I enjoyed being a guest on Seed&Spark‘s first monthly office hours session where Stefanie Monge, Lara McLeod and I talked about distributing diversity, equity and inclusion work across organizations.

• Megan Carpenter’s Get It Wrong For Me: What I Need From Allies
• Amy Edmondson on psychological safety
• Roxane Gay and Tressie McMillan Cottom’s podcast Hear to Slay, which really is the Black feminist podcast of my dreams.
• Mozilla’s Community Participation Guidelines

Edit: Thanks Tim Smith for letting me know the ChartHop website now shows that this is all an April Fools’ day prank. I fell for it. Kudos to the commitment to write a 13 page fake report and for your social team’s convincing response.

I first learned about ChartHop’s Charting Better Galaxies product on Dr. Sarah Saska’s Instagram account. It is the first workplace diversity, equity and inclusion tool that’s based on astrology. I thought there was a 50-50 chance that this was an April Fools’ gag. It turns out it’s a real thing and that they got $14M in Series A funding last year.

Here’s some of their key findings from a 13 page Guide to Workplace Astrology:

um…WHAT? This makes me really angry.

This product is problematic for several reasons:

1. There are legitimate systemic inequalities in the workplace and in society. Racism, sexism, abelism, homophobia, transphobia and other systemic oppressions mean that our current systems are inequitable. Thinking about systemically oppressed astrological star signs trivializes real inequalities.
2. Unless staff are explicitly opting in to have their employer derive their astrological sign from their date of birth, this is an unethical use of data.
3. Extrapolating people’s personalities based astrology stereotypes is garbage and not appropriate for the workplace. Imagine getting feedback in a performance review based on the stereotypes of your star sign? 

For me, astrology is one of many tools I use to reflect on myself and my life–I’ve got the CHANI app on my phone. However, it’s completely inappropriate for workplaces to do pay equity analyses based on star sign, determine an individual’s leadership potential based on star sign, or to do organizational design based on star sign. Also: astrology goes against some people’s religious or epistemological world views.

As a DEI practitioner and consultant who uses data driven and research backed approaches I see ChartHop using familiar words and phrases like: representation gaps, aggregated and anonymized data, data and resources to address workplace inequities. However, visualizing a work force’s astrological signs is not a valid methodology for diagnosing inclusion issues, nor is it a useful thing to help make the workplace more diverse, inclusive or equitable.

In 2003 it was estimated that the diversity, equity and inclusion industry was worth more than $8 billion. There has been huge growth since last year and there have been a lot of new companies with technology tools to surface bias, new job boards to connect with underrepresented talent, and lots of people entering the industry as consultants.

I’m glad that most organizations know this is something they need to develop a strategy for.  I’d encourage practitioners and business leaders to think critically about what they’re prioritizing and measuring. I’m excited about some of the products and services that I see, as I think they will contribute to long term, systemic change and more equitable workplaces. ChartHop’s product isn’t it though.

Many people have said that while we’ve all been in the same storm with COVID, we’ve been in our own boats. People have had very different experiences during the past year, based on their gender, race, geographic location and more.

Today Statistics Canada released a report about the social and economic impacts of COVID, which includes some disaggregated data. Some of the findings aren’t surprising:

• In Montreal and Toronto, mortality rates are higher in areas with greater concentrations of Black Canadians
• Indigenous groups are experiencing greater health impacts

I wish these findings were written with an equity lens. Systemic racism, colonization, poverty, income inequality, employment precarity, access to clean water and adequate housing are all connected to who was hit hardest by COVID. Naming these factors means that we need to own that our current systems and policies are not working for everyone. It means that we need to take responsibility for advocating for change.

I’m glad that we’re starting to see disaggregated data in Canada, so that we have data to better understand systemic inequality and so that we can make better policy to change this.

Still, I want so much more. I want to see data presented in an intersectional manner. I suspect COVID has hit women of colour hardest, especially Filipino, South Asian and Black women who work in health care. Without quantitative data it’s hard to do a systems level analysis to understand who is most impacted.

I want language that is in plain English. Initially I thought that “not indigenous or a visible minority” meant white people, but journalist Jessica Galang pointed me to this StatsCan page:

The “Not a visible minority” category includes persons who gave a mark-in response of “White” only; persons who gave mark-in responses of “White and Latin American”, “White and Arab” or “White and West Asian” only; persons who gave a mark-in response of Latin American, Arab, or West Asian only, along with a European write-in response; and persons with no mark-in response who gave a write-in response that is not classified as a visible minority. As indicated previously, this category also includes Aboriginal persons.

