July 22, 2025 • 45 mins
Somewhere along the way, a movement became a minefield. Ideally rooted in clear principles and purpose, the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion has morphed into a haze of acronyms, assumptions, and acrimony—and many leaders are quietly backing away. But what if the problem isn’t necessarily the work itself, but is rooted in how we talk about it and connect it with real people’s real experiences?
In this week’s episode, host Anne Green sits down with Sheryl Battles—veteran communications executive and former VP of Global Diversity, Inclusion, and Engagement at Pitney Bowes—for a conversation that cuts through the confusion. Drawing from decades of experience at the intersection of business strategy and human-centered leadership, Sheryl unpacks how today’s organizations can move beyond buzzy shortcuts and get back to the actual business of building diversity, inclusion and belonging.
Together, they explore how over-reliance on acronyms like DEI, ESG, and now AI can dilute meaning, sow confusion and create an environment for backlash, and why rooting these concepts in clarity, context, and business relevance is more critical than ever. And how organizations can reframe the conversation to focus on value, not just labels.
Join us as we discuss:
In this week’s episode, host Anne Green sits down with Sheryl Battles—veteran communications executive and former VP of Global Diversity, Inclusion, and Engagement at Pitney Bowes—for a conversation that cuts through the confusion. Drawing from decades of experience at the intersection of business strategy and human-centered leadership, Sheryl unpacks how today’s organizations can move beyond buzzy shortcuts and get back to the actual business of building diversity, inclusion and belonging.
Together, they explore how over-reliance on acronyms like DEI, ESG, and now AI can dilute meaning, sow confusion and create an environment for backlash, and why rooting these concepts in clarity, context, and business relevance is more critical than ever. And how organizations can reframe the conversation to focus on value, not just labels.
Join us as we discuss:
- How the absence of shared language and understanding erodes trust and momentum
- Why over-reliance on acronyms like DEI, ESG, and AI have outpaced understanding – and the risks of not communicating in ways all stakeholders can grasp or relate to
- What organizations get wrong about meritocracy and equity
- How clarity and context create real inclusion—not just compliance
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
When we are not precise in what we're saying and
what we need, we create separation. And in that void
of precision, it gets filled pretty quickly with misunderstanding, fear resistance.
Then it makes it very easy for those with the
(00:20):
loudest megaphone to step into the void and define it
for you.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello, and welcome to Building Brand Gravity. I'm Anne Green.
I'm a principal and CEO here at the GNS Integrated
Marketing Communications Group, and I'm so pleased to welcome a
very wonderful person, Cheryl Battles. Welcome to the podcast today.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Thank you so much. Anne.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Cheryl is twenty plus and even more than that, veteran
year veteran of communications, but it was really the twenty
plus years of Pitney Bow's that's the last portion of
your career. I know the career started before that too,
but VP of Corporate Communications, ultimately vice president of Global Diversity,
Inclusion and Engagement, very active in the Page Society. I
(01:11):
know you've been a co chair of the DEI Advisory Board,
you know, and I know that is a really important entity.
And also I just really enjoy Cheryl, you know, your
thought leadership. You're a storyteller, your strategist. And this is
a very important moment to be talking about something that
means a lot to me as an organizational leader, which
is what do we mean by diversity and equity and inclusion?
(01:35):
Why has this become a story of acronyms and acrimony,
as Cheryl has heard me say before, And how do
we get here? And where do we go from here? So, Cheryl,
I want to thank you, and I guess to start,
you know, where do you see us situated right now?
How do you feel we got to this point where
it is such a battle over acronyms? And you know
(01:56):
there's some real serious consequences to what's going on too,
for communicators and clients and organizations all in every sector.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Really, that's so true and and and certainly I'd be
remiss if I didn't start with we have a mutual
admiration society and the you know to Uh, you're so
thoughtful and to be able to have a conversation at
such an important time is a really important opportunity. So
(02:25):
I thank you for it. Uh. You know I love alliteration,
so that acronyms and acrimony is so appropriate. Uh, you know,
we can look at how we got here almost from
a policy or concept, and we can look at how
we got here practically, so more broadly, in the terms
(02:47):
of the journey itself, it really started with the founding
and I'm going to be very US centric right now,
the founding of the country. You know, we said we
hold these truths to be self evident, that all men
are created equal, and so there's been a journey to say,
how do we really make that true? How do we
(03:08):
create access an opportunity for all? So there's been a litigation,
there's been peaceful civil engagement, there's been state and local
and federal legislation, there's been executive orders, et cetera, et cetera,
and that have gotten to us to this point. And
(03:30):
we find ourselves when you think not only about the US,
but even globally in a period where things are more fractured,
and so suddenly there are questions and they didn't just
pop up, They've been there for a while. But the
questioning of it, do we still need to work on this?
(03:55):
You know, is this really important? Who does this really benefit?
Those are the questions that are coming up. Conceptually, Practically,
I think it's a combination of the perspective of the
concept itself and the language. And we as communicators, of
course know how important language is in shaping and perpetuating perspective.
