Ep.5: Hard World, Hard Work
Remember, you can always listen here or follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Either way, thanks for supporting us.
About this episode. The role (and importance) of organizational culture seems to be well understood—in driving business performance, attracting and retaining the best talent, and as a force-field protecting against unethical decision-making and other forms of misconduct. But does all the talk live up to the hype, especially in anxious times?
In this episode of The Better Way? podcast, Zach and Hui start a conversation about what we mean by “organizational culture”; the importance of knowing who you are and what you value; and why words, slogans, or marketing alone will never successfully shape culture. They also discuss the challenges organizations face during anxious times; and how an organization’s response can either reinforce—or undermine—it’s stated values.
Who? Zach Coseglia + Hui Chen, CDE Advisors
Full Transcript:
ZACH: Welcome back to the Better Way Podcast brought to you by CDE Advisors. Culture. Data. Ethics. This is a curiosity podcast for those who ask, “There has to be a better way, right? There just has to be.” I'm Zach Coseglia, and I am joined as always by the one and only, she who needs no introduction: Hui Chen. Hi, Hui.
HUI: Hi, Zach. Hello, everyone. It's always good to be back on the podcast and having fun and interesting and simulating conversations.
ZACH: Absolutely. So, we're gonna talk about culture today, Hui. It is the C in CDE, so it seems only right. And I thought I'd start by sort of framing things for our listeners today, 'cause, we've given this a lot of thought in advance. And I want to frame it by saying, first of all, that the role and importance of organizational culture seems to be pretty well understood. I don't feel like we need to convince folks of that, anymore—that it is important and meaningful in driving business performance; in attracting and retaining the best talent; and as a kind of force field protecting against unethical decision making and other forms of misconduct. But what I'm wondering, I think what we're wondering, is whether the hype is outpacing meaningful action, especially in anxious times. And I think it's fair to say—it might be an understatement to say— that we are living in anxious times; and we'll talk more about that later.
Now, I hear folks talk about this all the time. The importance of culture is a talking point. It's an important one, but today we're going to explore the importance of those words—of the talk; but also, why it can't just be about words and slogans and marketing alone. And I guess, maybe ironically, while we're going to be in fact talking about culture today, what we hope to do is leave our listeners with more than just pontification; and instead offer some meaningful and actionable ideas that they as leaders can take into their organization, but also that they as employees, as people, as colleagues, as friends, can bring to work to be a force for shaping positive culture and one that not only performs well, but that feels good.
HUI: Indeed, indeed. I think a lot of people in the ethics and compliance space, they talk about “culture” and “culture of compliance” as if they're the same thing. They're, at least to me, absolutely not the same thing. One is the subset of the other. But if you're thinking about them synonymously, I think that does restrict the understanding of culture and what it's all about and what you can do to shape it. So, what do we mean by that word “culture”?
ZACH: All right. So, let's talk about definitions. I know that in advance of this you've given this some thought. You've sought inspiration from, from research. So, what is the definition of organizational culture that you like that hits with you?
HUI: Well, my favorite one is always the one that says, “organization culture is the way we do things around here.” And that is a definition that's been around, I guess since about 1982. It came from Terence Dio and Alan Kennedy in their publication on Corporate Cultures: The Rights and Rituals of Corporate Life. So, I just feel like that is such a simple, common-sense way of saying it. It's just the way we do things around here.
ZACH: I love that definition and it's simple. It's easy to remember, but it also isn't . . . it's also not reductionist because that's an expansive thing—that can be so many things. And part of what we often talk about is the complexity of culture and those—that one sentence—still makes room for all of culture's complexities and nuances.
HUI: For sure, it captures not just the way we do things around here, right—but why we do it that way and how we do it that way. It captures all of those in that one simple sentence which is, which is why I like it.
ZACH: I do too. I do too.
HUI: How about you?
ZACH: So, the one I picked out is also from 1982, which is funny. Apparently, 1982 was just a great year for defining culture. This is from Peters and Waterman's book called In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies. Their definition is “culture is the way of life of an organization; it is the sum of the values, the rituals, stories and myths that make the organization unique.”
HUI: So similar in in the way that it's simple and understandable yet captures all that complexity. I love that.
