management company Altman said that he’s seeing companies begin to implement reviews two or three times per year. “As we’ve made that shift, it’s been really liberating, it’s been fantastic,” Singh said. “People feel like they’re heard and that they’re getting a really clear sense of where they stand.” Another evaluation tool that can be helpful in some cases is the 360-degree performance appraisal. These reviews get feedback from everyone around an employee, including people who work for them, colleagues and supervisors. While labor-intensive, 360-degree reviews can highlight disparities in how employees seem themselves and how managers see them. At GE Digital, Whiteman said, employees consistently ranked themselves lower than their managers did, a disconnect that can be remedied. “It helps someone get a better view of their own skills. And to flip it around, sometimes a manager has no idea how good someone really is,” Whiteman said. In a keynote presentation right after the panel, Shane Metcalf, co-founder of 15Five, talked about how to build a culture of continuous feedback within a company. In 15Five’s system, employees take 15 minutes a week to answer questions, managers take five minutes to read and comment on responses, and feedback travels up the ladder to through all levels of management. Rachel Sandler is a freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. She covers business, technology, local real-estate development and housing policy. Follow her on Twitter at @rachsandl

rachelsandler | April 15, 2019

How a Health-care Giant Reaches Beyond Its Core Mission

Big businesses have big responsibilities to their employees, their investors, and their customers. But do they owe anything to the world that they operate in? Bechara Choucair, M.D., the chief community health officer for Kaiser Permanente, thinks so. Choucair spoke at the From Day One conference in San Francisco this week, offering insight on how and why Kaiser Permanente broadens its responsibility beyond its 12.4 million members to include the communities where they live. With a background as a family physician and former commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Public Health, Choucair now oversees the efforts of the nation’s largest integrated health system to improve the lives of the 65 million people in those communities. In this leadership role, Choucair emphasizes that health does not simply stem from the hospital, but from the home as well. “When you think about what really impacts health, only 10%, maybe 20% of what impacts health happens within the four walls of the medical office building,” Choucair told Adam Rogers, deputy editor at Wired, who interviewed him at the conference. “What impacts health are the social and economic factors and the communities where people live.” Choucair spoke specifically about one major need that KP’s communities are facing: homelessness. The housing crisis is a health crisis, he asserted. Choucair brought a few statistics into the conversation to illustrate how detrimental homelessness is on the human body: life expectancy for those without a home is 20% lower and the homeless spend two to three days longer in a hospital once admitted, compared with the average patient. Kaiser Permanente invested more than $2.8 billion last year to support and respond to community-health needs. Included in that sum was $200 million towards fighting homelessness and building affordable housing in eight states and the District of Columbia, which made headlines as one of the largest public-sector initiatives on homelessness. Bechara Choucair and Adam Rogers at From Day One San “We come to this with a lot of humility and we come to this with a lot of other partners,” Choucair said. “We’re never going to be experts on housing people, but we partner with the right community-based organizations that are experts on housing individuals.” Some of the partnerships Choucair mentioned include Mayors & CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, a coalition that Kaiser Permanente joined last year. The bipartisan group of more than 20 mayors and business leaders aims to identify key policy goals that need to be implemented with the help of the federal government. Another partnership Kaiser Permanente is involved in is CityHealth, an initiative that offers city leaders innovative solutions to improve living conditions in their cities. Through these partnerships, KP is able to accurately identify community needs and is able to collaborate to find answers. In order to determine what type of social needs communities are facing, whether it’s poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, or a combination of them all, Choucair said that Kaiser Permanente does extensive research across the U.S. “We conduct community-health needs assessments and we do those on a regular basis where we have a fairly robust, systematic approach to looking at data in each one of our communities, doing interviews with ... key leaders in the community and looking at our own data,” Choucair said. After issues are identified and community-benefit expenditures are made, Kaiser Permanente follows up to determine if its efforts are truly impacting communities and invoking change. Choucair said he tracks KP’s community-benefit expenditures monthly, even weekly. One seemingly larger-than-life goal that Choucair said Kaiser Permanente continues to push for is universal health coverage. “For us, it’s been very clear that it’s about expanding coverage and getting that coverage to be more affordable and making sure that the whole care is high quality,” Choucair said. “That’s really been our focus all along.” Discussion of universal health care has been on the agenda of several Democratic presidential candidates, some of whom have called for “Medicare for all.” For Choucair, the way to get closer to universal health care is to build upon the Affordable Care Act. While it has been under political attack, its proponents make the case that it’s working. Choucair’s personal goal within Kaiser Permanente boils down to continuing what the organization already doing—investing in communities—but in bigger and better ways, he said. Julie Madsen studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and works as a freelance journalist and a beat reporter for the Daily Californian, where she covers higher education and breaking news. Follow her on Twitter