(04:19):
So you know, using acronyms, you know, acronyms are shorthand
that presume a common understanding and experience. Think about saying
ATM or a cash dispenser, right, they were introduced in
the late sixties. And now if I say I got
(04:39):
to go to the ATM to get some money, you go, okay,
you get it. You've had a common experience. Contrast that
with DEI. There's not any common experience associated with that acronym,
or even with the individual terms, whether it's diversity, equity,
or inclusion. The meaning is very specific, tied to the
(05:05):
organization and the individual and the context the acrimony is
coming in from. The perspective perspective is personal. So there's
passion around the concept, and so it's based on what
you think it means or how that acronym of those
words make you feel. Then there's definitely this reflex, if
(05:32):
you will. And so we are at this interesting point
where in many ways, the concept itself and the language
are in this cycle where people are very divided in
some ways on what's going on. There's been research recently
(05:57):
that shows that when you explain what's underneath that there's
actually a lot of agreement. So the language itself has
become the lightning on.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
So and I'm really glad you started with a historical lens, Sheryl,
because you know, the whole phrase of you know, those
who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. I'm
probably pastardizing the phrase, but it's an interesting thing to
say we've got to go back and root ourselves and
how these issues have evolved over time, and also to
say where have things been better or worse. I don't
(06:38):
even think those words work very well because it isn't
it's not linear, but the fact that we have to
situate ourselves in from parts of history to sort of
understand what the progress is or not. But you're really
hitting on something that I've been talking about in a
few contexts, and I want to kind of reframe that
up and let's get into it more, which is there's
a real lack of precision when we reduce language acronyms. Right,
(07:00):
You've said that yourself, and I've been watching this not
just with DEI, but also EESG, which you know, we
know is environments social governance relative to a whole, big,
giant set of structures and needs and goals that organizations
are dealing with. And I've been you know, I'm lucky
to have a lot of colleagues internationally talking about how
(07:22):
is ESG seen in Europe or Asia versus the US,
But it's become polarized here as well. And then we're
also talking all the time about AI. Now artificial intelligence.
AI means as an acronym, and even as a full phrase,
means so many different things, and yet we reduce it
to these two letters as if that means something, as
if it holds meaning. So, as a communications expert and
(07:45):
a strategist who's worked across you know, different sectors and
worked with so many people internally and externally across your career,
what kind of disservice do we do when we don't
fully unpack these acronis and when we rely on them
too much as sort of an easy shorthand what happens
to us in those cases?
Speaker 1 (08:05):
I think you hit on a really important point. I
think we do a tremendous disservice. And again I don't
have the right quote exactly, but Martin Luther King has
this quote about that basically said, you know, people hate
(08:26):
because they fear. They fear because they don't know. They
don't know because they cannot communicate, and they cannot communicate
because they're separated. And so when we are not precise
in what we're saying and what we mean, we create
separation about well, wait a minute, what are you talking about?
(08:50):
Who does it benefit? And in that void of precision,
it gets filled pretty quickly with misunderstanding, uncertain and fear resistance.
So when you bandy those terms around without providing definition
(09:13):
and context, then it makes it very easy for those
with the loudest megaphone to step into the void and
define it for you. And that's what's happening when you
think about all the terms associated with diversity and inclusion,
and it doesn't matter whether whoever is defining is defining
(09:38):
it from experience or reality. It's just that they are
defining it, and that's what's going on. And those those
definitions tend to be very narrow and it's and it
so the this lack leaves too many questions about what
(10:01):
we're actually doing, why we're actually doing it, who actually
benefits And that's especially harmful for topic like diversity. You know,
in my over and I'll take the twenty years.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
In my over, I was like, your career's going to
be bit longer than that. That's mine.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Yes, you know, in forty years or so of experience
as a speech writer, financial investor, comms, executive comms for
coos and CFOs, et cetera. The most difficult topic to
(10:40):
communicate about is diversity. And the issue is because no
one listens. So if you are like, yeah, of course
diversity is great, we need it helps this. It does
this when you hear the word or any term that
you associated with it, you stop listening because you're like,
you know what, I've heard it before, so I don't
(11:00):
need to keep listening. If you are questioning or neutral
or opposed to it, and you hear the word, you
stop listening because you said, you know what, I know
all about it. So we've never as a people, I think,
(11:20):
been very good at establishing constructive language for this topic,
this topic of difference. We can talk about the variety
in the garden and all the different kinds and colors
and shapes and sizes and heights of different flowers and
vegetables that are being grown, but we don't do that
(11:44):
when we think about a group of humans standing.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
That's such a beautiful and generous and rich metaphor, and
it kind of lights up my soul to think of
it that way, you know, to bring in that natural
world and understand the power of diversity and that setting.
Two quick observations to build on what you've said. First
of all, unfortunately in many aspects of human society, but
certainly in this area, there's a tendency to fall into
(12:09):
zero some game thinking as an I win, you lose,
you win, I lose, which is really yes, there are
things like that across our history as a species and
in this country, but that to me, that us versus
them thinking is one of the biggest things I try
to root out as an organizational leader and as a
client counselor. You know, we can go very we cannot
(12:34):
go very far with that thinking, but it falls into that.