ZACH: Yeah, indeed, indeed. And one of the reasons why I like it for our conversation today is because it actually opens the door for such a wonderful natural segue into one of the things that we want to talk about, which is values of an organization. So, it starts by saying “it is the sum of the values.” So, let's talk about values, Hui. Just about any organization, of any size is going to have a value statement or a values proposition of some sort. You'll find it in the code of conduct. You might find it painted on the walls of conference rooms in, you know, in the company's offices; you might find it right there at the front door to their corporate headquarters. And my take on corporate values is that they're valuable. I do see value in defining those things. I see value in saying, at the top, these are the things that we think are important. But what I caveat that with is that . . . it can't end there. You know, it's a great exercise. It's a framing device. It's something to look to for inspiration and reminders, but it can't be all we do.
HUI: Often times it's it does just stop there. Unfortunately, in in many organizations we see values are just the words that sit on the walls or on the web page.
ZACH: Yeah.
HUI: The challenge is always how do you make those articulated values? If they really are your values, turn into something that is lived daily in the organization—in everything you do. You know, when you say respect is your value, what does that translate like? Do the people in your organization actually feel that? Because that is something that they should feel. Do your customers feel that? Do your suppliers feel that? And translating those simple words into daily lives—into how we do things around here, into the rituals, into the interactions . . . that's always the real challenge.
ZACH: Absolutely, absolutely. Let's put a pin in the actioning the values for a minute because that is obviously the most important thing—and we are going to dig deeper on that. But I also want to say that not all value statements are created equal.
Some are more valuable. Some are more impactful than others. So, what I actually did in advance of our discussion today was I just looked at the value statements for the top five or six companies on the Fortune 500. I did not go through all 500 of them, but I kind of want to. So maybe we'll do that at some point in the future; but for now, let's just talk about a few at the very top of that list. And I'm going to start with number one on the list, which is Walmart; and share with you what I see from publicly available information from Walmart. This is pulled from their website and their code of conduct. So, first, they say that “Sam Walton founded a values driven company that today is grounded in four core values: respect, service, excellence and integrity.” And then they provide a little bit more specificity or add a few more words to those four by saying: one, respect for the individual; two, service to the customer; three, strive for excellence; and four, act with integrity. Hui. How do those words? How does that value statement hit or not with you?
HUI: I like that they put a little bit of specificity to it beyond just the sort of four words. I feel it's it's funny that I didn't even know that you were going to raise this first and I happened to pick respect, right? So, so respect and integrity are two of those words that seem to pop up a lot in in in value statements. In fact, when you were talking about researching all 500, I thought, you know, we could probably somebody could probably get a bot to do it and just tell us what are the words that show up the most frequently. And I bet you integrity is there. I bet you respect is among the top. So, it's kind of generic, I want to say. Yeah, I think that's sort of expected.
ZACH: Yeah, I agree with you. I think that it would be really wonderful to see more of a discussion about behaviors or if there was something a little bit more impactfully pithy—that really stuck with you. But look, I mean, respect for the individual. Act with integrity. I mean, how can you not get behind those things?
I'll also say, by the way: I did try to get a bot to do this for me; and ChatGPT told me that it would be too complicated for it to actually analyze all 500 companies’ value statements. All right. Should we look at another one? Why don't we look at Amazon? So, Amazon is number two on the Fortune 500; and there's a couple of different elements of Amazon's values statements that I'll share. First, they say “customer obsession rather than competitor focus; passion for invention; commitment to operational excellence; and long-term thinking.” Now, to me, this is much more exciting. This is much more inspirational. This is unlike what you often see, and for that reason resonates with me more.
HUI: I also want to say it sounds like Amazon.
ZACH: Yes.
HUI: So also, you know, the first set from Walmart, you can almost use the same for just about everybody. Exactly. But this sounds like Amazon; and there there's something unique that fits them and they seem to be living that out. And that's why I say as a customer that it sounds like them, because, in part, that's what I see as a customer. Which I think is, you know, quite inspiring.
ZACH: Absolutely. Absolutely. Because in order for them to be effective, in order for them to be meaningful, they really need to represent the identity. And that's exactly what it's doing. What I also like though about Amazon is that they have these “leadership principles.” They say “we use our leadership principles every day, whether we're discussing ideas for new projects or deciding on the best way to solve a problem. It's just one of the things that makes Amazon peculiar.” And then they list the leadership principles. Now I will say there are 16 of them, which feels like a lot—and we're not going to share all 16 of them, but let's share a couple that really hit with me.
