By Poonam Garg, Vice President, U.S. Bank

It creates an unhealthy workplace, when senior executives stymie product and service development, creativity, and innovation because they engage in the “blame game.” Pointing fingers at individuals for making mistakes, fosters negativity and creates an environment in which team members either refuse to admit their failures or deny them when confronted. It also leads to exclusion and marginalization of colleagues. The outcome is lower job satisfaction and higher turnover, both of which have a negative impact on performance. The only way to build a healthy culture within an organization, where everybody learns to support each other, is to put an end to the blame game.

As an Indian living in America and a woman engineer (a profession still dominated by men), I’ve experienced first-hand the blame-game culture. Here are two examples. Earlier in my career, my team delivered a project to a client on time and saved the employer money. The boss sent out an email saying kudos to everyone on their work.

The next day the client discovered some features weren’t working as expected. Suddenly, the boss contradicted himself from the day before, and the team was dragged into a post-mortem meeting, where everyone simply pointed fingers, trying to determine who was responsible for the errors.

In a second example, I was assigned to work with three senior lead engineers, all males, who were already friends. When they found mistakes in things, they blamed me. It felt like they were trying to showcase their bond and prove that I didn’t fit in. I was disappointed and disheartened, and realized that I did not want to work in that environment for long.

The reality is that when management or others blame individuals for errors on one occasion, the same individuals quickly become the go-to scapegoats for any future problems. As a result, they are afraid to volunteer for stretch assignments or more complicated tasks. They become passive and hesitant to take the initiative, lest they are blamed yet again. Instead, they wait to be assigned a task, which is usually something that doesn’t challenge or motivate them.

Diversity and inclusion in technology roles

The blame game not only comes from a management style, but also from a lack of awareness of and belief in the value of diversity and inclusion in the workforce—especially in technology roles. I have observed many people like me, who are very much part of the culture and workplace teams in our home countries, but are incorrectly regarded as lacking the skillsets needed for the job in the United States. As a result, some coworkers tend to underutilize us and assign us menial and low-profile tasks.

The reality is that women are important in the tech industry. The more we embrace technology and discover solutions to tech problems, the more we can help solve societal problems, because societal problems are far more complex than technology.

How to break the blame-game cycle

Fortunately, now as a senior engineer in an executive role at a major banking corporation, I am in a position to eradicate the blame game. However, it’s taken me more than 12 years of hard work to get here. In my current role, I strive to foster a more collaborative work environment. I have made it my mission to create a healthy, supportive culture. I tell my team members it’s okay to admit they don’t have the answers to all the problems. Mistakes are learning opportunities. I tell them we are all human. Even me! That openness and honesty is what allows us to come together and solve problems using a wholistic approach.

Erasing the blame game from a corporate culture is not going to happen overnight, but here are the steps I practice:

1. Define the problem as a whole. Then look for the place where the process broke down. Don’t ask, “Who built this feature?” Rather, ask, “Why is this feature not working?” Come from a place of kindness.
2. Set up ground rules for positive, productive team discussions. I explain that I’m not looking to assign blame and that finger-pointing is forbidden.
3. Focus on productive dialogue. Eliminate accusatory or negative language. Use fair criticism that is respectful and offers constructive feedback. Avoid unfair criticism that takes on a harsh, accusatory tone.
4. Talk about what can be learned from the problem.
5. Discuss how the team can avoid repeating the problem.

It takes a village

I believe we can eliminate the blame game. As an executive, it’s about being persistent and honest in your work. If you share your problems with your team and ask them to help you solve them, you will learn more and experience greater success. By working to halt the blame game culture, each of us can commit to doing whatever it takes to build a healthy workplace that runs on mutual respect, engagement, loyalty, and productivity.

This article is solely the opinion of the author and is no way connected to her current place of employment.

By Esther H. Lim

A phone call changed my life.

Six months shy of becoming a teen, I immigrated with my family to the United States—poor and not speaking a word of English. Strangers in a strange land. Four days after our arrival, my father enrolled his four children in public schools in rural Maryland. Middle school can be hard. For me, it was frightening. As the only Asian at the school, I felt isolated and afraid. The stares, the taunts, the gestures—none of them required translation.

