--- title: "Equity In Action" episode: 127 date: 2024-09-19 guest: "Sharitta Marshall" canonical: https://inclusionbites.co.uk/podcast/127-equity-in-action audio: https://cdn.seech.uk/podcast/episodes/ibs-127/audio.mp3 --- # Equity In Action Joanne Lockwood is joined by Sharitta Marshall, founder of Visionary Development Consulting, for a wide-ranging conversation about what “equity in action” really looks like inside organisations. Sharitta challenges the myth of meritocracy and unpacks how privilege and systemic inequities shape who gets access to opportunity, resources, and decision-makers. Together they explore why equality-based approaches often fail in practice, and why equity requires intentional plans, appropriate support, and a clearer understanding of diverse lived experiences. A central focus is the role Employee Resource Groups can play when they are treated as strategic business units rather than social clubs. Sharitta outlines what effective ERG programmes need: alignment to business priorities, clear goals and metrics, proper funding, defined roles and responsibilities, onboarding and succession planning, and executive sponsorship that actively removes barriers and opens doors to spaces, places, and people. They also discuss the broader political and economic context influencing DEI pushback, including the impact of anti-Blackness and policy trends, and why organisations often only respond when the costs are made tangible. The episode closes with a practical call to quantify the real financial impact of turnover and poor employee experience, and to use that data to sustain meaningful culture change. ## Chapters - 00:00 — Introduction and Welcome - 02:00 — Equity provides resources for individual needs. - 04:31 — Privilege isn't absence of hardship, systemic issues. - 09:58 — ERGs as strategic unit creating equity. - 12:49 — Capitalist society prioritizes bottom line over equity. - 16:42 — ERGs impact business priorities, hold leadership accountable. - 18:20 — Empower ERG with strategic exec sponsorship challenge. - 24:17 — 2024 political cycle, pushback on DEI initiatives. - 25:27 — DEI cuts, pushback from white supremacists, equity. - 31:41 — Balancing perspectives is key for global unity. - 33:23 — Race, gender, LGBTQ+ issues intersect in discrimination. - 36:18 — As a global ERG leader, I represent 5 groups. - 40:19 — Ensure mission and goals accessible through communication. - 43:45 — DEI often overlooked in business priorities, frustrating. - 46:57 — Emphasise ROI, understand hidden costs, improve business. - 50:20 — Struggle against capitalism for widespread impactful change. - 52:42 — Impact on actions, commitment to liberation remains. ## Key takeaways - The critical costs associated with employee turnover and the need to focus on employee engagement. - The tangible financial impacts of poor employee experience, emphasising the importance of involving accountants. - The necessity of framing a strong business case for prioritising human experience amid capitalist pressures. - The challenge of driving DEI initiatives in politically polarised environments and the potential difficulties over the next five years. - The disconnect between DEI data and individual impact, and the importance of addressing systemic inequalities. - The role of Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) in giving a voice to diverse lived experiences and tying them to strategic business goals. - Strategies for building and supporting ERG programmes and the importance of executive sponsorship for driving meaningful change. ## FAQs ### What is the cost of high employee turnover, and why should organisations be concerned about it? High employee turnover can incur significant financial costs, including recruitment, training, and lost productivity. Sharita Marshall and Joanne Lockwood discussed the importance of understanding why employees leave and focusing on keeping them engaged rather than constantly replacing them. The tangible costs of poor employee experience should be made clear to accountants to highlight the financial implications. ### What is the importance of making a business case for human experience in the corporate world? Considering the influence of capitalism, Sharita Marshall emphasises the necessity to link DEI initiatives to business priorities. It helps in getting buy-in from stakeholders who control funding and resources by demonstrating the long-term benefits of prioritising human experience and equity in workplaces. ### What are some challenges in driving change in DEI efforts within organisations? Challenges include resistance to equity from individuals who fear a loss of control, the political climate's impact on DEI funding, and the slow progress in implementing effective DEI measures. Both speakers stressed the importance of persistence and strategic alignment of DEI goals with business outcomes. ### How do systemic inequalities and the myth of meritocracy impact workplaces? Systemic inequalities and the belief in meritocracy often hinder true equity in organisations. Sharita and Joanne discussed the necessity of addressing privilege and recognising the complex layers of discrimination related to race, gender, class, and disability. This understanding is crucial for creating equitable workplaces. ### What role do Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) play in organisations? ERGs are pivotal in providing a collective voice for underrepresented employees and advocating for systemic changes. Sharita Marshall argues that ERGs should be treated as strategic business units, aligned with the organisation's goals, and adequately supported through executive sponsorship and clear roles and responsibilities. ### How can organisations successfully integrate ERGs with their strategic business goals? To prevent ERGs from becoming single-issue focused, it’s important to align their projects with broader business objectives. This includes onboarding and training executive sponsors, ensuring transparency and communication of ERG goals across the organisation, and holding leadership accountable for supporting ERGs effectively. ## Transcript Joanne Lockwood: Welcome to Inclusion Bites, your sanctuary for bold conversations that spark change. I'm Joanne Lockwood, your guide on this journey of exploration into the heart of inclusion, belonging, and societal transformation. Ever wondered what it truly takes to create a world where everyone not only belongs but thrives? You're not alone. Join me as we uncover the unseen, challenge the status quo, and share stories that resonate deep within. Ready to dive in? Whether you're sipping your morning coffee or winding down after a long day, let's connect, reflect, and inspire action together. Don't forget, you can be part of the conversation too. Reach out to jo.lockwood@seechangehappen.co.uk to share your insights or to join me on the show. So adjust your earbuds and settle in. It's time to ignite the spark of inclusion with Inclusion Bites. And today is episode 127 with the title Equity in Action. And I have the absolute honor and privilege to welcome Sharitta Marshall. Sharitta