The first is “leaders . . . are right a lot.” But then they follow that up with “they seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs.” That just really, like, that just stood out to me. The sort of provocativeness of just saying, saying that “leaders are in fact right a lot,” but also having the self-awareness to also acknowledge that in order to be a good leader, you gotta seek diverse perspectives and you gotta work to disconfirm your beliefs as you're making decisions. What do you think?
HUI: I like that very much for a couple of reasons, in addition to what you mentioned. I like the fact that it does acknowledge that leaders are right a lot because that that's the kind of thing a lot of companies are not comfortable saying they want to go directly to say, “leaders are servants” and they, you know, “they listen, they take in different perspectives” without that first part. But leaders, presumably in a healthy organization, are there because there's a reason: that they have demonstrated good judgment, experience, and knowledge in what they do. So, they should be right a lot. Otherwise, they really shouldn't be in the leadership position. So, I like the fact that it acknowledged something, but of course not in absolute terms. Right? It doesn't say leaders are always right; and it doesn't even say leaders are right most of the time it says leaders are right a lot. Then it adds on to a concrete action that helps you be right, almost, the next time, right?
ZACH: Yes.
HUI: So, in the in case when you're wrong, the follow up to this principle helps you learn from your lesson . . . and that you can be more likely to be right the next time. So, I really like that.
ZACH: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Let's share another one. So, this one is “invent and simplify.” Again, that in and of itself, to your point before, that sounds like Amazon—"invent and simplify.” But then, they go on to add “as we do new things, we accept”—again, this is as leaders—"we accept that we may be misunderstood for long periods of time.” This resonated so deeply with me, and especially for those who may have listened to episode 2, you will know why. This resonated so deeply with me because when you are a disruptor, when you are excited, as I often am (as we often are), about finding the better way—we have a whole podcast about it—you have to acknowledge that along that road you're probably going to be misunderstood for long periods of time. And saying that and acknowledging that and integrating it into the explicit values statements of the organization was really powerful to me.
HUI: I agree. Again, this is acknowledging something that does exist for people but often goes unacknowledged. But acknowledging this is so powerful.
ZACH: Yeah. Yeah. All right. We're not going to talk about all of them, but I'll just I'll throw off a couple more—just because I think that they're interesting. “Learn and be curious” is another one of the leadership principles. I mean, this is a curiosity podcast. Deeply committed to learning and being curious and find that really inspirational. “Thinking big.” “Having a bias for action.” “Frugality.” Which I thought was really interesting—you know, sort of acknowledging that this is a business we gotta still be frugal; we got to be mindful of the dollars and cents while we're thinking big and inventing and having a bias for action. So, I thought that was really—a really wonderful—both value statement for Amazon, but also these leadership principles.
The other thing that I'll say about the leadership principles that I really like, and this goes to a broader point about culture and leadership, is that—and we've talked about this before, I think, but—in so many organizations, you see the leaders . . . they are individual contributors who were really good at their job . . . and then they became a leader. They progressed through the organization. And too often, we don't see much training. We don't see much mentoring, sponsorship, investment in making those people really good leaders, in addition to being really good individual contributors. And so, part of what I like about this is that we're being very explicit: Amazon's being very explicit about what it looks for in leaders so that people understand what it means to be an effective leader at Amazon.
HUI: What I would be very interested in seeing is what kind of infrastructure they have around these principles to really enable people to grow into them—because people are not born into these principles; they learn along the way; and some of them learn earlier some of them later in their journey as leaders and managers. And they really need some kind of infrastructure to make this real for people so. That piece, we don't know. And by the way, as a public service announcement, we are not being paid by Amazon or Walmart to discuss their values in any way. So, this is purely . . . we just pulled them off of their websites and we're discussing them without any having any additional insights to those principles and values, than what we saw on their websites.
ZACH: Absolutely, in fact, I mean, aside from just wanting to have a conversation about “not all value statements being created equal,” I was really curious about looking at how companies are defining their values because it was suggested to me, Hui, that we should actually have our own value statement as a company. And so, it led me to being really curious about how would we actually put into words the things that we value. And I don't know that I have the answer to that yet. And maybe we talk about that on a future episode, but this definitely is giving me some inspiration for that exercise.