juliemadsen | April 11, 2019

Help Wanted: a New Chief to Restore Wells Fargo’s Reputation

In the aftermath of the financial crisis a decade ago, Wells Fargo was one of the few major banks to emerge untarnished. But the gleaming reputation didn’t last. A few years later a parade of scandals emerged, starting with the discovery that thousands of bank employees had created 2 million fake deposit accounts and credit cards in the names of its customers in a systemic scheme to boost revenues. The San Francisco-based company paid $185 million in fines and promised to curb the kind of sales goals that inspired the fraudulent behavior. The scandal seemed like a rare misstep by a storied institution. Yet examples of abusive treatment of customers just kept on emerging and making headlines.  Yahoo Finance even created a timeline of what Wells had been accused of doing: repossessing the cars of military service members, firing a whistleblower, overcharging small-business operators, discriminating against black and Latino borrowers, and several more allegations. Late last month, CEO Timothy Sloan, a 31-year employee of Wells Fargo, abruptly stepped down in the face of increasing scrutiny of the banking company by Washington regulators and elected officials. He was the second CEO to depart in the midst of the scandals, after John Stumpf, another Wells veteran. Now the company says it’s looking outside its corporate culture for its next leader. In case there was any doubt of the need for an outsider to take the reins, Wells Fargo’s largest investor, Warren Buffett, drove the point home in an interview this week with the Financial Times. “They just have to come from someplace [outside Wells] and they shouldn’t come from Wall Street,” said Buffett, who owns 10% of the company, worth about $22 billion. “They probably shouldn’t come from JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs.” Hiring a leader from one of the big Manhattan-based banks would be sure “to draw the ire of a significant percentage of the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and that’s just not smart,” he said. Buffett added that he believes Wells Fargo is still in a strong competitive position, and that consumers have generally stuck with the bank, despite the scandals. “One household out of every three does business with Wells one way or another,” he said.  