The other thing I think is a really interesting dynamic
tension is that there is so much positive intention and
energy behind proliferating the words that are associated with diversity,
so a diversity or inclusion and equity and belonging, and
there's more words than that. It's sort of like lgbt
QIA plus you know, there's a proliferation of language because
(12:57):
there's a desire and the energy to see the nuance
and go deeper and to bring more people into the
tent and recognize there are more flowers in this garden.
But for some reason, well for many reasons, as you're
saying that becomes another challenging part of it, which is, oh,
all these words, all these acronyms. And I'm not blaming
(13:18):
those that are bringing that to the table because it's
really important, but it brings me back to sort of
your experience as a leader, especially as a communicator internally
and externally, but also in this space specifically when you were, say,
leading at Pitney Bow's and you wanted to bring more
definition and specificity and reality and root these back to
(13:38):
the garden metaphor root these in the reality of people's
lived experience. How did you define some of the principles
around the D and the E and the I. What
did you feel was important helping those stakeholders see themselves
in it rather than the us versus them.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
And that's a very good point and to your point,
there definitely has this prole been this proliferation of terms.
You know, idea jedi, you know, uh, because bringing in
ability and justice and you know all of that and
and like you said, it's it's also very important. But
it does point out that, you know, this is a
(14:16):
very individualized journey. There's not a one size fits all
and so organizationally, this journey should be very specific to
your values, your your business strategy, your values, your culture. Uh,
you know where you really want to go. And and
(14:37):
that's why, you know, having language across organizations or even
in the general marketplace becomes very difficult. We like to
and I still do, of course, like to root the
concept in we want to create an inclusive environment, uh
(14:59):
that mirrors the world in which we live and supports
growth and delivers value for all. So we were all
always and I have continued it and as now I
work with other individuals and there goes my earphone. It's
(15:20):
about creating access and opportunity for all to be their
best to contribute to our common collective success. So when
I always try to use language that talked about the
benefits as it related to our collective and individual success
(15:47):
and the concept that this is building a better team,
This is enabling us to do a better job of
bringing value to our multiple stakeholders. Because if I can
create an environment, that's the other thing. I'm jumping around
(16:11):
a little, so we may need to edit this, but
this is a workplace and a marketplace impact and that
was the other thing. So that if we create this
environment where you feel you can be your best, you
(16:33):
can be who you are. You are free and safe
to speak up, to share your ideas, to push back.
You start contributing those things that make you who you are.
When we combine what everyone brings, then we come up
(16:53):
with a better outcome collectively on behalf of our client,
or our shareholders, or the communities in which we live
and operate. Then if we were doing that seeing larly
so it was always about winning for all by unleashing
(17:17):
the best in each.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
That resonates for me so much. I've been searching and
continue to as to my other leaders for the language
that makes it real and tangible for people in present
and opens possibility rather than feels like it closes something
off or again that us versus them. And one of
the things I try to articulate is that when we
build more trust within the organization, and there's many ways
(17:40):
to build trust. There's many things that interrupt trust. Then
we can fly. We remove frictions, whether that friction is bias,
might be a play. And I don't know why my
manager is speaking to me this way, and I wonder
that kind of feeling of being gas lit or maybe
in microaggression, or maybe is this related to race? Is
it related to is there something here? It could also
(18:02):
be work styles, it could be age differences, it could
be geographic differences, or it could be just personality. There's
so many things that can interrupt or create that sense
of oh, I can't speak now, like I don't know
if I'm in a place that can speak. So I
love what you're saying about trying to root it in
both the how the workplace becomes better, but then how
(18:25):
the market impact becomes better. And I've heard you say
before that idea of being crystal clear, like trying to
be crystal clear in the moment. Are there any stories
or examples that come to mind of where a clarity
of language helped to bring greater understanding or examples that
you know people who may be listening would relate to
that you've seen in the past storytelling.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Personal storytelling often illuminates in a way that other things don't.
And so I've seen in an individual example with a
we were having a conversation in a group and there
(19:09):
was an employee and their manager was in a meeting,
and this person was explaining that the way they grew
up though in their personal culture, there was a great
reverence for authority and elders, and one of the ways
(19:30):
you demonstrated that was by always letting them speak first,
and even you know, kind of not necessarily looking at
them directly. And her manager said, who was a and
she was younger, and her manager, who was an older male, said, oh,
(19:53):
is that what you're doing? Because I was always a
little insulted and felt that you were not listening to
me because you never looked at me, you averted your eyes,
you didn't speak up. And she said, oh, no, no, right,
And so it was this aha moment where they were
(20:15):
both like okay. And if she hadn't shared about her culture,
they would have never gotten to that point because they
were both a little concerned about their relationship and about the other.
And you know, those are the kinds of individual conversations
that I've seen had on a broader level a couple.
(20:41):
It feels like so long ago, but I guess it
was in twenty twenty three when the Supreme Court ruled
on affirmative action in the academic environment. What I said
to r C suite maybe a month or two before
(21:03):
the ruling actually came out. No matter what is rule,
it's going to have a long term impact, and I
think we've got to get in front of it just too.