HUI: Part of me feels like just the title of our company is certainly part of what we value: culture, data, ethics. Are there also additional values that would describe how we treat our clients, how we treat each other, how we work together, the kind of work products—or the kind of work approach that we would want to have? We probably can come up with more of those—and it would be fun to think about some of those. That's, I think leading me to think about where a lot of these value statements come from for companies—because for many large organizations, they oftentimes come from either the top and / or outside, meaning someone in senior management hired a marketing company to come in and craft statements for people. And to what extent are these values truly reflective of the values in the organization—of the people who are there . . . how much of that effort is bottom up? That is also another interesting point that I always want to know more about.
ZACH: Yeah, absolutely. I mean my assumption, which is I think a fairly informed one, because we've done so much of this work with clients over the years, my assumption is that, primarily, these value statements are top-down driven; that they are set by leadership and that they are then shared down with employees more broadly. But Hui, do you have any examples or any stories of companies that have actually done more of a bottom-up approach in shaping those value statements or their broader mission?
HUI: Many years ago—I would say probably 20 some years ago—I heard a very senior executive from GE talk about the change of their slogan. The GE slogan used to be “we bring good things to life”—and at some point, it changed to “imagination at work.” Now that was such a significant event for the life of the company—and in a way, it is the summation of their values. This is how they describe who they are. And I heard from the senior executive: what they did was they hired a culture anthropologist, who lived in their company for like a year. And so, this is, I would think, sounded like very bottoms up approach. This anthropologist observed the rituals and the interactions, listened to individuals; and as a result, came up with observations which were ultimately honed into the new slogan. Now the change, despite all that, was so significant that this executive reported that when they were about to make that change, there were people, senior people in the company, who said “if you change that slogan, I'm leaving the company,” which is quite a strong reaction to a slogan really. But you know . . .
ZACH: Absolutely, but it goes to this point about “words do matter,” so we don't discount that they do matter.
HUI: Well, exactly. And I think in this case, that strong feeling is evidence that these are more than words that these people, right? So clearly, that . . . it meant something .
ZACH: Yes.
HUI: What does it mean when you're no longer “bring good things to life,” when you are now “imagination at work.” What does that mean for every single person in the company? They had to go through all of that. That is . . . sounded like a very bottom-up, but well thought out, and scientific approach—that they got a social scientist, whose specialty is the study of culture.
ZACH: Yes. Absolutely. And look, I mean, the reality is most companies aren't GE or at least aren't GE 20 years ago. And most companies aren't going to have the money or the patience or an interest, actually, in having a cultural anthropologist live in their company for an extended period of time. But I do think that there are other things that they can do to curate not just a top-down, but also a bottom-up approach. And so let me let me share a couple things that immediately come to my mind.
I won't go too far down this rabbit hole because we've talked a lot about how we feel about culture assessments and how we feel about surveys—or at least how surveys are often done—before. And one of the ways to make that survey more powerful—when you do it, when you've decided you're going to invest in it—is to use it as an opportunity to actually assess whether or not your people, whose voice you're trying to amplify, are aligned with your values. Do they share those values? And also, to collect additional information about what else they may value. Or what else they might . . . what other words they might use to describe how we're doing things around here.
HUI: I want to elaborate on what you say because this idea that culture assessment equals a survey is reductionist to its core.
ZACH: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Full stop.
HUI: So, if you really want to understand your culture, you have to begin by acknowledging that culture is so much more than somebody's opinion expressed at one point in time, according to the format you prescribe in answer to the question that you formatted. That is, I hope people can already hear how limiting that is. It is about something that is ongoing, it is about how people interact with each other, and it's so much more than that snapshot in time assessment.
One of the things that really struck me was when I was a DOJ and we had, we had issued this guidance—well, it became known as guidance, the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program. One of the very intentional changes in there, or at least phrasing in there, is that we did not talk about “tone from the top.” We specifically changed that, that traditional phrasing of tone from the top . . . we changed that. We said, “conduct at the top.” And that was the result of a conversation that I had with the fraud section chief, Andrew Weisman, at the time, because he and I both said, “what is this about tone?” Are we, you know, are we a chorus? You know, are we a choir that we're trying to sing so that they set the tone? No, this is about people's behavior. This is about conduct that other people can see and model themselves afterwards. It's about choices that people make—that people can infer what is important in this company and what is less important. Leadership does matter, but it matters in ways that are far more than just words they say. It matters in how they conduct themselves.