A month later, shortly before summer break, my science teacher, Mrs. Jean Herbert, phoned my father to make sure I’d be learning English over the summer. Upon discovering that we had neither plans nor means, Mrs. Herbert opened her heart and home to teach me, my three siblings, and my mother English— a subject she had never taught—without charging a penny.

Mentoring matters. With her teaching, mentoring, and encouragement that summer—as well as in successive summers—I not only survived but thrived academically. I graduated at the top of my high school class. Mrs. Herbert would be the first of many angels in America whose mentoring empowered me—to acquire knowledge, to develop skill sets, to try new things, to reach for opportunity. Most of all, to dare to dream.

The generosity I benefited from has motivated me to pay it forward. My lived experiences have informed my thinking and approach to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion as a partner and the firm’s first chief diversity and inclusion officer. When I work with first-generation lawyers at Finnegan or teach first-generation law students at Howard University School of Law, I appreciate that they’ve overcome much to be where they are. I also recognize they’ll encounter difficulties as they grow and succeed professionally.

Two key ingredients of success are good assignments on your desk and good mentors on your side. Too often, diverse attorneys face additional challenges, including unconscious bias, as they attempt to find good assignments and good mentors. Having a culture of inclusion—and working to build on that culture—is critical. Fostering a sense of belonging and valuing diverse perspectives allow us to both retain top legal talent and to deliver top legal services. And as lawyers, we have a professional responsibility not just to serve our clients, but also to help those in need, especially those from underrepresented communities.

That can start with a phone call. Check in. Do lunch. Work together. It can make someone’s day—and possibly the person’s career.

By Dr. Thomas J. Bussen

“There are truths on this side of the Pyrenees which are falsehoods on the other.”

– Philosopher Michel de Montaigne, 16th centuryⁱ

This article summarizes the inner and outer layers of culture. It emphasizes—through a lighthearted reference to Shrek—that through attention to the visible outer layers of a culture, one may learn invaluable lessons about the deeply held attitudes and beliefs of a society. Empirically grounded, this article nonetheless presents concepts of culture—often an ambiguously defined term—in concise, clear, and friendly terms, with easy actions items for readers.

Edward B. Tylor wrote in 1871, “Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by [humankind] as a member of society.” Or, as another put it more simply, “Culture is the way we do things here.”ⁱⁱ

As articulated famously by the lovable ogre Shrek, ogres have layers, onions have layers, and, we would argue, so too does culture.ⁱⁱⁱ The outer layers tend to be observable objects, such as the food, dress, and music of a society. The typical tourist to Paris or Rome rarely ventures deeper than this outer layer. The expression, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” usually means nothing more than try the wine or eat the gelato.

But at the inner levels of this onion, we have a more immovable culture, characterized by deeply held attitudes, beliefs, norms, and morals. Geert Hofstede refers to this inner level as a place of “mental programming,” a phrase that signals the deeply embedded nature of culturally infused attitudes and beliefs. Consequently, the inner layer is not simply the root of culture, it is the basis of misunderstanding and conflict between peoples, who may each view their own culturally infused attitudes and beliefs as universal truth.

The inner levels and outer levels are, however, linked rather than distinct. Often, the outer layers signal changes that are happening or poised to happen at the inner levels. For instance, Russian men of the former Soviet Union began wearing Levi’s jeans—thereby changing the visible outer layer—to signal their solidarity with the liberal values of the western world, which represented the inner layer. Similarly, the inevitability of a northern European waiting patiently for the signal at an empty street crossing emphasizes a respect for rules and laws that exceeds much the rest of the Western world.

Sometimes, the outer layer anticipates changes to the inner layers, such as when women adopt more liberal attire, while gender equity remains merely aspirational. This gap, termed a “culture” lag, helps explain the antagonism that those resistant to societal change express towards outer-level changes, which may appear to the rest of us as little more than window dressing. Why get angry about the young men of yesteryear wearing their hair longer or with rather more extravagance than the ever-popular buzz cut style? Perhaps that hair cut signals deeper changes—to gender norms, to sexual mores. And what causes the outcry toward women who don’t take their husband’s surname? Perhaps weaker family bonds are on the horizon, the unstated subtext goes.