fromdayone | April 09, 2019

As One of the First Women CEOs, This Serial Exec Has Experienced It All

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. Gwen Manto has spent most of her career as not just the only woman at the table, but the only woman employed across the top four levels of management. When she first walked into a boardroom, she did so in a skirt-suit and pantyhose — pants were still a non-option for women (which, again, was really just her). Years later in another boardroom (still all men), she went into labor and stayed in the meeting for the remaining hour and a half through sweat and labor pains. “So it was…I would say it was a choice. It wasn’t forced on me,” she told From Day One. “I could have gotten up probably at any time. People were very accommodating to me when I was pregnant — I think, of course, because it was a novelty.” All this and then some went down during her long string of executive roles at some of America’s most popular retailers. After serving as VP and SVP of Macy’s and Toys ‘R’ Us, respectively, Manto became CEO of Kids Footlocker, and with it, one of the first women to hold the title at a major cooperation. From there she went on to hold EVP and CMO positions at Sear’s, Stein Mart, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and Sports Authority. After 45 years in retail, Manto’s business history can best be encapsulated by her favorite drink – the Cosmopolitan, a working woman’s cocktail of liberation and independence. The drink is one of the top offerings of her company mixallogy, which sells organic cocktail mixers made from "ugly fruit" to reduce waste. For the first time, she’s not just an executive, but a founder too. We chatted with Manto to learn more about being a glass ceiling-breaker and how she’s bringing her experiences into her founder role: Gwen Manto has helped run some of the biggest retailers in the country. Now she has a brand new role: founder. When you became CEO of Kids Footlocker in 1998, women executives were a true rarity — practically non-existent (even today, women account for only 4.8% of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies). In that role and your subsequent executive positions, I’m sure you were the only woman in the room more often than not. What was that like for you? Not only was it 1998 and women weren’t executives, but I was also in an exclusively male-dominated field. It was originally challenging because I would go through entire days without contact with any other women. My peers were male, the people that worked for me were male, and all of our suppliers — Nike, Adidas — were all male. It was interesting to build relationships as a woman in this scenario because you were different, and obviously people treated you differently. I felt the need to fit in and be one of the guys. Even though I wasn’t really interested, I’d watch all the games and read Sports Illustrated cover to cover so I could stand my ground with them. This went on until our CEO at the time, my mentor, took me aside one day and said, “It’s great that you probably know more than they know about what happened in yesterday’s game, but the fact is it’s not really authentic for you. You’re here for a reason — because of your business acumen.” It was really a moment of realization for me, and it kind of released me from feeling like the foreign person in the room. So from then on, I stayed authentic to myself, and I think authenticity allowed me to build relationships, stay in the industry, and go on to similar roles. I’m glad you had someone looking out for you who stepped in to say “you don’t have to do this,” because it sounds like you felt pressured to fit in socially. And do you feel like you had to work harder to prove yourself, too? Were you held to a different standard by your male peers? I believe I was held to a male standard. When you ask, ‘Was it a higher standard?’ I think it was just a different standard. A great example is when I got to Dick’s, I was really looking to build relationships with our executive team and suggested having dinner with one of them. He said to me, ‘well I don’t think my wife would like that.’ And I really almost had to smile because I didn’t have any eyes on him or anything, but I think his wife would be sitting at home thinking ‘why would he go out with that new woman executive?’ You’re not typically invited to golf on Saturday with the guys because in most country clubs, women can’t tee off until 3 in the afternoon. These are givens, but there are other ways to build business relationships — by being a good partner in the business. I learned that through time. What’s a memorable experience you had in business that would only happen to a women? I can think of an example of something I did that a guy would never do. When I was CEO of Kids Footlocker, it was my dream job. For the first time, I could run the whole company, and I had a vision. But I worked in Manhattan, lived in New Jersey, and had three kids including a baby and a special needs child at home. I said I can’t go to work at 5:30 in the morning, get on the train and come back at 7 at night. I decided to find another job back down south where I could live closer to work and have a better balance. When I resigned they said, ‘Well, you know, there are no women here. We’ve given you the chance to do this job and blah blah blah. I don’t want to say you’re the token woman but you’re the only one and why would you do that?’ I think they were totally mystified why I would step off the track. Because at that point I think they considered me one of the guys, and I wasn’t acting like one of the guys. It’s not a typical thing a man would do. Typically they would get support from whoever was at home, so this was was hard for them to understand. I was worried this was going to derail me, but in the end it didn’t, and it gave me the confidence to move to the next thing. After 40 years in retail — specifically the male-dominated world of sports — Manto is ready for a new challenge. So- And as an aside, I did actually go into labor during a board meeting. Oh really? I sat there for an hour and a half in labor. And then I gave birth six hours later. So yeah, I think most guys haven’t done that either. Why didn’t you say anything or excuse yourself from the meeting? Do you think you would have if it were a different work environment — one with more women? Immediately upon seeing me perspiring, I suspect that if it had been a group of women, they would have said, ‘do you want a glass of water? Are you okay?’ At the time, everybody was in the moment, managing the business. And for me, I wanted to be there. So it was…I would say it was a choice. It wasn’t forced on me. I could have gotten up probably at any time. People were very accommodating to me when I was pregnant — I think, of course, because it was a novelty. Because there weren’t many women in business in general and I was 40 having a baby. So it was quite a thing. I think I was looked upon as ‘Wow, that’s a woman and she’s pregnant!’ And remember in those days, we didn’t even wear pants to work. We wore skirt-suits and pantyhose. How have your experiences as an executive and a woman in a male-dominated field influenced your approach to running your new company? When you start a company, it takes 100 percent of your business acumen to make it work. Being an entrepreneur calls upon all of my experience, all of my sense of people, all of my commitment, every day. I mean literally — whatever your experience is, you bring it there when you start a business. As a woman, I think I had a further advantage because we juggle a lot of different things that have different priorities. For me, I’m a female entrepreneur, but I’m also a female entrepreneur who’s 64. I started this business 18 months ago when many people would be retiring. When I walk into a room to raise money, they’re looking at me saying ‘she’s not even the typical female entrepreneur.’ There are positives (‘She has a lot of experience. She’s run a lot of big businesses’) and negatives (‘Hmm, how long is her runway?’) I’ve had a wonderful retail career of over 40 years and have created a lot of businesses. But nothing has been as rewarding as this because it addresses a need, and when I’m not solving problems, we’re just making people happy. Have a cocktail, shake it up. It’s fun. 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 | April 08, 2019