is the founder of Visionary Development Consulting. She's dedicated to ensuring that everyone feels seen, heard, and valued within their organization. When I asked Sharitta to describe her superpower, she said, my superpower is my ability to connect diverse perspectives and translate them into actionable strategies that align with organizational goal. Hello, Sharitta. Welcome to the show. Sharitta Marshall: Hi, Joanne. Thank you so much for having me. Oh, what a pleasure. What a Joanne Lockwood: pleasure. So, Sharitta, tell me. Equity in action, what does that mean to you? Well, let me first by saying equity is making sure Sharitta Marshall: that everyone has the appropriate resources that they need to thrive and be successful in any given situation or experience. So equity in action for me, from the perspective of the work that I do, means that there is an acknowledgment of systemic inequities, and there is an intentional and impactful plan to address those systemic inequities. So everyone has not only the correct tools that they need to thrive, but also the opportunity that they need to be the best possible versions of themselves. Joanne Lockwood: Yeah. I I completely get that and resonate with that. But a lot of people, I find, don't truly buy into the concept of of equity. You know, they they look around and they think, well, hang on a minute. This is it's all about meritocracy, isn't it? Everyone should succeed on their own merits. And that's a common myth that exists in in recruitment, in in the workplace, around this belief in the meritocracy. Yeah. And it comes Sharitta Marshall: from the misguided belief that equality is available for everyone. And the simple fact is is that if you say, well, we've given everyone running shoes, so everyone should be able to run, but you have an individual who does not have ability to use their legs, who is blind, who never learned how to run. But the standpoint of, well, if we gave everybody shoes, then they should be able to do it. And that's why I come from the lens of equity because we need to be able to provide resources for everyone given what they need in order to thrive and not just have the assumption from 1 perspective that if everyone is given this 1 thing, then that means everyone has the same starting point, the same ability, as well as the same information to be successful. Yeah. III see people talk about this all the Joanne Lockwood: time, and and a lot of people will tell me, well, they've had a tough life as well. You know, it's not been easy for them. No 1 gives them any help. That's the challenge, trying to allow people who hold privilege to recognize how that privilege has benefited for them all of their lives and to have and to be able to connect, as you say, with that sense of equity where people need those tools, that that support to succeed. Sharitta Marshall: Yeah. And I think people misunderstand that privilege is not the erasure of hardship. That's not what privilege means. Privilege just means that there are not systemic inequities or issues that you have to deal with on a daily basis. So for me, I am privileged to have Internet and be in a place where I can, you know, afford to have a home and take care of my bills. Like, that's a privilege. And I don't negate the fact that, yeah, are there times that I struggle in to take care of my bills? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that I don't have the privilege to go out and, you know, figure something out or not have the, you know, the hindrance that if I was chronically dealing with housing insecurity and food insecurity, I don't, you know, I don't have to deal with that. So there are things that are not put in my my way in order for me to not be successful and being able just, you know, to live. Yeah. Joanne Lockwood: I mean, I guess, from your perspective, you have a Social Security number. You can get a job. You can get employment. You have a bank account. Whereas many people who are maybe escaping terror, fleeing persecution arrive in the country without even speaking 1 of the major languages, you know, Spanish or English in the US. So and and people often think about speaking English as a privilege, and it is. Yeah. For most of the vast majority of the world, speaking English is is still the dominant language and therefore is a privilege, isn't it? It very much so is. And I think people don't understand, Sharitta Marshall: like, how how difficult that is. Everyone not everyone, but there are people that like to throw around, well, you know, just learn the language. I don't believe that people understand English is 1 of the hardest languages to learn in the world. It is there's so many caveats, so many if then then that. And as a parent of a child that has dyslexia, that makes it even more difficult. So the assumption that, you know, just because it's the norm for you, that that should be the standard for everyone is a misnomer and very much steeped in, you know, a privileged eyesight. Joanne Lockwood: Well, as someone who's spoken English all of my life, I I I've I've got the privilege of never having to try to learn it. And and when I hear the the complexities that other people talk about, I think I never think about it because I don't think of language and English certainly in the same way that when I try to learn French or or German, other language. I don't think of English in those ways. I don't understand the construct of sentences and how it's built up. I I just know it inherently. And that's the challenge is is you say English is is complex. It changes the nuances that help people talk and help what people say, and they make words up as well. And it it could be very complex. It's a very dynamic language. And, but it has some very, very strange rules as well, isn't it? Yes. Sharitta Marshall: And I like to tell people, like, if you don't believe that English is hard, then teach a preschooler English. Sit down with a preschooler and teach them English. Like, tell them words, and then tell them the words that are that sound the same that are spelled different. And then tell them about the silent letters and why they're gonna ask why well, why is that there? And it's it's a very interesting thing that I really didn't think about until I had a child, and I was teaching my child to read words and understand words. And then adding on the fact that she has dyslexia, it compounded her ability to be able to understand how to read and comprehend English. There are also a whole Joanne Lockwood: host of words that look the same, sound the same, but have a different that almost have the opposite meaning Yeah. Depending on how you use them and how you say them. And it's like, yeah. And people say this to me, like, okay. Yeah. I get it. And but that's just 1 example of expecting other people to just do something because I did, therefore, you can. It's almost like that. It's that rule, isn't it? Yes. And Sharitta Marshall: that where that's where equity comes in is the assumption that just because I did it with this, then if you have access to it, then you should be able to do the same thing. It's not coming from a