While this may seem much ado about nothing, governments and patriotic citizens from China to Iran and France recognize (and fear) that changes to outer cultural values may signal changes to inner ones. Many French people resisted Disney’s entry into France, not so upset about the dancing Disney characters, but rather fearing a subtle weakening of French culture before the American cultural behemoth.

Meanwhile, The Economist reports that China’s government is seeking to become a “socialist culture superpower”^iv by explicitly using the outer layers of the onion to impact core, inner values. It is, for instance, putting limits on the number of foreign children’s books allowed into the country, deemphasizing pop stars, and decrying the “feminine” appearance of local celebrities, while airing classical poetry quiz shows and holding children’s competitions in writing complex Chinese characters.^v

These countries understand that the outer, visible layers of a culture are not gratuitous. Instead, they can often provide us with insight into a people’s very attitudes and beliefs. To begin to understand a culture at a deeper level than the average tourist or businessperson, observe closely those visible outer layers. In those layers, lies a multitude.

By Eleanor Goichman Brett, consultant and trainer at global diversity and inclusion training consultancy PDT Global, part of Affirmity

All organizations now recognize that diversity and inclusion (D&I) are key to their success as a business. And yet many companies are still not making the progress they would like. D&I should be approached just like any other business issue or activity—using a data-driven strategy that creates specific and measurable outcomes. Here are some practical ways to ensure your D&I strategy is set up for success:

1. Collect Diversity Data

The first step in having a data-driven D&I plan is, of course, collecting the data. But there’s much more to it than that. You need a culture where people are willing to share their diversity data and trust what you’ll do with it. That means you can’t just ask people for their diversity data out of the blue. You need to make your people believe that you really care about not just diversity, but also inclusion. This takes continuous effort and communication, and it doesn’t happen overnight. As with any culture change, it’s a journey.

You also need to collect the right data. Too many organizations only measure and focus on narrow ranges of diversity—for example, just gender and ethnicity. The aim should be to understand whether you are reflective of the communities you serve, and the data collected should be in line with those communities.

2. Collect Inclusion Data Too

Inclusion data is just as important as diversity data. Inclusion data tells you how people feel within your organization—whether they feel they belong, and are understood and listened to. It also gives you valuable data about specific aspects of your organizational practices, such as how inclusive your communications or learning programs are. However, inclusion data is useless if you can’t analyze it by diversity group. For example, 85 percent of your people may tell you that they feel your communications are inclusive and accessible, but if the remaining 15 percent are all disabled employees, then you have a problem.

3. Use the Right Benchmarks

Understandably, many organizations wish to benchmark themselves against their industry or direct competitors. But those who do should be cautious about using industry benchmarks as targets. Your real benchmarks and targets are found in the diversity of the community you serve. And using industry data can put you at risk of decreasing motivation for change if the industry as a whole is doing poorly.

4. Analyze Your Data to Understand What Your Drivers Are

To understand what’s driving your diversity data, and what you can do about it, you need to cross-reference your people data by diversity. For example, your recruitment, promotion, attrition, absence, and any other people data you can get your hands on! This enables you to create a meaningful and targeted action plan that addresses your unique barriers to diversity. It will highlight, for example, if there is a problem with the way you assess and promote talent, or if your marketing approach is not appealing to or reaching diverse communities. Or there might be something in your processes that is turning people away.

You can also stop wasting valuable resources on solutions to problems that you don’t have. For example, many organizations prioritize anonymizing their recruitment process. This is important and is a great way of reducing bias in your process. However, it is often a resource-heavy activity that shouldn’t necessarily be a priority unless your diversity data is clearly showing that you have a problem. By collecting diversity data in your recruitment process, you can find out if diverse applicants are not getting through your sifting process to interview—or whether you’re actually just not seeing a diversity of applications in the first place. In which case, your valuable resources can be spent on changing where you advertise, and ensuring that you have inclusive adverts and job descriptions.

5. Regularly Measure the Results of Targeted Activity

By using data to create specific D&I plans for your organization, you’ll also have a robust way of measuring the success of your actions. For example, if you identified that many LGBTQ+ people were leaving your organization after taking parental leave, you may have implemented a new parental leave policy that is more LGBTQ+ inclusive. But if you find that this does not increase your retention data, then you’ll be able to explore other causes and actions.