How to Boost Employee Morale? Give Them a Helping of Public Praise

A few years ago, the Walt Disney Co. launched a Twitter hashtag, #CastCompliment, for the express purpose of promoting the good work their employees do. The millions of visitors to Disney parks are encouraged to tweet about their positive experiences with performers who embody the company’s movie and TV characters across the grounds. “The employee’s supervisor retweets the compliment, along with a picture of the employee,” according to Inc.com. Bruce Jones, a senior programming director at Disney who blogged about the program, called it “an opportunity to create some magic with the positive tweets.” That kind of recognition—praise for good work that fellow employees and even the public can see—may be a surprisingly effective way to help address a disturbing trend in business today. Though unemployment in the U.S. is at about its lowest point in 50 years, worker satisfaction remains alarmingly low. Gallup, the polling organization, "reminds us every couple of years that nearly 70% of employees are actively disengaged” at work, reported Forbes. The Conference Board, a business think tank, found that only 51% of American workers report overall satisfaction with their job, according to its recent poll. Companies have strong business reasons for keeping employees happy, since it reduces employee turnover and boosts productivity. Many factors play into worker satisfaction, including compensation and benefits, but "the No. 1 factor in job satisfaction is not the amount of pay but whether or not the individual feels appreciated and valued for the work they do," wrote psychologists Gary Chapman and Paul White in The 5 Languages of Appreciation in the Workplace. Recognition can be a big part of showing appreciation, according to a study in the Harvard Business Review. Among the 512 U.S. employees surveyed who said their company has strong recognition practices, 87% reported feeling “a strong relationship with their direct manager.” That number tumbles to 51% out of those workers who reported “a lack of such practices at their companies.” “Recognition’s frequency also plays a role,” the report continued. “For those who say they receive some form of appreciation more than once a month, 82% describe a strong bond with their bosses. When that occurrence drops to less than once a month, only 63% feel those strong ties.” The study also found that public recognition in the workplace not only has “a powerful effect on those being called out, it also has a significant impact on peers who see great work being rewarded.” If idea of public praise has proven merit, then what methods are best? The execution needs to be tailored to the organization and the worker. It can range in style from ostentatious to subtle—and even silly. Red Velvet Events, an Austin-based company, awards a small plastic troll doll, reports Entrepreneur. During weekly staff meetings, a Red Velvet team member hands over the doll “to another employee and describes the recipient’s work efforts during the previous week. Each person who receives the doll gives it another accessory (earrings, a tattoo, a bow tie, etc.) and presents it to another team member the following week.” The “quirky tradition” reflects the company’s “fun-loving culture” and “ensures employees are consistently being recognized for their hard work by the people who see it first hand: their team.” Joseph Friedman (CDO), Harley Courts (CEO) & Moiz Malik (COO) of Nooklyn , a Brooklyn-based real-estate firm focusing on apartment rentals. (Photo by Chris Setter) The team at Nooklyn, a Brooklyn-based real-estate firm focusing on apartment rentals, collectively participates in employee recognition on its digital platform. Because all the company's stakeholders are plugged in to the platform—the agents, the accountants, the legal team—they all can see how a potential closing is progressing. Harley Courts, Nooklyn’s cofounder and CEO, says the company has incentivized teamwork by increasing commissions for members of a group who collaborate in getting a deal done. Those efforts can be seen by all. (Courts, a lifelong skateboarder, says he wanted to generate the sense of community typically found in that world, in contrast to the often individualistic nature of the real-estate trade.) When a closing is on the books at Nooklyn, it sparks a gif- and emoji-fueled