This definition is super confusing.

I want this data presented in an accessible way. This horizontal bar graph graphs race categories, citizenship categories, educational achievement categories, age group categories, and sex categories together. From a methodology perspective I find this very confusing. This graph doesn’t have alt text, so it excludes screenreader users. There’s a data table below this graph is accessible, but the graph isn’t. I don’t think this meets the standards in the Accessible Canada Act, which is especially disappointing from a federal government department.

I want to see more data along other dimensions of diversity, especially disability and sexuality. From listening to people around me, I know that COVID has impacted people with disabilities harder than people without disabilities. I wonder if queer and trans people have been impacted in a different way too? Without data we don’t really know, and more importantly we continue to develop policies that don’t account for systemic ableism and hetrerosexism.

Finally, I want to rethink the race categories in Canada to use language that is respectful and reflects the ways that communities talk about themselves. I’m a mixed race person. My mom in Japanese-Canadian and my dad is white, of Scottish and Irish ancestry. I’m a woman of colour. I hate the phrase visible minority as it centers whiteness and is colonial. I know this isn’t easy for so many reasons and it makes it harder to map historical trends.

If you care about how data can be used in ethical ways to highlight inequality and as a tool for systemic change, check out The BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner’s report on Disaggregated demographic data collection in British Columbia: The grandmother perspective. The phrase “the grandmother perspective” came from Gwen Phillips of the Ktunaxa Nation, who is a BC First Nations Data Governance Initiative Champion. This phrase speaks to the importance of relationship. Disaggregated data is a tool to help us move towards equality and justice. She says, “we are not measuring race, we are measuring racism. Racism is a systems failure; that must be made clear when talking about race-based data.”

The recording for the talk I did for Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Digital Pedagogy Webinar Series is up. Here’s the video and the slides.

I submitted the title and abstract 6 months ago and as I wrote the talk I realized that the dichotomy of inside/outside is much messier than the title suggests. It’s a false dichotomy to frame burning it down from the outside or building building new ways of doing things on the inside. Most of us, whether we are inside or outside an institution, do both–we build new things AND destroy barriers and structures that need to go. 

The talk had four parts:

1. Introducing myself and sharing some context about where I’m from.
2. Sharing about some of the queer and feminist activism I did in my 20s and 30s, including The Lesbian Avengers, swimming on several International Gay and Lesbian Aquatics teams, The Glasgow Women’s Library, and some of my union involvement especially speaking up for sex workers rights at the Workers Out human rights conference.
3. Defining what I mean by diversity, equity and inclusion and talking about some of the work I led at Mozilla.
4. Naming 3 people who I see as possibility models of powerful change agents within their organizations as well as make bigger ripples for change in the world.

Dr. Dori Tunstall is the Dean of Design at OCADU. She’s leading systems change work at her university. This is visible through her work on respectful design and leading very successful Indigenous and Black faculty cluster hires that are both shifting representation and more importantly changing the culture of the institution. Follow her Instagram account  where she spotlights Black and Indigenous fashion and design and models self-care/repair as a leader.

Dr. Ninan Abraham is a professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology and the Department of Zoology and the Associate Dean of Equity and Diversity in the Faculty of Science. I tuned into his February 11th webinar titled “What have we been missing in racial equity in academia?” and it was the most robust diversity data analysis I’ve seen in a post-secondary institution. Two things that stuck with me were the observations from the hiring funnel analysis and how the term racialized (and who sees themselves as racialized) isn’t straightforward. Look for these findings in a forthcoming publication with Carola Hibsch-Jetter, Howard Ramos and Minelle Mahtani. 

Annie Jean-Baptiste is the author of Building for Everyone, the Head of Product Inclusion at Google and the Founder of the Equity Army.

The Equity Army is a community of learners, builders, dreamers and doers who are committed to ensuring everyone, especially historically underrepresented people, feel seen in any product or service. The Equity Army meets in an informal cohort model and learns about product inclusion, shares resources, hears from subject matter experts, and most importantly, takes action.

I’m part of the current cohort and it’s the most diverse group of people I’ve ever worked with. I can see the diversity on so many intersectional axes: race, age, gender, disability, geography, education, industry, role and level. I’m sure there’s other dimensions I’m not able to see yet. I’m massively excited to have found a community to learn and take action with.