And it gets back to your comment about history, just
to kind of remind our employees our history with this
(21:27):
topic and the why we do it and actually what
we do, because what that ruling is going to raise
will be questions about what you do and how you're
doing it and why you're doing it and how do
you measure it? And so literally I did a little
(21:49):
internal tour, if you will, and said to every member
of the C suite, I'd love to get in front
of your leadership team and just make it up regularly,
schedule mee or it can be a special meeting, however
you want to handle it and however you want to
define your leadership team. And then I just had a
sit and I started that again, probably about a month
(22:14):
or two before the ruling came down. We continued, you know,
as we went through the whole team, but got great
feedback about how helpful that was because it's like, yeah,
you know, I'm hearing so much in the news or
I'm having this kind of discussion. Yeah, you're right, I
(22:34):
remember our history, or I didn't know that piece of
our history. I'm glad you said that. I'm glad this
is what we're actually doing. So being able to actually
be very clear is important to ground everyone in this
(22:57):
is what's going on, and this is life manners.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I love that intentionality around let's talk about it, let's
get past headlines that may or may not be helpful.
And that's even ramped up now with the way the
news cycle moves of social media with AIS impact on it.
We're seeing in live time right now. We're taping this
in the middle of June, and there's so much now
(23:20):
going on where there's a lot of coverage of things
in social media that's being pulled into AI and it's
giving a very interesting skewed view of various news stories
that are really hot in the news right now. So
we're in a strange information environment. So as communications counselors,
we're especially keen to watch those trends. But I think
this idea of stepping back and saying, let's get be
(23:42):
on the headlines and let's get into my interest is
getting into a world of both and meaning we can
ensure that the best people have the job, and we
can also lean into diversifying the representation across all dimensions.
We can do both of those, and we can do
it with intentionality, and we can explore how difference is
(24:04):
a superpower, and we can explore how difference helps us
to misunderstand each other at times, and we can have
heart for each other. We can do all of these things,
and we can still follow the law too, as the
law evolves, and I hope that the law remains in
a camp that I would consider to be fair and just.
That's laws don't always follow that, So that's another thing
(24:25):
as a leader we have to look at. But of
the one of the letters in this acronym, the E equity,
it seems like it's particularly tricky topic. And you know,
I love your point of view on this. I know
that I heard the CEO of SHERM, the large HR
organization wonderful organization. He is an incredible individual, incredible leader.
(24:47):
They made a very interesting decision about almost two years ago,
now maybe a year and a half ago, to drop
equity from their nomenclature and really focus on diversity and
inclusion and belonging. And he talked about it, you know,
about why diversity and inclusion were the areas and recognizing
I think the heat around the word equity. But you know,
(25:10):
this is a big topic show. But from your perspective,
you know, how do you help people understand why the
concept of equity is more challenging and how do you
try to root that topic a little bit more deeply
so people can feel more connected to it and not
alienated by it.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
It is tough because in some ways some it will
strike some as counter to the concept of a meritocracy,
because equity meets people where they are, and it acknowledges
(25:47):
that we're not all starting from the same place, that
there may be some extra steps needed to get up
to the level playing field where then we judge thing.
I'm married and so you know the whole Hey, you
(26:08):
can just it doesn't matter where you start from. You
can just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. That is,
assuming you have boots and that your boots have straps.
Hard to do that if you're missing either one of
those things. So I love you know, I'm sure you've
seen that cartooner illustration of a fence and let's say
(26:30):
the fence is six feet and you have people, what
one who's like five and a half feet, one who's
four and a half feet, one who's three and a
half feet. Well, equality is you give everybody a one
foot pinch. That's great, everybody got the exact same thing,
but only one person can see over. Accessibility. True equity
(26:52):
is removing the barrier for everybody. So tear down the
fence so no one has to look over the fence.
Every body can sit where they are and see the fence. Well,
that often entails processes and practices, and many of which
(27:12):
the organization doesn't have direct control over. So getting back
to being very clear about what you're actually doing or
actually trying to do. And you know, equity was never
a term that we used because we understand there's some
things we just can't do anything about. But for what
(27:37):
we can do in this environment, we're going to look
at our processes and practices and make sure that there's
no artificial hindrances to opportunity or access irrespective of your
age and stage in this workplace. Right, So it really
requires embedding inclusion in this concept of how do we
(28:04):
include the wide spectrum of humanity that's either in our
workplace or in our marketplace. What do we have to do?