celebration on the company’s Slack feed, with employees customizing the artwork to reflect certain details of the deal, including its players. “Everyone cheers everyone on,” Courts says of the time when a closing at Nooklyn is finalized. “Everyone is psyched. … It’s so embedded in our culture that when you join, you’re like, ‘Wow, I really just went to Mars; this completely is not normal,’ especially people who come from the real-estate industry.” Yet in giving shout-outs, managers need to be sensitive to the personalities of the recipients. Management consultant Ted Boyce says worker recognition in general is a good way for executives to get engagement out of its team members, but not everyone welcomes it. “There are some people who just don’t like that kind of attention, so something that is intended as a positive becomes a negative,” Boyce says. “They get a little embarrassed.” At the same time, he cautions against a phenomenon he calls the “Awards-Show Syndrome,” where “those that feel that they are worthy of recognition feel left out,” he said. “So you may be recognizing one person at the expense of others who are feeling … undervalued,” Boyce observes. It takes a certain level of knowhow to carry out employee recognition successfully, he added. “What I worry about is you’ve got folks who may not have expertise in human behavior that may be going about it the wrong way.” (Photo courtesy of Nooklyn) The right way to do it, said Joe Robinson, a noted work-life balance trainer and speaker, is to personalize the praise, offering "not just off-the-shelf ‘Way to go!’ Or ‘Great job!,’” he wrote in an email. “The key is recognition that goes to the competence, a core psychological need, of the employee.” A better way is something along the lines of “I like the way you did that job.” Such a framing “speaks to the talent and effectiveness of an employee,” Robinson said, “and that lasts, unlike the generic ‘nice work’ kind of recognition.” The leaders at Geocaching HQ, a Seattle-based company that produces a GPS-powered, outdoor treasure-hunting game, are certainly mindful about how they recognize employees. Their managers are encouraged to ask employees how they would most like to be recognized as part of a questionnaire called a “fire starter.” The fire starter is filled out during periodic reviews to generate expectations and “set the manager and employee up for direct success,” according to Eileen Kim, a human-resources manager at Geocaching. Other fire starter questions, according to Kim, include “What do you feel passionate about developing this year?” and “What do we need to ramp up in your role?” The collected data about how their workers might want to be recognized has led to what Kim describes as “a public kudos system” where employees can write “Beyond the Everyday” nomination notecards for peers of their choice. “These notes are posted publicly throughout the month in our community kitchen,” Kim says, “and during our monthly company meetings, three cards are randomly selected. They are each read aloud, and the nominee and nominator get a coffee gift card to spend together.” The methods of employee recognition at Geocaching HQ don’t stop there, and aren’t limited to direct responses to a job well done either. When Kim recently lost her dog, the company’s pet-bereavement policy allowed her to take a week off from work. When she returned to the office, she says, her desk was covered with cards, flowers and cakes. “My CEO actually planted a tree in my dog’s honor,” Kim says, and recounts that another employee started a GoFundMe campaign in Kim’s dog’s name to raise funds for a senior-dog rescue house. The coworker raised more than $400. “How do you encapsulate that feeling?” Kim says, her emotions palpable in her voice. “The whole team just rallied and swarmed [around me] to make me feel supported.” Kim says that experience contributed to her feeling more like she was part of a family, as opposed to any old corporation. Employee experiences like Kim’s may be one of the reasons Geocaching HQ has been recognized each of the last eight years by Outside magazine as one of the best places to work in the U.S. They seem to be doing something right. Michael Stahl is a freelance writer and editor. A former high school English teacher, he has written for Rolling Stone, Vice, The Village Voice, Narratively, Splitsider, Outside and other publications.