ZACH: Absolutely, I have two very small reactions to what you just shared. First of all, I would like everyone to know that that might very well be the first time in several years that Hui has proactively referenced the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs document, rather than it being brought up to her. And the second thing is: it's so interesting because I feel like that tone from the top / conduct from the top is like the ultimate compliance example of the Mandela effect. You know, the phenomenon where people sort of collectively misremember facts? Because if you ask most people, they'll probably say, “oh yeah, the ECCP, it says we should have . . . we should have strong tone at the top,” but that's never what it said.
HUI: And you know what really drives me crazy is the amount of attention—the way people dissect that document under a microscope, repeatedly. And they somehow all seem to have missed that particular point.
ZACH: Yeah, 100%. 100%. Yeah. The other thing I think of on this point about, you know, again, little things that one can do to make it about more than just your traditional assessment, is to do focus groups. That's something that we deeply believe in—and always encourage folks to do—to amplify the voices of employees, so that it's not just limited to a survey, which has all kinds of, you know, social biases built into it. And what we often get from those focus groups is people telling us a story about “how we do things around here” that sometimes are very powerful. And [these are things] you would expect and want to be in that value statement . . . but are nowhere to be found there. And so, [we encourage company’s] to use the exercise of a cultural assessment not only to measure progress against your stated values—but really use it as an opportunity to revisit those values in ways that are more, as you said, Hui, driven by the bottom up rather than just from the top down.
HUI: So I'm gonna tell you a story about people telling stories. I was working.
ZACH: Love it.
HUI: I was working with a company to assess its culture in a particular market. And so, I was asking, this is in my one-on-one interview with one of the executives, you know, I asked her to tell me about her colleagues. She said, “well, let me tell you a story.” She said, “this was a couple months ago. We were thinking about changing the name of our group. And the head of the group gathered together the people who directly report to him, and said, you know, ‘we're gonna have a brainstorming session about this, about, you know, whether we should change our name, our business unit’s name and what should we change it to to truly reflect what we do and where we are going. And so just, you know, come to this meeting next Tuesday.’” And so, she said all the direct reports which include her, they end up whispering to each other before the meeting. They said, “well, we don't understand what he wants. Like, does he want a PPT, ‘cause we can prepare a PPT; but just tell us what he wants to see on the PPT.” And she said, you know, I keep telling them, like, “no, he wants to brainstorm.”
ZACH: Oh dear.
HUI: That means, you know, you come in and we interact with each other—with our ideas. We, you know, test different thoughts. And most of her colleagues, as she reports to me, just could not understand. They said, you know, “I don't understand. I go into a meeting, I prepare PPT, I present and I'm done. I don't understand what I'm supposed to do here.” That story told me so much about this particular team.
I invite listeners to listen to the to that story and tell me what you diagnose in terms of the dynamics on this on this particular leadership team.
ZACH: Absolutely. I mean, we talked about if we were to create our own set of values, what I take away from that, the value that I would extract from that is: a PowerPoint presentation is not the goal. Is never the goal. We may create, and frankly, we do create beautiful PowerPoint presentations; but the PowerPoint presentation is not the goal. It's the ideas that are the goal.
HUI: Exactly. We see many presentations that unfortunately simply serve to disguise the lack of ideas.
ZACH: Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. So, we've talked a lot already. But let's get to the action piece of it, because as we said, people aren't going to believe it just because you say it. It's not just about tone, it's about conduct. They need to be authentic, and they need to be demonstrated and supported by meaningful action. So, Hui we both gave thought to some, you know, more actionable specific recommendations or things that we think people could do in advance of this. Why don't you share one of your first ones?
HUI: So let me start by addressing the anxious times context that you referenced earlier. We do live in very anxious times and it's anxious times because there's so much uncertainty in the world that we live in. Many of the rules that we're accustomed to have been turned around; and we no longer feel like we know what to expect. There is so much today that is very different from the world we used to live in. The United States had never been in an active trade war with its closest trading partners and allies in most of our living memory. So that creates a lot of economic uncertainty. There are regulatory changes, regulations and laws that are either being paused on enforcement or thrown out altogether. New rules are coming in that people are not familiar with and in some cases [are] completely opposite of what we were used to. So, programs like the DEI had been promoted for the last, at least, decade or two, and now it is under a microscope with the new administration. And what do we make of that . . . do we turn around 180°? Do we stand still? There [are] a lot of uncertainties there. For people who work in this field, that often translates into job insecurity. What does this mean for my job? Am I still going to have a job? And if I do still have a job, how do I even do that job in this kind of very uncertain regulatory and enforcement environment? Because I used to know certain things to be true—that you would do these, you know, you take these actions, [and] there are the likely consequences. I'm not even sure I can say any of those anymore, right? So, the couple of things that that I have thought of very much relate to the nature of these uncertainties and the anxieties that [they] provoke. My first thing is: you have to know your values as a person and as an organization. Because that's your anchor. In times of uncertainty, when the wind is blowing every which way; the only way, to me, you can survive is to be truly grounded; and being truly grounded to me means really understand what your values are as a person and as an organization, so that guides all your decisions. Because without that, you're just going to flip every which way and end up getting lost.