Data-driven D&I plans allow strategic and measurable actions that are more likely to produce results. There is also another benefit—some D&I plans can be undermined by people’s lack of recognition of the problem. Many of these doubts come not from a place of negative intent, but from an inability to see.

Those who are not on the receiving end of discrimination have the luxury of not being able to recognize it. But, when faced with evidence, numbers, and facts that clearly demonstrate that injustice exists in our culture and systems, it can’t be denied. And only then can we create a culture where people recognize that the problem does exist—and what our parts may be in both the problem and the solution.

By Peter Trevor Wilson

One of the most frequently asked questions since the publication of my last book is regarding the origins of the phrase human equity. Where did it come from? The truth is that human equity started with a slip of the tongue in South Africa almost two decades ago in a speech by the late, great Reverend Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

The Arch was giving a speech on employment equity, the legislated equal opportunity program used in Canada and South Africa to help women, people of color, people with disabilities, and indigenous communities. Early in the speech Tutu mistakenly used the term “human equity” instead of “employment equity.” He quickly corrected himself and barely noticed the mistake. But a quiet voice whispered to me “human equity is a thing. Tutu doesn’t know it and you don’t know it but if you stay with it, you will find out what it is.” The only thing the little voice did not say was, “By the way, it will take more than a decade to figure it out.”

When my human equity book was finally finished in 2013, Tutu generously offered to provide a foreward. We saved the foreward he provided for the South Africa version of the book, so it was never published. However, it was very powerful. He pointed out that South Africa had lost ground under Apartheid and as such, had to redouble efforts to build a nation by optimizing on all available talent. In other words, post-apartheid South Africa had to practice human equity.

Tutu pointed out that, not unlike the goal of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the human equity book provided a prescription for moving forward in establishing a viable alternative to the notion of “turning the tables.” (i.e., “You had your turn white man, and now it’s our turn”). He stated that if one agrees that a country must be able to compete on a global scale, it follows that that country must respect, appreciate, and utilize all of its human capital. Tutu also pointed out that South Africa needed a system that was inclusive of those who were its previous beneficiaries (i.e., the white population). No easy task.

Tutu’s never-published foreward describes what happens when the diversity that increasingly marks our societies, intersects with the requirements for succeeding in a world whose marketplace is increasingly without borders. He pointed out that human equity goes beyond superficial differences like gender and race to look at the full range of talent, skill, and intangible strengths of all individuals. He pointed out that human equity meant removing the overt and systemic barriers to talent optimization. He believed that this would allow the new South Africa to leverage the contributions of all skilled, talented, and educated citizens—a fundamental precondition for global success.

Tutu added something else to the human equity puzzle—something priceless, for which I will be forever indebted to him. He intuitively recognized that in order to practice human equity there needs to be an acknowledgement of our basic human frailties. He showed that, like the TRC, human equity must be based on the ancient, brilliant African tradition of ubuntu—the spirit of forgiveness. Ubuntu provided the spiritual foundation for the work of the TRC, which could now be used by human equity.

As Tutu said in his own book, No Future Without Forgiveness, “If someone steals my pen and asks for forgiveness, I can choose to do so. But unless he returns my pen, I remain unable to write.” Tutu believed that human equity could provide the pen to construct a tangible roadmap for achieving inclusion for all, including all the great minds wasted under Apartheid.

I am forever grateful to you, Arch, for your great wisdom, inspiration, and guidance.

The 2nd Annual Latino Leaders Worth Watching^™ Awards
PDJ Salutes our Second Class of Latino Leaders
Worth Watching^™ Award Winners

For more than two decades Profiles in Diversity Journal has honored outstanding individuals who have blazed new trails, welcomed challenges, mentored others, advanced diversity and inclusion in the workplace and the community, and excelled in their chosen fields. Now, PDJ is honoring Latino Leaders with our second Latino Leaders Worth Watching Awards.

The 31 profiles that appear in this issue recognize and celebrate the hard work and impressive achievements of these Latino Leaders. Each award recipient has also provided us with the answers to some interesting questions and an essay that will give you, our readers, a chance to get to know these multitalented, multilingual, and trailblazing individuals a little better.