You know, from a client design perspective, if you're a
retailer and you're looking at the front of your building, right,
multiple steps might be beautiful and dramatic, but if I'm
(28:26):
in a wheelchair, they can be problematic. Right, So it
really requires a depth I think of thought to actually
see how can I make it open to all.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
You know, I'm glad you brought up the little cartoon
with the fence, because I think that we know, again
as communicators, the visual metaphors, verbal metaphors, they help light
us up, they help us understand, right, And the first
iteration of that explanation of equity with the fence is that, Okay,
everybody gets the one foot step and only one can
see over. And then you would see the next iteration, well,
(29:06):
one has a one footstep, one has a two foot step,
one has a three foot step. Now they can all
see over the fence, and I think in some ways
the evolution of it, the recognition of h that doesn't
that metaphor, in some ways reinforces what some people want
to feel as the glass half empty view of this
is well, they got a taller step, you know, And
that gets back to that US versus some thinking that
(29:27):
it's a zero sum game that if you win, I lose,
which is historically why, you know, some of the most
beautiful swimming pools across America were filled in with concrete
when there was integration. Rather than integrating, you know, we're
going to fill that hole with dirt and stop anyone
from using it, which is really such a vision of
scarcity and negativity, right, But I love the idea that
(29:50):
you evolved to that metaphor of what if the fence
wasn't there, that structural barrier. And I think one of
the things that really pains me, and I've talked to
a lot of people about and you and I have
kind of danced around this, but I'd love to hear
your point of view on it, is that I was
excited in recent years that in the corporate world, in
the society at large. We were starting to build a
shared language about concepts that were closer to the truth
(30:11):
of our history and who we are today, which is
there are structural barriers. There is a written, deep and
profound and tangible reverberations of a legacy of slavery, of
legacies of many interactions in our history and in global history,
and that everybody doesn't have boots or straps. You know,
my dad, who I love his memory, was such an
(30:32):
amazing person, but he was definitely the Horatio Algear, pull
yourself up or your bootstraps. And still he moved to
a community that was really still grappling with that structural
racism and structural barriers and started volunteering in the schools
and saw these incredible, bright children and came to the
very shocking and painful realization that they did not have
(30:53):
the same opportunity there would face barriers.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Right.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
So that's that kind of human forward, heart open realization
that can strike you and really change the course of
your life, which it did for him. So my question is,
we started to build the shared language in a corporate space,
in a societal space, and I feel the energy now
is stripping that back that we're losing some of that
shared language about all the different ways in which people
(31:19):
experience these things. You know, what are your thoughts on that,
and how do we retain some of this understanding we
started to build. How do we lean into it and
keep it going?
Speaker 1 (31:27):
Yeah, that's a really pretty amazing question and concept. I
think I've heard you say before. We haven't learned to
sit in our history and part of that, and you know,
(31:54):
whether that is a personal history or even a shared history,
part of that is understanding that there are lessons and
there is value in seeing what went well, in seeing
(32:19):
how we overcame things, as well as in seeing where
we may have missed the mark and you know, where
was tough, where was painful, and what might be the
lesson or what might make this applicable to something we're
(32:44):
facing today. You know, what can we bring from that experience?
Because it's all learning, right, it's all learning. I do
believe that there is. One of the things I've been
doing over the last year is producing a documentary on
(33:06):
the civil rights movement and had the pleasure of meeting
these seven you know quote ordinary people who, in telling
the story of how they right where they were, decided
to make a difference back to the conversation were having earlier.
(33:27):
They knew they couldn't change the whole structure, but they
knew that where they were they could make a difference.
And to a person, and they're all in their nineties
to their the youngest person is in his minister in
(33:48):
his early sixties. And when I told him he was
the youngest person in the film, he started laughing. He said,
oh my gosh, there there you go. But to a person,
they said, you know, we just don't do well in
(34:09):
telling our history. This one incredible woman who worked in
a mental health profession, was actually fourteen on bloody Sunday
marching across the Edmund Pettit's bridge, got beaten, suffered. I
(34:31):
had to have thirty five stitches. And she said it
was only relatively a short time ago before she realized
she was still traumatized by it. That and she didn't
talk about it, and her sister said, you've got to
tell your story. So now she's written a book and
you know, she speaks to audiences about it, and I
(34:55):
mean just very It is hard work. It is is
no one leaves having heard her story. I think with
the same perspective as when you came in. But it's
hard to do. It's hard for those who've gone through
it to open up and share about it, and it's
(35:19):
hard for those to listen and say, well, what am
I supposed to do with it? And you know, I
think the criticism you hear is, well that was then,
this is now and why are we bringing this up?
And you're just trying to make us feel bad? And
it's like, no, no, no, no no, this is not about judgment.
(35:41):
This is about understanding because it gives you a better
just like the experience with your father, seeing it, experiencing
it for yourself gives you a better understanding of how
and why things sit where they are. So are we
(36:02):
losing a little bit of ground? I think we are,
But it's happened before. So the back and forth, if
you will, we go forward three steps, we go back
two steps. And that's why, again, knowing the history, you
don't want to miss the fact that we are still
(36:24):
net one step ahead. And it doesn't mean we're there,
but understand we are net one step ahead.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
I like this is another both and to me again,
I'm very on this right now because in a world
of polarization, I want to be as a leader, as
a counselor as a person in the world, somebody who
opens myself to multiple things being true at once and
the humanity of others. But I think in terms of
you know, I really want to be in a place personally,
and I think I hope for this for society, that
(36:56):
we can sit and say, I can accept what my
ancestors do in the past, and I can also accept
the beauty of them. I could accept the hard things,
and I can. I don't feel personally responsible, but I
feel accountable for my own history. And I kind of say,
and it sounds like glib, but it's really true to me.
The truth will set you free, like it sets you
free in a way. So to bring this into the
(37:19):
context of this business that you and I have been
in for decades and is really an amazing business to
be into, to think about how to communicate, to connect
with others, to shape perceptions, to have people be heard,
to tell stories. And I love that you're doing that documentary.