ZACH: That reminds me, actually, of a conversation that I was having with a client recently. And I hate to bring it back., and I know you do too, I hate to bring it back to the changes in FCPA enforcement, but it's so fresh still that I think it's worth discussing. And I was talking to this client, and we were having a conversation about how the potential changes in FCPA enforcement might impact their assessment of risk relating to their international operations. And the client said to me, “Oh well, you know, we're going to continue to abide by the FCPA because it's still law.” And I said to them, somewhat cheekily, but you know, I really meant it, I said, you know, “don't you mean that you're not going to bribe foreign officials because that would be inconsistent with your values; that that is not the way you want to do business? And you know, of course, the response was well, “yeah, of course. That's what we meant.” But it's just . . . so, what you've shared is just so on point and worth remembering that it isn't necessarily the regulation or the enforcement or the law that's always driving our understanding—or our definition of what is good and right and what we value. Those things may change, but our values are gonna be steadfast. They're always gonna be there.
HUI: And I will also share a conversation I had with someone who is interested in having me speak at a conference. And they show me this draft agenda and of course, as with any compliance conference I've ever been to, pretty much, it always starts with the first session is enforcement landscape. So, when I saw that on the screen, I kind of smiled and I said, “well, that's going to be a short presentation.” And so the person looked kind of startled, and I said, well, you know, “I can give you my view. Is that there is not gonna be much enforcement in in the next few years.” And she genuinely looked horrified. She looked at me, she said, “then what are we gonna talk about for the next four years?” I was . . I immediately said to her: “I should hope we have a lot to talk about and very exciting things to talk about, about what our values are and how do we live them in these days of uncertainties.”
ZACH: We have a lot.
HUI: And you know, what are the risks we're willing to take? What are the risks that we're not willing to take? And how do we navigate these uncertainties? My gosh, these are all things that we very much need to talk about in these times. And . . . but I was. I was just so I was as startled as she was by her reaction . . .
ZACH: As she was to your statement, I mean. 100% I mean we we're talking about managing, shaping, nurturing culture in anxious times. And the reason we started by talking about values is because these anxious times are going to—these anxious times are—testing our values. Will we stand by them in the shadow of an unprecedented environment.
HUI: Yep. So that was my, my, my takeaway #1, which is to know your values—your personal values and help your organization know its value. What about you, Zach?
ZACH: Yeah, so mine's very similar, but in some ways, it feels a little smaller because it's very individual focused. And that is, I sum it up by saying it, it means “showing up with intention.” And this seems so basic . . . but I but I am a big believer in articulating our values . . .
HUI: I love it.
ZACH: But as we say, it can't stop there. And so, one way to be sure that it doesn't stop there is to remind ourselves of them and to actually use them to help us prepare for our day; and try to show up in ways that reinforce them through our behaviors. This seems so basic, but one of the things that would very much be on a value statement for me, in one way or another, would be kindness. You know the work is hard. The world is hard. So, when I show up to a meeting or a call, I want to be greeted with kindness. And I hope that I am greeting others with kindness. I'm sure I fall short. Others certainly fall short. But that is certainly what I aim for. And so when I am approaching a call that I know might have very differing opinions or where there may potentially be some conflict, which is fine, I always remind myself, let's show up with kindness because it's going to go better if we do that, one, and, two, it’s what I want, and I think it's what they want. It's what we value. So just reminding ourselves of what those things are that we value and then checking ourselves to make sure that we're showing up that way. And I got to tell you, I do this in the middle of meetings in the middle of interactions, where I feel like maybe either I am not projecting what I hope to be projecting—or I feel like I'm not getting in return what I hope to get in return. And I will literally check myself and try to switch it . . . to get us on the right track. So, showing up with intention is my first way of bringing this to life.