Welcome to PDJ’s second annual Latino Leaders Worth Watching Awards.

2022 Latino Leaders Worth Watching^™ Award Winners

• Advanced Micro Devices – Daniel Chavez – Senior Director, Supply Chain
• Advanced Micro Devices – Sofia McDaniel – Global Consumer Marketing Director
• Advanced Micro Devices – Rhonda Medlin – Senior Manager, Information Technology
• Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP – Jose Borjon – Senior Policy Advisor
• Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP – Marissa Román Griffith – Partner
• American Battery Technology Company – Andrés Meza – Chief Operations Officer
• Best Best & Krieger LLP – Alisha M. Winterswyk – Partner
• Co/LAB Lending – Andres J. Munar – Broker/Owner
• Dechert LLP – Mauricio A. España – Partner
• Dickinson Wright PLLC – Cindy A. Villanueva – Of Counsel
• Entergy New Orleans – Deanna Rodriguez – President & CEO
• Freddie Mac – Mario Garcia – Director–Loan Servicing; Investor Reporting; Single-family Operations
• Freddie Mac – Luis Villavicencio – Director, Multifamily Finance
• Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP – Olga Lucia Fuentes – Founding Partner, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP
• HARMAN – Rodrigo Rihl Kniest – South America Senior Vice President, HARMAN Brazil
• HARMAN – Veronica Morales – Senior Director of Operations & Site Leader for Juarez and El Paso, Texas, Operations
• Jones Walker LLP – Monique Garcia – Partner
• Latham & Watkins – Roderick O. Branch – Deputy Office Managing Partner of firm’s Chicago office
• Latham & Watkins – Elizabeth Deeley – Partner and Global Vice Chair of the Complex Commercial Litigation Practice
• Lincoln Financial Group – Vivian Y. Adams – Assistant Vice President, Underwriting Training & Audit
• Moss Adams LLP – Pedro A. Gonzalez – Assurance Partner, Dallas Office Assurance Leader–Central Region Energy Industry Group Leader
• National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Community Development Fund, Inc. – Marisa Calderon – Executive Director, CDFI; Chief of Community Finance & Mobility, NCRC
• New American Funding – Patty Arvielo – Co-Founder and President
• New York Life – Victor Verastegui – Vice President–NYL Direct Head of Insurance Operations
• Sanford Heisler Sharp – Felicia Gilbert – Managing Partner, San Francisco Office
• Study.com – Adrian Ridner – CEO and Co-Founder
• Ulmer & Berne LLP – Dolores (Lola) Garcia – Partner; Vice Group Leader, Business Litigation
• Venable LLP – Belinda Martinez Vega – Partner; Co-Chair of Venable’s West Coast Litigation Group
• Washington Capital Partners – Daniel Huertas – CEO
• Withum – Christina J. Barea – Business Development Executive
• Zynga Inc. – Claudia Sanchez Wilson – Vice President, Legal

By Dr. Thomas J. Bussen

You made it: it’s Friday afternoon. You’re sitting down for happy hour with your friends from work. You look over the beer menu and order last. How likely is it that you allow your friends’ orders to determine your eventual order? For most of us, there’s a pretty good chance that that is just what would happen. But exactly how your friends’ choices affect your beer choice depends on whether you’re more of an individualist or a collectivist. And this, in turn, has important implications for optimal decision-making in the workplace.

Scholar Dan Ariely traveled to a popular brewery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, approached a table of customers, and offered each of them the choice of one of four types of beer for free. Ariely was not being generous; he was conducting a study.