I think that's amazing right to help people tell their stories,
make it human. A lot of organizations today you know
(37:42):
whether your clients at or agency side know what their
values are, but they're trying to navigate a landscape that
is challenging, where there's different types of policies or ideologies
that may or may not be friendly to what they're
trying to do with their workforce or with their stakeholders. So,
do you have any advice for the communicators and brand
leaders and marketers listening to this that say, you know,
(38:04):
we know what our corporate values are about, how do
we follow them? How do we make hard decisions at
this time? Because I know for us personally, we're just
trying to, like you said, rout these concepts and the
reality of why it helps the business, why it helps
our community, why it helps our clients, Make it real,
make it tangible, get beyond the acronyms, talk about context
like that's what we're trying to do here. What are
(38:25):
your pieces of advice for those who may be listening.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
I think your spot on, you know, I think the
first we need to have a very clear eyed understanding
of where we are. And it gets back to what
we were talking about earlier. There's a lot of hype
headlines in hyperbole at the moment about what diversity and
(38:50):
inclusion practices are and what they aren't and so it's
important that we actively seek multiple voices to give us
a full bodied perspective on what people are thinking. And
(39:14):
you know, we have such a luxury in the plethora
of media outlets and information of you know, how we
curate information, and we can curate, you know, a perspective
that never varies from our own. But as communicators, I
(39:35):
think we have an obligation to try to develop a
very full bodied sense of what's actually going on, the
reality of what's going on versus what you know, anyone
headline might indicate is going on. I think we have
(39:59):
to be very as precise as possible about describing the
strategic why, why are we doing what we're doing, How
does it benefit the business, how does it benefit the organization,
(40:20):
and what will it look like as we implement it,
and what's the impact on me? Right, everybody's always interested
in with them and when often you're right, yes, what's
in it for me? Of course I use the acronym
after talking about you know, you really shouldn't use acronym, right, So,
(40:47):
but that's what draws your attention to any piece of content,
anything that someone's trying to communicate to you. You're listening
for what does it mean for me? And so the
more we can as communicators connect the dots between what
(41:08):
we're doing and why we're doing it and what it
means for all of us and for you as an individual,
the better we'll be. And you hear this when we're
talking about communicating all other strategic enablers, right, how many
conversations have you had about getting all people, not just
(41:28):
the ones on the front line, to understand the client
experience and to think about the client and really have
some empathy for what's happening to the client, and then
to connect how being more cognizant of the client, how
does that connect directly to the way you do your
job and to the way you think about what you do.
(41:50):
So making that connection from the broader this is what
we're doing back to the you, how does it impact you?
How can you make a difference? I think is really
key for communicators at this point in time. And then
that whole aligning the performance with the promise. So if
(42:14):
you're out there right, if you're out there talking about
this is what we're doing, this is what we're doing,
make sure you understand what you're actually doing and how
that meets the criteria of what you're describing, and if
there's a misalignment, then the practice has to change or
the way you talk about it.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
Guess because talking about something and not delivering on it
is a big way to break trust. I love that.
That's great pieces of advice. The only one I'd layer
on is remembering our people and our stakeholders are not
a monolith. You know, they have multitudes in them and
there's different way to connect. But getting that benefit and
making very real to say, why are you doing this?
What's the context? So this has been such a great conversation.
(42:56):
I always love to end. This is called building brand gravity,
So I always love to know what has you in
its gravity. I know your documentary, I'm sure does that
you're producing. But anything else, Cheryl, that that you're excited
about right now, that that you've been watching or listening
to or following that our listeners should know.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
I like words, uh And the word fortitude is one
that recently I was working on something and writing about
fortitude and this this concept of pressing forward in the
face of complexity or uncertainty, adversity or challenge. Uh And
(43:36):
and just persevering and what comes from that. I I'm
kind of fascinated by that because I think, you know,
now is now is the time?
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (43:50):
You know? And if I again had to pull out
another quote or the essence of a quote doctor talked about,
you know, it's really not about where we find ourselves
in times of comfort and convenience, but where do we
find ourselves in times of challenge and controversy. And if
there's ever been a time in our lifetime of challenge
(44:12):
and controversy, this is it. And so where are we
and making sure that we find ourselves That's my prayer.
Faith is my other grounder, if you will, I want
to be found in the right place, doing the right
things in these times.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
I love that fortitude. It's a great word too. It
has a lot of helf to it. Well share about us.
Thank you so much. I thank all our listeners for
joining us, for building brand gravity, share like comment, let
us know what you like here and recommend other topics.
But thank you for listening today, and thank you Cheryl
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Thank you, And this is great
When we are not precise in what we're saying and
what we need, we create separation. And in that void
of precision, it gets filled pretty quickly with misunderstanding, fear resistance.
Then it makes it very easy for those with the
(00:20):
loudest megaphone to step into the void and define it
for you.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello, and welcome to Building Brand Gravity. I'm Anne Green.
I'm a principal and CEO here at the GNS Integrated
Marketing Communications Group, and I'm so pleased to welcome a
very wonderful person, Cheryl Battles. Welcome to the podcast today.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Thank you so much. Anne.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Cheryl is twenty plus and even more than that, veteran
year veteran of communications, but it was really the twenty
plus years of Pitney Bow's that's the last portion of
your career. I know the career started before that too,
but VP of Corporate Communications, ultimately vice president of Global Diversity,
Inclusion and Engagement, very active in the Page Society. I
(01:11):
know you've been a co chair of the DEI Advisory Board,
you know, and I know that is a really important entity.