HUI: I have to tell you, Zach, you've never said that kindness piece to me. But I can tell you, you live it. It's pretty obvious now that you've said it, because I've always marveled at just how . . .
ZACH: Thank you.
HUI: . . . kind you have been in situations that sometimes can be tense. It can be difficult. And I have always marveled at that. So, so that that is something that you do live, I can tell you that.
ZACH: Thank you. Thank you. I try. I certainly I, as I said, I'm certain that I fail sometimes, but I really . . . I really do try; and to your point about anxious times, let's just not make the world any harder for ourselves. You know, when we're living those values, we're sort of lubricating whatever we're working on to make it a little smoother. All right. What else do you got?
HUI: So, I think of my two things as sort of steps. First, you know your values and you ground yourself in your values; and the next thing you've got to do is assess the risks of living your values in these uncertain times. And to that end, you know, I want to mention this litigation that I've become aware of, which is fascinating. So, for 30 some years, immigration enforcement has had a policy, their internal policy that is called “the sensitive locations policy,” which basically says immigration agents will not go in and seize people in certain sensitive locations like places of worship, hospitals, and schools. On January 20th of this year, Homeland Security rescinded that policy, which means they can go into these locations. What I learned about was this litigation, from a coalition of synagogues and churches, that are challenging the rescission of this particular policy from Homeland Security. And I find it so interesting because the core of their argument is precisely this is who we are, we as communities of faith, believe that ministering to people, regardless of their immigration status, is who we are. This is what we do. And in fact, one of our, I'll quote from one of the plaintiffs in the case. It says “our sacred spaces must continue to offer sanctuary to those who face oppression, violence or alienation, including immigrant communities.
So their argument is that your rescission of this safe place, this sensitive place policy, truly inhibits us from living our values as faith communities. So, we are going to take legal action to challenge this. Now, is that a risk for these faith communities? Yes. Is it a risk if they don't challenge it? Absolutely, yes. So in a way, they have taken the choice to say, instead of just going with [the] wind, we are very clear about who we are and what our missions are, and we're going to . . . we have assessed the risks of what that means in today's environment, given your decision and we are going to take steps to try to protect ourselves. And I find it interesting that you see this litigation coming from faith communities, as far as I'm aware, not coming from hospitals—not coming from schools. Which is interesting because you would think hospitals would say this is what our mission is: we care for people who are sick and injured and without regard to their immigration status—and so we too want to live this value and please allow us to do so. But I just thought this was such a great example of people living their values yet being realistic about it. You know, we understand living our values in this environment carries risks, and we are we have assessed the risk and we are now going to deal with it.
ZACH: It's such a powerful example, Hui and I have a couple of questions and I want to start by asking you like, what do you think the take away is for companies? Do you see companies having more of an obligation—or opportunity—to almost be agents of resistance in in these, these anxious, uncertain times?
HUI: I think rather than thinking of themselves as agents of resistance, think of yourselves as living your values. And really, truly understand what are the actions that you're driven to take as a result of who you are and what your mission is? And calmly and logically analyze the risks of those. We are seeing companies, for example, revisiting their social media policy today which is not at all a bad idea, I think before you engage on social media, you should always know the risks. And that is no different today than two years ago. The risks may be different, but the fact that you need to calmly analyze them and understand what you're stepping into is necessary. So, I think for organizations . . . I think the lesson is not to dismiss offhand. “Well, now we just can't do that today or we, you know, we have to do this today.” Rather than reaching those conclusions quickly, first, think about who you are, what your mission is, and what that compels you to do—and then analyze what are risks for taking those actions. And then you can get to the place of “how do we then manage those risks. Do we want to take those risks?”
ZACH: Yeah.
HUI: “And if we do, what are the best way to do it and what are the best ways to protect yourself against those risks?” So, you can't have those considerations in a thoughtful way until you've gone through those steps.
ZACH: But there still may be consequences for those decisions.
HUI: And I think it's very important to remember that there are multiple stakeholders here. So, companies don't exist just to please the government. You have your employees. You have your investors. You have your customers. You have your supply chain. You have the community in which you operate. They may very well have conflicting expectations, and you can't please everyone. That is simply not possible.
ZACH: Yeah.