place of, 1, understanding diverse perspective and diverse lived experiences, but also having absolutely no empathy for someone having a different life experience and what that looks like. And there are so many assumptions that are made by individuals of other individuals that really do lend itself to people not wanting to contribute and push equity in the world. Yeah. I I just seen that in some of the show notes, Joanne Lockwood: there's some of the stuff you sent through. You talk about the work that you're doing or helping organizations to do with their staff networks, the employee resource groups. Mhmm. I'm a great I'm a great believer that ERG staff networks give employees a a collective voice of support, also advocacy within the organization. I'm also a great believer that organizations can leverage the power of those perspectives and voices. So how how do you work with organizations to to empower ERGs and, you know, develop equity, I guess? Sharitta Marshall: Well, I start from the the lens of them looking at the employee resource group as a strategic business unit. Not an Infinity Group, not a community group, not a club, or just a checkbox, but program of individuals that are underrepresented typically within the organization and setting them up to create equity throughout the organization. That is 1 of the cornerstones that organizations can use to create equity and create it in a way that people actually understand and get what it is. A lot of times, especially now, the push for DEI is getting so much pushback on, 1, is it necessary? Does it discriminate against other people that are not considered protected groups? And, you know, why should people give up what they have for other people. And when I come in and talk about how ERGs create equity, they create equity in several ways. 1, they give a voice to diverse lived experiences that a lot of people don't have insights into and don't understand. They allow for understanding through language and terminology. There are different, terminologies that are used in the they've added another letter, so I don't wanna mess this up. 2 s LGBTQI plus community where people don't understand is like, well, what's the 2 s, and what's the plus, and what is all that? Being able to give them language and terminology so that they understand that. Sharing what systemic inequities where they are able to express their lived experience, where they are able to express their lived experiences and show how those systemic inequities impact them on a daily basis, including their experience with the organization. And when they're able to do that, not only are they able to understand how they contribute to systemic inequities as an organization, but also how that contribution affects their community as at large, including their consumers. We live in a global economic global world, and so consumers are more diverse than ever. And ignoring the impact of systemic inequities in a capitalist society is going to pretty much create the ruin of capitalism. I tell people that equity is the antithesis of capitalism. And where wherever equity thrives, capitalism dies a little bit. So from the standpoint of organizations in ERGs, I am introducing the, I guess, the partnership, if you will, between equity and capitalism. I understand we live in a capitalist society. I understand I'm dealing with capitalist organizations. And for all of their, yes, we would like to, you know, have diverse teams, and we wanna, you know, create equality and equity. They have a bottom line that they have to adhere to. And my point is that you can impact your bottom line in a positive way, but you don't have to continuously traumatize people to pay bills. And when you have an ERG program that is truly set up to create equity, not just from the fact of having creating those psychological safe spaces, but having the ability for your leaders to upscale themselves so that they can have a career that truly reflects their education experience and know how. Having executive sponsors that are truly sponsors and sponsors those leaders those leaders in spaces and places where they are not Jo that they have an opportunity to have that sponsorship and say, you know what? Joanne has been a great ERG leader, and I think she will be a phenomenal director in this position. And I've been working with her and blah blah blah blah blah blah. That sponsorship, that is giving people access to spaces, places, and people that they normally wouldn't have access to, and that creates equity. And then understanding your diverse clientele and community. We are moving into the Gen z workforce, and soon thereafter, the Gen Alpha. They have a very different perspective on, 1, how they wanna work in organizations they wanna work for as well as organizations that they wanna actually support and spend money with. And it would be to organization's detriment to ignore what they're looking for and how they can cultivate a culture not just for talent to come in and stay, but also to bring in those new consumer bases that are coming up. Joanne Lockwood: Right. I I love what you said in there. Acts to spaces, places, and people. And you often, if you hold privilege, you don't realize how empowered you are compared with people who are marginalized, voiceless, however you want to describe Joanne who who has less privilege, is that access to spacespaces and people, the networks, the unwritten rules, the the things that in the back of society that you you don't see advertised. They're just you know because you know. So it's just it's just like you say, ERGs with the exec with the right exec sponsors, the right mentorship programs, the right acceleration programs, provide that access to the to what you don't know. You didn't even know it exists, let alone you don't know. So that's quite that's quite it's a very powerful way of saying it. And, because a part of the problem is definitely not having access to that. So what other ways are you working with that? Sharitta Marshall: Well, through my management my program management services, I make sure that, 1, they are strategic in their build out of their ERG program, meaning that their goals for the overarching program, which is overall of the individual ERGs, are directly tied to the organization's business priorities or outcomes either for that year or a span of a couple years. In order for ERGs, 1, to be supported, funded, and have accountability from leadership, there has to be a direct connection to the organization's business priorities. There has to be impact shown. There has to be metrics. There has to be data collected. And that can't be done if there is not a direct connection to what is impacting the organization. So I make sure that, 1, the program is connected to those business priorities, but also that they're connected in a way that does not burden the program. It is not the ERG's responsibility to handle all of the DEI objectives. It is not the ERG's responsibility to handle all of the talent acquisition objectives, But it is part of their responsibility to directly impact those business priorities that they can have a very powerful