As we all do the work of diversity, equity and inclusion as activists in community or as activists within our organizations it’s important to have community to learn from, to share courage with, and to be accountable to. What community do you need to do this work?

This is the last post in a weeklong series exploring DEI professional competencies. Again, I believe the five key competencies for DEI professionals are:

1. be strategic
2. translate academic research into action and measure the impact of initiatives
3. meet people where they are at and help them move to be more inclusive 
4. influence others
5. get cross functional projects done. 

Yesterday’s post was about influencing others. This post will explore getting cross functional projects done. I’ll also share some other DEI career resources. 

Great ideas without action are totally meaningless. As a DEI leader you’ll be working across departments and functions to get stuff done. Strong project management skills and collaboration are key in making change to existing processes and developing new ways of doing things. Here’s two examples to illustrate this competency. 

One of my first projects at Mozilla was working with People Ops and a Tableau expert in IT to build a dashboard to track our diversity metrics, which was more difficult and time consuming than I first thought. When I started the project was off the rails, so I suggested we restart by introducing ourselves, what we thought we brought to the table and then developed a RASCI for the project. With these foundations in place we shifted us to be a very effective team. We completed the project and became friends. Having a dashboard for diversity metrics was important as leaders owned accountability goals and needed to know how they were doing.

Engineers started Mozilla’s first mentorship program. I joined the team and was the only non-technical person and marvelled at some of the skills and ways of thinking that the others brought. It was one of those wonderful experiences where we were more than the sum of our parts. We were a small group of people with different backgrounds, doing different jobs, at various job levels and we were able to stand up and support a mentorship program for about 100 people. I credit the leadership of Melissa O’Connor, Senior Manager of Data Operations. She often said “tell me what I’m missing here” to invite different options and ran the most efficient meetings I’ve ever attended in my life. 

Great ideas without action are totally meaningless. Turning thoughts into actions as a leader in DEI is a necessary art–to get things done you’ll need to effectively collaborate with people at different levels and in different functions. 

Additional resources on DEI careers

I’m excited to be one of the panelists for Andrea Tatum’s DEI careers panel tomorrow, January 23. The event is sold out but she’ll be simulcasting live on YouTube at January 23 at 10am Pacific. Andrea also introduced me to Russell Reynold’s list of competencies of a Chief Diversity Officer. 

Aubrey Blanche’s post How can I get a job in D&I? starts by trying to talk the reader out of going into this line of work then gets into five key areas of expertise. 

Dr. Janice Gassam’s Dirty Diversity Podcast has an episode where she interviews Lambert Odeh, Diversity and Inclusion Manager at Olo Inc. on How to Land a Career in DEI.

This is the fourth post in a week-long series exploring DEI professional competencies. I believe the five key competencies for DEI professionals are:

1. be strategic
2. translate academic research into action and measure the impact of initiatives
3. meet people where they are at and help them move to be more inclusive 
4. influence others
5. get cross functional projects done. 

Yesterday I wrote about being a professional change agent and the need to meet people where they’re at and help them change their perspective and behaviour to be more inclusive. Today I’m going to explore the ability to influence others. 

DEI leaders need to be able to influence beyond their small team, at all levels of an organization. The way I did this was by building authentic relationships, learning about what other people’s priorities are, and negotiating how to be mutually successful. 

For example, I reached out to the AV Operations team to advocate for live captioning for our big internal meetings to increase access, both for people who were hard of hearing, people who process content better with text, and for people for whom English was an additional language. They worked to make this part of the workflow and handled the administration with the captioning vendor.

Over a year later the AV Operations team reached out to me to partner on the sound quality in the office meetings rooms. As a distributed workforce we spent a lot of time in Zoom meetings and some rooms had better sound quality than others. Also, for some neurodiverse people they were too noisy and echoey and made it exhausting to be in meetings, so it was an accessibility issue too. 

I recently did CliftonStrengths and one of my top strengths is Woo, or winning others over. CliftonStrenghts describes this as: “People exceptionally talented in the Woo theme love the challenge of meeting new people and winning them over. They derive satisfaction from breaking the ice and making a connection with someone.” DEI leaders have little if no formal power, so being skilled at this is necessary.

This is the fourth in a series of five posts. Tomorrow’s post, the last one in this series, is about getting cross functional projects done.