Valley of the (Silicon) Valley: At the Intersection of Issue & Identity
By: John Russ
Tags: Politics And Protest, Corporate Culture, Diversity, Leadership, Social Justice

“The paradox of education is precisely this — that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated.”

-James Baldwin

There is a public conversation going on at the intersection of issues and identity in the workplace. Issues historically out of bounds for employee input — like purpose/ mission statements, politics, and social justice — are coalescing around the impact they have on employees, especially those belonging to minority groups (race, gender, etc). This charged conversation is particularly pronounced now in Silicon Valley, with companies on all sides — look no further than recent national media from outlets like Wired, NY Post, Bloomberg, The Verge, Business Insider, New York Times articles on politics, race & workplace culture and more. At the same time, individuals’ are speaking about their experiences in the workplace — specific incidents told in their own words, as members of marginalized groups — demonstrating personal courage by publicly holding institutions accountable for their actions

My relationship to this conversation is…complicated. I recently left my role as The Global Head of Marketing at Coinbase because I couldn’t commit to uphold their stance on these issues and was in the position to make a decision employees were asked to make. What follows isn’t about them and I wish everyone well. Instead, my focus is on actions and outcomes from this debate.

I identify with all sides of this discussion on some level, because I sit at the intersection of the debates’ venn diagram — minority identity (black man), corporate perspective (senior leader), and social consciousness that things must evolve. After numerous one to one conversations, this is my attempt to speak one to many about meaningful “gaps” in perspective. To highlight where these issues begin to intersect with identity to impact specific groups. Here we go..

Mission is defined as a deeply meaningful statement about why your company exists. It is the foundation to collectively rally individuals to work on a tough problem. The obvious (the issue) — Mission is often set early on by the founders, to differentiate the company and build its foundation. It has a deep impact on attracting talent because top talent has career choice and mission adds purpose beyond a paycheck. Companies own their missions and can choose to change or clarify. The gap (where issue meets identity) — Big, audacious missions inspire innovation and diversity; narrow missions promote execution and homogeneity. One of the things that attracts diverse talent to big audacious problems is that those problems are big enough for them to envision themselves (or those they care about) benefiting from the solution. The problem becomes personal. When a mission is narrowed or changed from the one that attracted diverse groups, the motivation they had for their jobs may also narrow, along with what made them great at cracking those specific problems. Mission driven employees join a mission driven company because it speaks to a wrong they wish to correct in the world. That is an intrinsic motivation greater than a paycheck, so shifting a mission after someone has committed to the journey invites an identity crisis The question — Are the types of people you want — those qualified to contribute to cracking the world’s toughest problems — going to be inspired or motivated to drive the change necessary to reset the world if you reset your mission?

Politics are defined as activities associated with governance or aims to achieve power. The obvious (the issue) — Corporations are focused on their goals. Therefore, it is understandable if one hesitates to engage in time consuming governance questions or power dynamics. Spending time here often seems like courting divisiveness. The gap (where issue meets identity) — Not every word we use carries the same meaning across groups. Politics is one of those words. Marginalized groups of identity have historically experienced this word as being weaponized against their freedoms, because politicising basic rights lumps those rights in with an already polarized agenda. Conflating these creates confusion, distracts from discussion about progress, and allows people to dismiss uncomfortable truths as being part of partisan propaganda. Politics is just one of those things our country has long branded to suit a purpose. Good news though: In no accepted definition of politics I can find, has supporting human rights, equal justice, or access to opportunity, equated to engaging in politics. They are different. Therefore, if a company wants to avoid partisan agendas around specific governance or power (which I’d bet most of your employees want to avoid as well), but still intends to use its policies and standing to support equal and just treatment, they can just be specific. Most marginalized groups lack the privilege to define “politics” for themselves (part of the toll of being marginalized). Clarity avoids harmful conflation. The question — Is redefining “politics” in itself a political act, in that a lack of clarity can be used to broadly enforce governance or relegate specific groups to a disempowered state? Bonus question — Why go there without a specific purpose in doing so?

Social issues are defined as relating to key affairs or events that impact a large group or groups of people in a population. The obvious (the issue) — It is a slippery slope for a corporation to move deep into advocacy. It is bold, it is brave, and it comes with the potential risk of alienating certain groups. Companies have always played a part in social change, but leading here is not for the faint of heart and can impact your public perception, which courts risk. The gap (where issue meets identity) — While not easy to lead the charge, the bar to engage here is deceptively low. Oftentimes, it simply requires corporations to follow what they believe to be right based on their non-partisan values (every company has them) and set the example for how your organization acts as a corporate citizen. Stakeholders just want to know a company has principles and won’t capriciously bend to anything to make a buck. If that seems too risky, consider that — at specific inflection points in time — the downside also carries heightened risk. When society begins to hold itself to a new standard, there is no choice but to make a choice. It’s members are looking to see who is on board and, in these moments, you are remembered for your choices (including those you don’t make). No matter the choice, you signal something to your employees (who likely are impacted by these social inflections), your customers, and your competitors. The question — Is it reasonable to gain from society, in the form of profits and labor, without clearing the bar for responsible participation in that society?

Objectively, the above are layered topics which are only briefly touched on in this post. No matter where a company anchors, taking a public stand requires boldness and conviction. I respect that. But, make no mistake, companies will likely have to engage publicly or privately, as they will continue to face challenge where issues meet identit(ies). My advice — consider the following:

Rational, reasonable people with similar information can reach different conclusions. This is why content needs context; they work together to inform critical decisions for leaders and organizations to go beyond intent to address implications. As Jack Dorsey recently wrote, it is “important to at *least* acknowledge and connect the related societal issues your customers face daily” and that not doing so, “ leaves people behind”. No matter your eventual decisions, seeking out internal (employees, diverse opinions) and external (society, customers) context will help inform your impulses, clarify options, and anticipate your impact and the resulting implications.

Newton’s law — every action has an equal and opposite reaction — is unavoidable. But the inherent nuance to individuals is magnified by positional power. Equal and opposite reactions have an unequal and outsized impact on the less powerful. Those on the wrong side of race, gender, culture, social status, and more pay a disproportionate toll. Responsible companies know there are outsized impacts to both action and inaction. They also recognize having a place to work is not the same as having a place to work where you feel supported, listened to (not simply heard; they are different), seen, and a part of something bigger than yourself. Being intentional about your actions and their toll allows you to assess impact.

Deep, thoughtful, and in touch leadership matters. In times where companies face tough choices, leaders make the decision and are held responsible for the outcome. Those who care beyond positional authority will engage diverse perspectives to help them look around corners, providing context to organizational perception gaps. Are those voices in your room and are they engaged in your thinking? Do your actions risk leaving your company or its employees behind? Does your culture position you to be in touch with societal inflection points? Does your approach harness the full potential of your organization to aim for an optimal outcome vs. just a successful one?

I think the most successful companies will earn loyalty by understanding the social context of complex issues where society and workplace meet. They will go beyond the legal minimums of not discriminating or retaliating into intentionally setting culture and activity in ways that grow the pie (customers, revenue, impact) by bringing along and standing with those who make the pie (employees, society, stakeholders). They will deliberately inspire innovation around the change their company seeks to drive. Mostly, they will proceed with purpose, as their ambition depends on the best and brightest — across issues, identity, and more — to build the next wave of innovation to realize their full potential. The question — How will you lead when it matters most?