impact for, and what does that look like. And being able to lay out a project plan, including time timeline resources needed, making sure that leadership not only understands what the program is, the goals that they're tied to, but also holding them accountable for success. When I say leadership, I just don't mean, like, c suite. I mean, middle managers. They need to understand that they're directly tied to the ERG success because they need to make sure that leaders have the support and ability to get those objectives done. And then creating a strategic implementation plan that is flexible enough to adjust with the business. Because as we all know, business happens. Sometimes priorities shift and change, and things happen with the business where sometimes they're like, hey. We're not even doing this anymore. So being able to have that flexibility to pivot whenever those things come up are also important as well. Because, again, when you treat the ERGs as your business unit, it is just like any other unit, like marketing, products, sales. They have their objectives. They have their resources needed, but they also know that sometimes the plan has to pivot. So by making sure the plan is flexible enough to pivot, you are still aiming for those goals and for that success, but also giving grace to the program in case things need to change that are completely out of the program's goal I mean, control. Yeah. I mean, you talked earlier about yep. You Joanne Lockwood: just been saying there about the ERG has to be seen like a business unit with exec or senior sponsorship to give them that voice. It's too often the case, though, and I'm afraid I didn't come across this too often, where the ERG doesn't have strategic access. It doesn't have strategic importance. It becomes a talking shop, an echo chamber of of the same voices, but change never occurs. The frustration often often is is around trying to find this exec sponsor who has the ability to make make change. How do you work with organizations to find and empower an exec sponsor to take over ownership of the their particular ERG, if you like? Because it's that's the hard business. Actually, that's not the hard bit. Sharitta Marshall: The hard bit is getting them to actually do things. So I always start with roles and responsibilities for the leaders, including the Executive Sponsors. A lot of times, Executive Sponsors within organizations are either volunteer or are voluntold to do something within the ERG space, but they don't know what that means. They're like, well, do I just go to meetings? Do I just say, hey. You know, I'm the executive sponsor, and that's it. I think it's very important to have the roles and responsibilities laid out. Jo, 1, the executive sponsor knows what is expected of them, but then if there is a point where they're not willing to commit or cannot, that someone else is selected. Because the worst thing to do is assign somebody or have someone volunteer and they do absolutely nothing. And there there's no support. There's no sponsorship. There's no advocacy. And that role is super important, especially from a program standpoint. Because if the ERG program, including the individual ERGs, are having impediments to their goals, it is the executive sponsor's role to step in and deal with those impediments. If I am the executive sponsor for, let's say, the black ERG, and 1 of their goals is to get to more diverse conferences. And we've agreed and said yes. And then now they're like, okay. Here are the 2 conferences. This is the budget, and they don't get approval. And they're getting the runaround. They're like, hey. We this was agreed to. What's happening? And then my job as executive sponsor is like, hey. You know, what happened to the budget budget for this? This was agreed to. They need to do this in order to do x, y, and z. So that is something that is part of the executive sponsor's role, or at least it should be. But if they don't know what is expected of them, then they either don't do anything or do what they feel is important, but that might not Jo Joanne Lockwood: your programs, have and do your programs have so that you you talk about making sure that they're performing and you use to add the role specs and the roles on to it. Do do we actually train them? I mean, I I would guess that Well, there should be training to most yeah. Yeah. Sharitta Marshall: There should be at least an onboarding so that they know, like, hey. Here's how this works. This is what you'll have access to. This is how you communicate with your leadership. These are, like, the, you know, quarterly meetings of the executive sponsors and the ERG program manager to talk about the goals, where you are to go, how, you know, you can support the program, whatever it is that is your onboarding plan. That should be in place for the executive sponsors as well as the ERG leaders. There should be a laid out onboarding process, including the succession Joanne. Because, you know, people leave, change positions, stuff happens, so you don't wanna leave your program and your leadership just kind of, like, vacant and out there where they're like, well, we don't know what to do now. That, you know, causes chaos, but then also doesn't lend people to want to participate because they're like, well, what's the point? You know, you guys aren't really doing anything, or we do stuff and then nothing happens. So you want to make sure there's transparency, but also there are laid out plans so everyone knows what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. But how do we stop the ERGs becoming Joanne Lockwood: AA1 person crusade for their particular their focal point? Now they they get have a passion around, they've been wronged, or they have something they wanna try and solve. The the the danger is you end up spending all your time dealing with single issues. It's trying to how how do you keep the ERG focused on more strategic, bigger goals? Sharitta Marshall: It comes from the program itself. When the program has the strategic goals that are aligned with the business outcomes, it is the individual ERGs to have those projects and initiatives that directly connect to those program goals. So if the program goal is to increase diverse leadership throughout the organization by 2%, 1 of the projects that each of the ERGs has is leadership development. What does that look like? Is that upskilling the leaders? Is that offering management courses to the team members? Whatever those agreed upon projects are. So the connection to the program is what ties them together, but also understanding that that upskilling of these members and leaders are important to that group because they haven't had access to leadership development because they are individual contributors. They haven't been able to be seen by directors in higher level management because they're individual contributors, but now they're doing presentations around the program goals to to date. They're presenting that. They, you know, they have that ability to do that so that they have that visibility. That lends itself to that upscaling and leveraging for career success. So