HUI: Again, we go back to that. If you're not grounded in your values, if you're trying to please this person today, please that person tomorrow . . . you'll end up upsetting everyone. That's what you're gonna end up end up with, if you try to please everyone. And you know, we see some of this struggle with a very public 40-day boycott against target over their DEI program. So, there, you see very conflicting stakeholder expectations. You have their customer base who wants one thing. You have their perception of the enforcement environment that wants something else. Now how do you then navigate? Then, I think in that situation the first core question is who do you as a company want? And then you assess the risk and then you figure out how to manage those risks.
ZACH: Yeah, yeah. All right, I'll share. I'll share my second kind of take away or action item, which actually feels very small—really small, actually, in comparison to your last one. But I think that they're related in a way. And the very specific example that I'll use to frame this point is on a company's assessment of its organizational justice. What I see a lot is folks defaulting to communications campaigns when they want to up their organizational justice quotient. You know, it's: we're going to send out, you know, emails; we're going to do a newsletter; we're going to do a training; we're going to have our leaders speak on these things; we're going to plaster the office with posters talking about our commitment to, you know, to justice and to consistency, and to fairness and to equity. But what I hope folks will do, if for whatever reason they find themselves questioning the success of their organizational justice efforts, is to be self-critical. And this applies far beyond organizational justice. It's to be self-critical and introspective. You know, we were leading a discussion with a client yesterday; and part of the discussion was to start by asking the client to tell us what assumptions do you have about X; and then challenging them by saying, OK, now what evidence do you have to support that? And so, I guess my big take away is being self-critical, asking yourself what your assumptions are, and then pushing back on your assumptions with real evidence. And so, in this very specific example, I say rather than just immediately going to the communication campaign or the softer things that we feel like we can control, let's actually look at our data. So, maybe we would look at disciplinary data, for example, if organizational justice was the topic.
Let's actually ask ourselves whether or not the results are consistent based on the type of misconduct. Let's ask ourselves whether or not the results are consistent across geographies. Let's ask ourselves whether people who are more senior are in fact held to a higher standard—not just treated in a consistent way—but whether they are in fact treated or held to a higher standard. But on a topic like this, there is hard quantitative data. And I say check yourself to actually see whether or not your assumptions are right.
HUI: How radical and refreshing: get some evidence.
ZACH: That's right.
HUI: Right. Because I do think in this space, we see a lot of people making conclusions based on assumptions and feelings; or they're very limited observations; and by limited, I mean not because you're limited as a person, but you really can only see what you see and know what you know. And there are ways to go beyond those things . . . to find . . . to get some evidence of the assumption that you believe to be true. And I also think when you talk about the communications campaigns, you know, I harp back to something we have said on earlier podcast; somehow, we're just in this mode where we just like to talk, talk, talk—and not listen. And I feel like I'm going to break into a song, which I'm not going to for your sake; but you know that song “Words, Words, Words” from My Fair Lady?
ZACH: Yes, I do. [Note: The song is actually called. “Show Me.”]
HUI: That's what I think of when you start talking about corporate communications campaigns. Its just “words, words, words, more words.” Show me something real.
ZACH: Yeah.
HUI: Show me something you've done.
ZACH: Yeah. So, Hui, this has been a really fun discussion.
HUI: As always.
ZACH: But it's . . . as always, as always, really. But I just want to say this is very much the beginning of a new conversation that we're having around culture. I mean, culture is right there in our name. So, you can rest assured we're going to keep talking about it. We couldn't possibly dive into this topic in in all of the ways that it deserves in a single episode. We will find many more angles in the months to come to continue this discussion. But I think this is a good place to start. And on your point about listening because we have just spent the past, I don't know many minutes, talking . . . on the point about listening, I really encourage those who are listening to us to reach out with either questions or ideas or topics that you think would be worthy of discussion here. Because we'd love to hear from you. And this is a topic that we're going to continue to revisit, well, frankly always—because it's that important.
HUI: Yes, yes, please do let us know your thoughts.
ZACH: Terrific. Thanks Hui. This has been great.
HUI: Thank you.
ZACH: And thank you all for tuning in to The Better Way? Podcast. For more information about this or anything else that’s happening with CDE Advisors, visit our website at www.CDEAdvisors.com, where you can also check out the Better Way blog. And please like and subscribe to this series on Apply or Spotify. And, finally, if you have thoughts about what we talked about today, the work we do here at CDE, or just have ideas for Better Ways we should explore, please don’t hesitate to reach out—we’d love to hear from you. Thanks again for listening.