The name and full description of each beer was provided.ⁱ In return, the lucky customers simply had to fill out a short survey documenting how much they’d enjoyed the beer and whether they regretted their decision. Naturally, he had little trouble finding takers, and by the end of the day he’d visited 100 tables, while running up a bill of $1,400.ⁱⁱ

Ariely was surprised to notice a trend, which the data confirmed: once one type of beer was chosen by a member of a table, it was less likely to be chosen by another member of the table. This seemed illogical, to say the least. After all, a beer is no less tasty just because your table mate is drinking it. The survey results showed that the first person to order was typically the most satisfied with her choice, suggesting that subsequent people were making choices based on the choices of their tablemates, and that they were left less satisfied.ⁱⁱⁱ

The Need for Uniqueness

What was going on? Ariely changed the conditions to find out. He asked the next set of customers not to verbally voice their preferred beer, as in the first sample, but instead to write down their preferences on a small menu and keep their decisions private until the rest of the table had ordered.^iv Again, they received their beers and filled out the satisfaction survey.^v This changed everything. Now, uninfluenced by the choices of their table mates, more people ordered the same one or two kinds of beer, and satisfaction was higher.^vi

What Ariely discovered through this experiment was that when people ordered aloud, they were making decisions not based on their actual preferences. Instead, the order was used to signal to the rest of the group that they were unique, autonomous beings.^vii The more someone had this “need for uniqueness,” the more likely he or she was to order something different from the rest of the group.^viii They did this regardless of their actual preferences, and in fact, this diminished their satisfaction.

It was, in short, about ego, about avoiding the horror of (gasp) conformity. It is not a reach to extend this behavior to business environments, suggesting that at times colleagues may simply disagree in order to distinguish themselves.

The Hong Kong Angle: Collectivist Preferences Revealed

But there’s more to this story. American undergraduate students are consistently rated more individualistic than the average American adult—this, in a society which is already one of the most individualistic on Earth. We can think of individualism as the degree to which one is responsible, first and foremost, for looking after oneself and one’s immediate family. One’s opinions, beliefs, and values need not be shared with the rest of one’s family, and, if the typical American Thanksgiving table is any indication, opinions, beliefs, and values often are not shared by all members of the family.

In collectivist societies, by contrast, ties are further reaching and may include immediate and extended family; friends; and in some cases, one’s community, ethnic group, or religious family (collectively referred to hereafter as one’s “in-group”).^ix

Did individualism explain the ego-enhancing decisions of the beer drinking students? Ariely provided the answer to this question through a study with Hong Kong undergraduate students.

These students came from a relatively collectivist culture, though slightly less so than those from less prosperous, less politically-open, mainland China. Here, he found the opposite occurred: when ordering verbally, students didn’t order differently from their table mates in order to stand apart; rather, they ordered more similarly in order to stand together!^x They behaviorally showed their collectivist rather than individualist colors.

Once Ariely asked students to write their preferences in private, there was more variance in the types of beer ordered than when they ordered orally. Recall that in America exactly the opposite occurred.

But there was one similarity between American and Hong Kong students: in both cases, the students made decisions that left them less satisfied when they were aware of the decisions of their table mates,^xi and they did it on the basis of their relative preferences to be seen as independent or part of the group, respectively.

We can surmise from this study that Americans’ willingness to celebrate their uniqueness may make group work difficult, and may create decisional conflicts which are, ultimately, more about ego than actual differences. But in collectivist societies, where being the nail sticking up is to be avoided, lest you be hammered down, a conformity bias may pose its own problems.^xii

The results suggest that for opposite reasons, group decisions are better made independently—at least initially—through anonymous polling or individualized interactions, avoiding the relevant bias of either collectivists or individualists.

The 14th Annual Diversity Leader Awards
PDJ Celebrates the Creativity and Commitment of this Year’s Diversity Leader Award Recipients

Every year, since PDJ began celebrating organizations and individual Diversity Leaders who are committed to taking diversity to the next level, we have been impressed and encouraged by their commitment, their intelligence, and their creativity.

The Diversity Leaders we recognize in the following pages are reaching out, locally and globally, to embrace an ever-expanding variety of employees, vendors, clients, and communities. Diversity, inclusion, and equity are central to everything they do. For many, who at one time or another have felt excluded or ignored because they belonged to a particular gender, or ethnic or cultural group, making diversity a reality is a personal imperative.

This year’s Award recipients are working to connect with a more diverse group of potential hires, reaching out to women- and minority-owned vendors, supporting their communities, and teaching company leaders and hiring managers to recognize and confront their own unconscious biases. Most important, they are cultivating workplaces that invite all employees to bring their authentic selves to work every day.