when I say that the program goals and individual ERGs should be tied to the organization's business priorities, I don't mean that to be the detriment to the individual ERGs and what they're trying to do. I mean that to create a holistic, everyone is going in the same direction type of strategy. We're we're Joanne Lockwood: mid 2024, so June 2024 at the moment when we're recording this. The US is in its political cycle of going to having a an election not in not too distant future, a change of well, potentially a change of of, leader, maybe not. The UK is just going through its cycle of general elections at the moment. We've got ours in about 2 or 3 weeks' time. There's a a lot of pushback and a lot of political divide on the value of EDI initiatives both at government level, central government, also devolved government, state level in the US. We're seeing a lot of pushback in the UK around government department having their DEI budget slash slash being almost forced and told not to invest in DEI. So DEI is is starting to become a kind of a toxic word. How how do you find that organizations are responding? I mean, you you do do you find the people you work with are in government organizations of having their budgets cut, or do you find you in in the public and private sector who have more access to funds? What's the what's the political climate around DEI these days? Well, I do find that Sharitta Marshall: there is definitely cuts within DEI, not just funding, but is existing in public the public and the private sector. So that's absolutely real. And the pushback around DEI, to be quite honest with you, is coming from white supremacists and Joanne black sentiment. What they're going after legally is using a lot of the legislator that legislation that was put into place to give equity to formerly enslaved black Americans against current black Americans. And the standpoint of that is directly connected to, you know, individuals through higher education, them halting scholarships that are for black students, from a halting of funds that are available to black women funders. There's a lot of antiblackness that drives the continued push to erase DEI. And, again, what I said earlier is that equity is the antithesis of capitalism. So the push for equity to give everyone the correct resources they need to thrive chips away at the foundation of capitalism. And the people that are late stage, true die hard capitalists do not want equity to exist because that takes away their control of the majority, be it the small percentage of the individuals and organizations that they are. So from my standpoint, I come at it understanding that and not ignoring that and not standing on it. Well, this is the right thing to do because it's the right thing to do. I'm standing on this is the right thing to do, and this is how you can still make money doing it. You don't have to traumatize people in order to make money. You don't have to be a person that's continually traumatized in order to pay your bills. There is a way to exist happily in the meaning. But, yeah, my standpoint is always taking it from the ethereal DEI. We have so much data, so many reports, so many Harvard Business Review, so much, but people don't equate it to their individual impact. So showing organizations, hey. Here's what is costing you to continuously have people leave. Here is your loss of knowledge cost. Here is your talent acquisition cost, and here is your inability to hire Gen z and Gen Alpha because they do not trust you. This is what it's gonna cost you. And when they're able to see that bottom line, they're actually able to make that very tangible connection to why DEI matters. And that's where I come from, and that's where I've been coming from for the past year. I think people are just now paying attention to it. But I come from it from a very, here is the cost. Here is either the cost you're gonna pay. Here is the cost savings you can have, or and here is how you can make money. Yeah. I mean, you live in a a very Joanne Lockwood: politically polarized country. We I live in a a very politically polarized country where there's 2 main parties or 2 main schools are thinking. And the sad thing is what you're saying makes perfect sense. You know, as you say, McKinsey, HBR, all these type of reviews are out there. We've we've seen it. We we can quantify it. We and there's evidence. But, yeah, a large percentage of the population, both in the US and in the UK, somehow don't get it. And it's it's not like it's a minor part. It's it's almost it's almost a majority view. That's the scary thing, isn't it? It is. And I do believe Sharitta Marshall: that it comes from the lens of a lack of empathy, But then also, it comes from the propagandist capitalist view that, you know, if you let anyone have anything, then they're taking away from you. And they're not working as hard as you, and they're gonna take away everything that you worked for. And how dare they get something and didn't work as hard as you? That doesn't work. But, again, it does not address the systemic inequities that exist. It acts like those systemic inequities don't exist, have no impact, and should be thought as some type of mythical fairy tale that people are using to, quote, unquote, push DEI down their throats. Joanne Lockwood: Yeah. It's this it's this belief in the the bullshit, if I'm a better phrase, of meritocracy. It's it's calling that out and saying, hang on. Yeah. It's meritocracy only works in this cloud of mist and and mysteriousness. You know? When you when you shine a light on it, you bring equity, you bring sexuality into it. Meritocracy very rarely is what happens. Privilege, biases, stereotypes, beliefs, perspectives, everything clouds the meritocracy. And it's it's it's hard to I was gonna say argue. I didn't mean argue. Dissuade is probably a better way better word. I don't wanna I don't like arguing with people. It's it's hard to share a perspective where people could buy into the vision of of true equity because they always feel and I think you said this. The the the sense has been taken away from them. If I give you something, I lose. Mhmm. And it's trying to get away from that 0 sum game where actually we just create bigger tables. We create more and not not take things away from you. We we amplify people. It's hard to get people to see that, isn't it? It is. Sharitta Marshall: It is very hard to get them to see that. So it's always for me, it's me constantly showing everyone what's what's in it for them. What do they get out of it? Because that's the only way they'll pay attention to the conversation, to be honest with you. If they don't hear what's in it for them, they are not interested in the conversation. Now there are some people that no matter what you say, it doesn't matter. They're just not. They don't care. It's it it is what it is. But definitely being able to show what's in it for them is very key to shifting the balance, so that it's not so many people on 1 side versus the other. I would like nobody to be on the side of anti DEI, anti blackness, but, you know, that's not gonna be the case. But