And also I just really enjoy Cheryl, you know, your
thought leadership. You're a storyteller, your strategist. And this is
a very important moment to be talking about something that
means a lot to me as an organizational leader, which
is what do we mean by diversity and equity and inclusion?
(01:35):
Why has this become a story of acronyms and acrimony,
as Cheryl has heard me say before, And how do
we get here? And where do we go from here? So, Cheryl,
I want to thank you, and I guess to start,
you know, where do you see us situated right now?
How do you feel we got to this point where
it is such a battle over acronyms? And you know
(01:56):
there's some real serious consequences to what's going on too,
for communicators and clients and organizations all in every sector.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Really, that's so true and and and certainly I'd be
remiss if I didn't start with we have a mutual
admiration society and the you know to Uh, you're so
thoughtful and to be able to have a conversation at
such an important time is a really important opportunity. So
(02:25):
I thank you for it. Uh. You know I love alliteration,
so that acronyms and acrimony is so appropriate. Uh, you know,
we can look at how we got here almost from
a policy or concept, and we can look at how
we got here practically, so more broadly, in the terms
(02:47):
of the journey itself, it really started with the founding
and I'm going to be very US centric right now,
the founding of the country. You know, we said we
hold these truths to be self evident, that all men
are created equal, and so there's been a journey to say,
how do we really make that true? How do we
(03:08):
create access an opportunity for all? So there's been a litigation,
there's been peaceful civil engagement, there's been state and local
and federal legislation, there's been executive orders, et cetera, et cetera,
and that have gotten to us to this point. And
(03:30):
we find ourselves when you think not only about the US,
but even globally in a period where things are more fractured,
and so suddenly there are questions and they didn't just
pop up, They've been there for a while. But the
questioning of it, do we still need to work on this?
(03:55):
You know, is this really important? Who does this really benefit?
Those are the questions that are coming up. Conceptually, Practically,
I think it's a combination of the perspective of the
concept itself and the language. And we as communicators, of
course know how important language is in shaping and perpetuating perspective.
(04:19):
So you know, using acronyms, you know, acronyms are shorthand
that presume a common understanding and experience. Think about saying
ATM or a cash dispenser, right, they were introduced in
the late sixties. And now if I say I got
(04:39):
to go to the ATM to get some money, you go, okay,
you get it. You've had a common experience. Contrast that
with DEI. There's not any common experience associated with that acronym,
or even with the individual terms, whether it's diversity, equity,
or inclusion. The meaning is very specific, tied to the
(05:05):
organization and the individual and the context the acrimony is
coming in from. The perspective perspective is personal. So there's
passion around the concept, and so it's based on what
you think it means or how that acronym of those
words make you feel. Then there's definitely this reflex, if
(05:32):
you will. And so we are at this interesting point
where in many ways, the concept itself and the language
are in this cycle where people are very divided in
some ways on what's going on. There's been research recently
(05:57):
that shows that when you explain what's underneath that there's
actually a lot of agreement. So the language itself has
become the lightning on.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
So and I'm really glad you started with a historical lens, Sheryl,
because you know, the whole phrase of you know, those
who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. I'm
probably pastardizing the phrase, but it's an interesting thing to
say we've got to go back and root ourselves and
how these issues have evolved over time, and also to
say where have things been better or worse. I don't
(06:38):
even think those words work very well because it isn't
it's not linear, but the fact that we have to
situate ourselves in from parts of history to sort of
understand what the progress is or not. But you're really
hitting on something that I've been talking about in a
few contexts, and I want to kind of reframe that
up and let's get into it more, which is there's
a real lack of precision when we reduce language acronyms. Right,
(07:00):
You've said that yourself, and I've been watching this not
just with DEI, but also EESG, which you know, we
know is environments social governance relative to a whole, big,
giant set of structures and needs and goals that organizations
are dealing with. And I've been you know, I'm lucky
to have a lot of colleagues internationally talking about how
(07:22):
is ESG seen in Europe or Asia versus the US,
But it's become polarized here as well. And then we're
also talking all the time about AI. Now artificial intelligence.
AI means as an acronym, and even as a full phrase,
means so many different things, and yet we reduce it
to these two letters as if that means something, as
if it holds meaning. So, as a communications expert and
(07:45):
a strategist who's worked across you know, different sectors and
worked with so many people internally and externally across your career,
what kind of disservice do we do when we don't
fully unpack these acronis and when we rely on them
too much as sort of an easy shorthand what happens
to us in those cases?
Speaker 1 (08:05):
I think you hit on a really important point. I
think we do a tremendous disservice. And again I don't
have the right quote exactly, but Martin Luther King has
this quote about that basically said, you know, people hate
(08:26):
because they fear. They fear because they don't know. They
don't know because they cannot communicate, and they cannot communicate
because they're separated. And so when we are not precise
in what we're saying and what we mean, we create
separation about well, wait a minute, what are you talking about?
(08:50):
Who does it benefit? And in that void of precision,
it gets filled pretty quickly with misunderstanding, uncertain and fear resistance.