Michael Stahl | March 26, 2019

This Founder Insists You Take Time Off After Having a Baby (Even Though She Didn’t)

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. Though vitamin company Ritual is all about women’s self-care, founder and CEO Katerina Schneider now admits she neglected her own during one of the most important times of her life, right after giving birth, in favor of the business. “I went back to work because we had some important launches coming up, but I actually wish I hadn’t,” she told From Day One. Schneider’s decision at the time was heavily driven by the business culture around her. In the male-dominated worlds of tech and venture capital, the pressure is on and the tolerance for family planning is low to none. In fact, most of the hurdles she has faced while building her company have been around her pregnancy, from a VC blatantly discriminating against her to a demeaning experience at one of the industry’s most renowned conferences. But despite all of this, Schneider has powered through and has learned from her negative experiences how to better the lives of her own employees and the landscape around business and family planning. At Ritual, which she founded in 2015, employees enjoy pregnancy accommodations that go far beyond what companies usually offer. We chatted with Schneider to learn more about starting a family while in business. Excerpts: You raised $40.5 million to date. The vast majority of VCs are men, so as a woman pitching a female-targeted company while also being pregnant, I’m sure that was no walk in the park. What was that experience like for you? Ritual offers a monthly subscription service, so you can get your daily nutrients delivered right to your door I was four months pregnant when we raised our first round, so my journey was a little bit different than than most. It was both kind of empowering and disempowering at the same time. The empowering part was that I quickly raised $1.3 million from really incredible VCs. With them, I was able to be really direct that I was pregnant from the initial conversation. It didn’t matter to them; they just believed in the vision. But in one not-so-empowering conversation, the male VC paused and said, "You know, you have two choices. You can either start a company or you can have a family, but you can’t do both." And that was not so fun. That was disheartening. But it actually served as a catalyst for me to really take someone’s "no," get more aggressive, and propel forward. A lot of women founders I’ve talked to say they have better experiences pitching and connecting with women investors. You’ve also partnered with a lot of women, so I was wondering if this has been your experience? Yes and no, because I did feel that from the men who backed me as well. Brian Singerman from Founders Fund gave us our first check, and he’s definitely not a female. In my seed and also angel rounds, it was a good mix of both male and female investors. Today, our board is 75% women. I think the industry is really changing in terms of female VCs and the attitudes and everything, and I think I was part of that early, early wave. I got to see that, which is really inspiring. Schneider (left of center) with some of her colleagues from Ritual That’s great—I love to see that happening. The last time we chatted was following TechCrunch Disrupt New York in 2016, where you were a finalist in the pitch competition but weren’t treated well as a new mom. The organizers wouldn’t provide a decent place for you to pump and ultimately stuck you on top of a broken escalator. A lot of time has passed and your company is flourishing, so how would you reflect on that experience today? We’ve had employees who’ve had kids since then, and I’ve made it a really big part of my job and vision to create a work environment that is conducive to having families. We had a pump room in our office even when we were smaller, which is very important to me. We have really good paid maternity and paternity leave for our size, offering three months paid and one month unpaid with fully covered health benefits throughout. And now that we’re closer to 50 people, we’re reevaluating this policy to see what else we can offer. (Editor’s note: California mandates six weeks of paid leave for new parents). And we even have babies in the office at times. Going through that really helped me realize the importance of that for employers, and I don’t know if I would’ve felt it as much had I not personally gone through it. (Twice now actually now; I’ve had two kids since launching Ritual). It changes your lens on what companies should offer their employees, what maternity leave should look like, and what people are actually going through during those times. Additionally, we recently launched a prenatal vitamin, and this has influenced the marketing, messaging, and sensitivities around it. Most companies in our space are run by men, and it’s different when you’re really building a company and product for yourself and around experiences you already had. I’m so dedicated to creating the best possible product and the best ingredients but also the messaging and everything around it. What advice would you give to other women founders, especially those navigating starting a family? Ritual touts its "no-nausea capsule design," which is intended to be gentle on an empty stomach with a delayed release formula I encourage my team members to take time off after giving birth. We have good policies, but I personally as the CEO and founder have taken no time off. I went back to work after a week of having my second child and, in hindsight, I kind of regret it to be quite honest. I want women who have companies and families to take time with their new babies and bond, because you’re kind of in it for the long haul when it comes to your company. I think it’s important. Also, I want them to know that you can do it all. I guess I’m a good example of that: we’ve raised over $40 million, I have a growing company, and I’m obsessed with my family, both my kids and my husband. It’s not easy and it takes work, but we women are capable of it all if that’s what we want. What made you come to regret going back to work so soon after giving birth? You know, I’ll never have the first couple weeks of giving birth back. I’ll never have that moment again. It’s something I thought I could prioritize the company over, but the company is still here and it will always be. I totally trust my team, and with a couple of weeks or even a month away, everything would’ve been fine. I’ve realized this as we scale, and I’ve grown to understand that self-care is important. So while I missed that, I now prioritize self-care in other ways and work out almost every single day even if it means taking time away from my kids and the company. You’re in it for the long haul. It’s not like some short stint.   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 | March 21, 2019