however, we can shift the balance for people to understand that we are all connected Jo matter what people wanna say or think. Everything is a domino effect that happens in the world because we are a global collective society. We are not siloed the way people think that we are. People have the disillusion that geography silos us from what's happening in different parts of the world. And, yes, we would not necessarily feel the physical impacts per se directly, but a lot of it is, again, a domino effect. The things that happen in other countries affect us. They affect us financially. They affect us emotionally. They affect, you know, our ability to, you know, do business in a global economic society. They affect how, you know, we are dealing with climate change. Everything is connected. And once we can understand that as a collective global community, what impacts 1 will eventually impact another. I think that is 1 of the ways that we'll finally get it. But until we get to that point, just showing and connecting the dots so that people understand and get that is liberation for all or liberation for none? Yeah. I mean, you you say that a lot of this is Joanne Lockwood: is a race discrimination, race bias, and and understanding the the challenges of of race. It's very intersectional, don't we? You look at I look at what what I'm seeing, and there's a lot of oppressing of women in in terms of their abortion rights, in terms of being able to succeed in the world. So a lot of it's impacting women, and a lot of it is around LGBTQIA plus people and 2 spirit people as well. It's there's a it's an intersectional lens here, and it it's it's almost like multiple attack vectors on marginalized minority groups to appease majority people with privilege. And I think it's it's it's multifaceted some some of this attack, isn't it? Oh, it's always multifaceted because we Sharitta Marshall: are not monoliths as human beings. When I focus on race, I'm focused on race from a legislation a legislative point here in the US. But it is not just, you know, about race. It's about gender. It's about class. It's about disability. It's it's about all of it. It's about the caste system that exists globally. Everyone is a individual, but they are multifaceted individuals. You have so many different components that make up you as Joanne, just like I have different components that make me up as Sharitta. So 1 attack on 1 component of me may not seem that detrimental, but that 1 impact or that 1 attack attacks me as a whole because it never stops with 1 thing. And I think that's what people don't get. It's never just 1 thing. It's never just gender. It's never just race. It's all of it because it's about the global minority holding, keeping, and controlling what they control and not allowing anyone to see that. That is what we're fighting against. We should not be fighting 1 another. We should be fighting the cap the late stage capitalist control that is killing our planet, that is taking away our liberties as human beings to exist in whatever way, shape, form, or fashion we choose to show up in our lives. And that is the most dangerous thing that we can continue to ignore. How do we make sure Joanne Lockwood: our ERGs or staff networks think intersectionally? Because there's the danger that we we divide our focus. We focus on race. We focus on gender. We focus on sexuality, whatever it may be. If we're not careful, what happens is we we end up having to have a foot in multiple camps because the ERGs are polarized. How do we create intersectional approaches in our organizations and leverage this ERG power intersectionally? How do we how do we do that? Well, 1 of the things that I Sharitta Marshall: always do is let people know that, you know, as a because I was a global ERG leader, but I was the leader of 1 particular ERG, but I was a member of 5 others. So understanding that just because I'm a leader in 1, I'm a member of 5. So what the other 5 are doing, I'm still a part of. I'm just not leading it because I'm leading this 1 over here. It's just like if I was the director of marketing, I'm still working with product, I'm still working with sales, but I'm just leading this over here. It's the same thing. So again, going back to when I said it's a strategic business unit, it is a part of it should be holistically a part of the whole organization because, again, it's making up people that should be in existence in every part of the organization. And if you have an ERG program and you see that you don't have any executives, you don't have any directors, you don't have anybody that is in any of these ERGs, then maybe you need to look at that because they should represent the entire organization. So there should be no silo because your members and your leaders should represent all of your organization. That's the community. That's the holistic making sure that it is organically a part of the organization. And then also having that program where everyone is driving in the same direction. How they get to their goal may be different, but the whole point is that we're all going in the same direction. Event, we're supporting it. We want to make sure if an ERG is is event. We're supporting it. We want to make sure if an ERG is is struggling with membership or they have any impediments, if we're able to help them with that, we support that because we know because we're having meetings and talking to each other. So, again, the ERGs are a holistic part of the organization. So there should be transparency, communication, again, going in the same direction for the goals even if we are on different lanes. So that's how you reduce the silo, and that's how you truly make it not just a strategic business unit, but a community for the betterment of every team member, regardless of if I am a member as an ally or if I'm a member identifying as a member of the group or or if I'm a leader. Yeah. I've worked Joanne Lockwood: with a number of organizations, and you can tell when they're they have strategic importance because ERG start to pull their resources. They they share their budget. They do joint marketing. They put on joint events, and then but I've seen other organizations where there's a a competitive nature, where they don't talk. They they're not crossing over, and then you have to decide which camp you have your foot in, or sometimes you have to sort of swap between them. So, yeah, I think you're right. It's it's completely been with the ERGs being strategic, having seen level sponsorship coordinated, and was was I I was described by having a as a as a network of networks. Mhmm. It's almost like I have a an overarching all the ERG leaders meet together, and so they can they can strategize and and coordinate with their their their their activities amongst each other. I think that's really, really important Jo you don't you don't create these sort of little silos. But the the problem I I always face is is about getting allies into the room. And it's it's the chance of of the echo chamber is not specifically around the ERGs. It's any initiative where we're talking about I don't know. I don't know