We invite you to get to know these extraordinary Diversity Leaders. You may discover ideas and strategies that you can use to help drive your own organization along the diversity highway. And we know you’ll be inspired by their insights, their enthusiasm, and their inspiring personal stories.

2022 Diversity Leader Award Winners

• Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), York Region & South Simcoe – Rebecca Shields – CEO
• Credera – Nickoria Johnson – Chief Diversity Officer & Partner
• Davis Wright Tremaine LLP – Yusuf Z. Zakir – Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer
• Dechert LLP – Satra Sampson-Arokium – Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer
• Greenberg Traurig, LLP – Nikki Lewis Simon – Litigation Shareholder and Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer
• JAMS – Mark Smalls – Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer and Chair of the JAMS Diversity Committee
• Kelley Kronenberg – Harsh Arora – Partner; Co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee
• Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP – Katerina Taylor – Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• New American Funding – Patty Arvielo – Co-Founder & President
• Pitney Bowes – Sheryl Battles – Vice President–Global Diversity, Inclusion, and Engagement

Rebecca Shields
CEO

Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), York Region & South Simcoe
Headquarters: Newmarket, Ontario, Canada
Industry: Community Mental Health & Addictions
CEO: Rebecca Shields
Website: www.cmha-yr.on.ca

Her Credentials: Bachelor of Science, University of British Columbia

In 2021, CMHA’s DEI efforts focused on health equity, as well as a safe and inclusive workplace. From our cultural competency strategy, we moved into focused work around anti-racism and anti-oppression. All staff members were required to attend a 12-hour course provided by the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion. Additional training was required to provide culturally safe care for 2SLGTBQ+ individuals and ensure Indigenous cultural safety and an understanding of the impacts of colonialism.

We conducted antiracism and campaigns and events such as #STOPTHEHATE and inclusion activities such as Pride, Chinese New Year, Nowruz and many other celebrations. Throughout the year, we focused our newsletter, social media, and internal communications on diversity and equity.

In 2022, CMHA will continue to focus on health equity. The pandemic has disproportionately affected racialized communities. Thus, additional training and outreach to serve those most in need requires a culturally competent and safe approach. We are increasing recruitment of language specific providers, building partnerships with cultural communities and providers, and enhancing training to our clinical team.

We have also scheduled board-specific DEI training. It is also our goal to relaunch our internal demographics survey to better understand our board, staff, and volunteer complement, and set new targets to ensure we represent the communities we serve.

Nickoria Johnson
Chief Diversity Officer & Partner

Credera
Headquarters: Addison, Texas
Industry: Professional Services/Consulting
CEO: Justin Bell
Website: www.credera.com

Her Credentials: BBA, management/ computer science, Benedictine University; studied at Howard University; Diversity & Inclusion Certificate, Cornell University

Her Philosophy: DE&I must be woven into the very nature of our daily activities, core to our company’s DNA and strategy, and etched into the hearts and minds of our people.

In 2021, Credera invested in new channels and methods for recruiting diverse talent, including ROMBA, NCRF, NSBE, SHEP, Black is Tech, and BUiLT; added three additional HBCUs to our campus recruiting portfolio; and redesigned our hiring process to improve data collection of EEOC/ diversity responses. We updated our performance management framework to include DE&I; analyzed DE&I data for hot spots; launched the Credera Veteran’s Network; and hosted listening sessions and Credera Listens panel discussions. We also published our first annual DEI&W Report; instituted bias training for everyone involved in recruiting and hiring; and offered 10 instructor-led sessions to build awareness regarding gender identity, race, and bias.

By 2023, Credera plans to Increase female and underrepresented ethnic group workforce representation to 35 percent, especially at senior and executive levels; ensure that employee representation reflects community demographics; publish our second annual Global DEI&W report; maintain global alignment via quarterly Global DEIW Forums and collaboration within our ERGs; and attend 10 or more DE&I recruiting events. We will launch a DE&I-specific quarterly survey to assess engagement and improve reporting; launch mental and physical wellness groups; create Dis(Ability) and Interfaith ERGs; and develop a supplier-diversity program. Credera will also establish a CDO forum to connect with other CDOs; develop additional cultural videos and a DE&I-focused podcast series; produce an inclusive leadership toolkit and training content; and pursue DE&I professional certifications for OCDO team members.