if you've experienced this from a from a Joanne racism perspective, but I've seen it from a gender perspective and Joanne LGBTQ plus perspective where you you you were in the echo chamber of the people who hold that characteristic. And the people you actually want in the room listening and taking action are the people who are the allies, the people with privilege, the people who are enablers of change. And that's a real challenge of of getting people to be interested in something they're not. How do how do you tackle that? There are a couple of Sharitta Marshall: different ways I do that. 1 of which is making sure that the mission, vision, and goal of the not just the ERG program, but the individual ERGs are available to the entire organization, Making sure that the road map to the goals of the program are available to the organization, and this can be done through, having the program manager or ERG leader talking in all hands and sharing that information or doing a road show throughout the organization to say, hey. This is what we're doing. This is what we're planning. This is how you can support. Having individual ERGs share their language and terminologies so that everybody in organization has access to that. And then having community events where information about the ERGs members, their lived experience is shared. So people get to have access to understand that There is power in storytelling, and there's power in having the ability to share your lived experience from your lived experience Jo that people can have an insight and maybe create empathy around that. But, again, the transparency and the communication is the only way that the allies can really be allies. There can't be, okay, the ERGs exist over here. They're doing stuff. It has to be, hey. You know, here this ERG event coming up with x, y, and z. Here's the ERG celebration calendar that celebrates all things related to, you know, DEI, and that includes accessibility, Hispanic heritage, so on and so forth. So people are aware of what these things are, giving a brief history that can be shared throughout the community, so that people understand what things are. And I believe in doing it from a global perspective because everyone has different lived experience. There is not 1 Black experience for everyone. There is not 1 Black American experience for everyone. So being able to share those different experiences, celebrations is so very important for allies to really understand diverse lived experiences, and then telling them how they can support. I think that is just the easiest and most overlooked thing. Being direct with your allies and say, this is how you can support us. When people don't have to try to figure it out, because a lot of times they won't because they'll be too scared to, when you tell them, hey. This is exactly what we need as this ERG. Not don't go out here and do this for everybody because we're not speaking for everyone. We're just speaking for us. This is what we need from you to support us. It makes it a lot easier for allies to show up and then show up in a way that's best supportive of who they're trying to support. I completely concur that that that should be the Joanne Lockwood: way. But the reality is, you know, we're no matter how much we push and and and talk about this, needle isn't moving that far, is it? It's frustratingly, glacially slow. Sharitta Marshall: It is. That's why I I push to do what I do with so many global organizations because I want that to be the best practice. I want that to be the norm Jo that the needle isn't slowly pushed. The needle starts to just flow downstream. Yeah. I Joanne Lockwood: mean, I'm with you. I'm with you completely. And, yeah, it's it's frustrating, though, isn't it? As a as a DEI practitioner, as someone who has worked in the organization because no matter how much we want it to be a business priority, somehow it's never quite on the list. You know? They'll invest organization often invest in leadership development training, but they often forget to mention around the inclusive leadership development training. They talk about others other skills, or they'll they'll be more focused on sales or business development or growth or or organizational development, not around those well-being and DEI initiatives. And it's it's frustrating sometimes to see whether the budget is being spent. But does do do you think that DEI has a tangible ROI that the business understands? If if they understood the ROI or or it's it's all badly implemented. Well, they can if we Sharitta Marshall: show them. If we come from the perspective of, okay. According to Gallup poll, you are going to spend between 1.5 to 2 times your salary each year for every overhead turn. So how much how many overhead turns have you had in this past quarter? Okay. It's been, you know, let's say, 200. Okay. So it's cost you $2, 000, 000 this past quarter in your overturn. What has been your exit interview information? Oh, you haven't done that. So you don't even know why people are leaving. So you're just so you're okay with spending this this $2, 000, 000. Let's just say you're spending this $2, 000, 000 every quarter. So at the end of the quarter, you know, you have this you have this 8, 000, 000 in in overturn. Is this to the percent of churn your employee churn? Is is this this acceptable amount? Okay. So this is acceptable amount. Were you looking to save costs at any point in time this year? Yes. How are you gonna do that? You're gonna lay off. Okay. So you have a cost of $2, 000, 000 for people leaving, but you think laying off people is gonna save you the money. How much money is the layoff gonna save you? It's gonna save you 6, 000, 000. Okay. This layoff is gonna save you 6, 000, 000, but it's costing you 8, 000, 000 in in your employee turn. How about you switch the focus from lays off laying off to seeing why people leave or how you can keep people? Are employees engaged? Have you done an employee? It's it's really coming down to the quantifiables because when you can have those conversations, people take it a lot more seriously versus if we continue to say, you know, hey. This should be done, and diversity is important because it does lead to innovation and growth. Yeah. It does. We again, to your point, McKinsey, Harvard, they have all this documentation. They but people don't really care when it's not directly tied to them. It's not directly tied to their budget at the end of the year or the sales growth they're supposed to have or their ARR. You have to make it very tangible for these organizations, and then that's when they are more than likely, not all the time, but more than likely to take it a lot more seriously and be willing to redirect funding resources and support. Yeah. I think you're right. I think it it Joanne Lockwood: it's we have Jo I think what we need to do is we need to start driving home the ROI, driving home the the business benefit. As you say, the, the MTC cost, the the onboarding cost, the the hiring cost, all these things are tangible cost to a business where you start to understand the impact of poor poor employee experience, high turnover, low discretionary effort, low cyclical safety in organizations. So, yeah, it it's a lot of this is is is sort of seen as the soft stuff, which a lot of people aren't managing and and focusing on. I think if we start to drive the costs, the true cost of these in our business, then we start to understand them. And then we're gonna move on to something about it. But at the moment, they're kind of they're they're they're sort of hidden costs as such. Mhmm. Yeah. Businesses have a have a a prediction of churn. They have a prediction of rehiring. They have a prediction of on onboarding. And they don't actually think, well, actually, if we could reduce that by 5%, that that huge impact it would have. So, yeah, I think it's around getting the accountants more focused. Maybe we need to start and I and I'm I hate saying is it has you know, the business case has to be in there somewhere, and I'm I'm a I'm a big I'm reluctant to talk about a business case because I think you should your people strategy should be around just around a business case. But I think sometimes in order to make it sustainable and sticky and embedded, we have to start measuring the benefit of it beyond just just people's experience. And I think that's where we're starting to see true benefit as as you say, as per the Harvard Business Review, as per Forbes, publishing articles all the time, as per McKinsey, other, etcetera, organization. So, yeah, it that's the challenge we have is to try and leverage hard dollars, if you like Yeah. To drive the case. Yeah. So I I hear so many Sharitta Marshall: people. I see so many people that say that same sentiment. Like, there shouldn't be a business case and we shouldn't, you know, have to, you know, make the human experience a business case. But we're dealing with capitalism. Like, capitalism is gonna capitalize capital c and capital m all the time. It does not care about the human experience. It does not care if people are traumatized in order for it to exist. It doesn't care. What it cares about is, is it making the money it wants to make? Is it holding the power it wants to hold? And we have to understand that realistically and deal with it in the best way possible. Otherwise, we're still gonna be in the same position. Because if a business case that wasn't focused around the economics of DEI was powerful and was impactful, we would not be in the situation we're in. Yeah. I'm I'm pretty sure if, Joanne Lockwood: people at Hold Privilege suddenly found that they were making more money by doing this. They they sure they sure as heck would, I'm sure. I'm sure. So what's your vision, you know, of the future? Where where's where's the world going? You know, we're living in a a world of change, and people say, how far have you come? I said, well, if you look over your shoulder, we've come a long way in the last 40, 50, 60, 100 years. But the journey's still infinite in front of us and that's what do you think what's your vision? What's what's gonna happen? Are we are we gonna finally get people to go, oh, yeah. It is a good idea, or are we gonna still be fighting this for years to come? I do believe we're gonna be fighting this Sharitta Marshall: for years to come. I think it's gonna get to the point where when late stage capitalism is no longer in the position to sustain itself, when it has completely worn out the the working class and it can't continue to propagate and expand upon itself, that that's when very widespread impactful change will happen. Until then, we have to keep up the fight and keep pushing for, you know, what's right in a way that aligns and can be heard from an organizational standpoint, even higher education. We just have to keep fighting the fight for those that are having the lived experiences that they're having. I know for me, I'm gonna fight this until I can't fight it anymore because it's it's the long game. I wish it was a short 1, but it is the long game. It's not like we haven't been fighting this for 100 of years, so I don't foresee it changing in the next 5. But I just think that how we fight it, how we approach it definitely does need to change. Our mindset around it, our commitment to it, and our ability to, 1, understand that there are gonna be consequences, good or bad, for the decisions we make to push DEI and change. Some of those consequences are going to be us being able to make some change. Some of those consequences are we might be impacted negatively financially because of our stance. But for me, it's, you know, it's either you go all in or you don't. And there's no right or wrong about it. If it's something that, you know, is going to be mentally, emotionally, physically detrimental to you, then don't. But, you know, if you can stay the course for however long you can stay the course, there are too many people with us and behind us for us to just give up. But Tuesday, 5th November Joanne Lockwood: 2024 is, US election date. The next 5 years could be hard or harder, I guess. Does it impact the work you're doing? Who sat in the big chair? It definitely will impact Sharitta Marshall: what I do. And whoever ends up in that chair, it might require me to pivot even further than what I'm doing and do something else entirely, but the basis of what I do is still gonna fight for the liberation of all. That's just my purpose in life. It's liberation for all, liberation for none. So regardless if I'm doing it in the particular business structure that I'm doing it right now, that will be something I will continue to do no matter who's in the chair. Sharitta, I wish you Joanne Lockwood: well, most sincerely, to keep fighting the good fight, to keep doing what you do, to keep that strength, and to and to be on the right side of history, to keep knowing that. I think that's the important thing. So how Joanne, people get a hold of you if they wanna find out more? People can get Sharitta Marshall: a hold of me on LinkedIn, Sharitta Marshall. You can follow me there or connect with me there. Please feel free to DM me if you would like to connect via meeting, and then you can also email me at info@VisionaryDevelopmentIn.com, and visit my website https://visionarydevelopmentinc.com. I look forward to supporting everyone in their endeavors to make sure that everyone feels seen, heard, and valued. Thank you so Joanne Lockwood: much. Thank you. As we bring this conversation to a close, I want to express my deepest gratitude to you, our listener, for lending your ear and heart to the cause of inclusion. Today's discussion struck a chord. Consider subscribing to Inclusion Bites and become part of our ever growing community, driving real change. Share this journey with friends, family, and colleagues. Let's amplify the voices that matter. Got thoughts, stories, or a vision to share? I'm all ears. Reach out to jo.lockwood@seechangehappen.co.uk, and let's make your voice heard. Until next time. This is Joanne Lockwood signing off with a promise to return with more enriching narratives that challenge, inspire, and unite us all. Here's to fostering a more inclusive world 1 episode at a time. Catch you on the next bite.