So when you bandy those terms around without providing definition
(09:13):
and context, then it makes it very easy for those
with the loudest megaphone to step into the void and
define it for you. And that's what's happening when you
think about all the terms associated with diversity and inclusion,
and it doesn't matter whether whoever is defining is defining
(09:38):
it from experience or reality. It's just that they are
defining it, and that's what's going on. And those those
definitions tend to be very narrow and it's and it
so the this lack leaves too many questions about what
(10:01):
we're actually doing, why we're actually doing it, who actually
benefits And that's especially harmful for topic like diversity. You know,
in my over and I'll take the twenty years.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
In my over, I was like, your career's going to
be bit longer than that. That's mine.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Yes, you know, in forty years or so of experience
as a speech writer, financial investor, comms, executive comms for
coos and CFOs, et cetera. The most difficult topic to
(10:40):
communicate about is diversity. And the issue is because no
one listens. So if you are like, yeah, of course
diversity is great, we need it helps this. It does
this when you hear the word or any term that
you associated with it, you stop listening because you're like,
you know what, I've heard it before, so I don't
(11:00):
need to keep listening. If you are questioning or neutral
or opposed to it, and you hear the word, you
stop listening because you said, you know what, I know
all about it. So we've never as a people, I think,
(11:20):
been very good at establishing constructive language for this topic,
this topic of difference. We can talk about the variety
in the garden and all the different kinds and colors
and shapes and sizes and heights of different flowers and
vegetables that are being grown, but we don't do that
(11:44):
when we think about a group of humans standing.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
That's such a beautiful and generous and rich metaphor, and
it kind of lights up my soul to think of
it that way, you know, to bring in that natural
world and understand the power of diversity and that setting.
Two quick observations to build on what you've said. First
of all, unfortunately in many aspects of human society, but
certainly in this area, there's a tendency to fall into
(12:09):
zero some game thinking as an I win, you lose,
you win, I lose, which is really yes, there are
things like that across our history as a species and
in this country, but that to me, that us versus
them thinking is one of the biggest things I try
to root out as an organizational leader and as a
client counselor. You know, we can go very we cannot
(12:34):
go very far with that thinking, but it falls into that.
The other thing I think is a really interesting dynamic
tension is that there is so much positive intention and
energy behind proliferating the words that are associated with diversity,
so a diversity or inclusion and equity and belonging, and
there's more words than that. It's sort of like lgbt
QIA plus you know, there's a proliferation of language because
(12:57):
there's a desire and the energy to see the nuance
and go deeper and to bring more people into the
tent and recognize there are more flowers in this garden.
But for some reason, well for many reasons, as you're
saying that becomes another challenging part of it, which is, oh,
all these words, all these acronyms. And I'm not blaming
(13:18):
those that are bringing that to the table because it's
really important, but it brings me back to sort of
your experience as a leader, especially as a communicator internally
and externally, but also in this space specifically when you were, say,
leading at Pitney Bow's and you wanted to bring more
definition and specificity and reality and root these back to
(13:38):
the garden metaphor root these in the reality of people's
lived experience. How did you define some of the principles
around the D and the E and the I. What
did you feel was important helping those stakeholders see themselves
in it rather than the us versus them.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
And that's a very good point and to your point,
there definitely has this prole been this proliferation of terms.
You know, idea jedi, you know, uh, because bringing in
ability and justice and you know all of that and
and like you said, it's it's also very important. But
it does point out that, you know, this is a
(14:16):
very individualized journey. There's not a one size fits all
and so organizationally, this journey should be very specific to
your values, your your business strategy, your values, your culture. Uh,
you know where you really want to go. And and
(14:37):
that's why, you know, having language across organizations or even
in the general marketplace becomes very difficult. We like to
and I still do, of course, like to root the
concept in we want to create an inclusive environment, uh
(14:59):
that mirrors the world in which we live and supports
growth and delivers value for all. So we were all
always and I have continued it and as now I
work with other individuals and there goes my earphone. It's
(15:20):
about creating access and opportunity for all to be their
best to contribute to our common collective success. So when
I always try to use language that talked about the
benefits as it related to our collective and individual success
(15:47):
and the concept that this is building a better team,
This is enabling us to do a better job of
bringing value to our multiple stakeholders. Because if I can
create an environment, that's the other thing. I'm jumping around
(16:11):
a little, so we may need to edit this, but
this is a workplace and a marketplace impact and that
was the other thing. So that if we create this
environment where you feel you can be your best, you
(16:33):
can be who you are. You are free and safe
to speak up, to share your ideas, to push back.
You start contributing those things that make you who you are.
When we combine what everyone brings, then we come up
(16:53):
with a better outcome collectively on behalf of our client,
or our shareholders, or the communities in which we live
and operate. Then if we were doing that seeing larly
so it was always about winning for all by unleashing
(17:17):
the best in each.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
That resonates for me so much. I've been searching and
continue to as to my other leaders for the language
that makes it real and tangible for people in present
and opens possibility rather than feels like it closes something
off or again that us versus them. And one of
the things I try to articulate is that when we
build more trust within the organization, and there's many ways
(17:40):
to build trust. There's many things that interrupt trust. Then
we can fly. We remove frictions, whether that friction is bias,
might be a play. And I don't know why my
manager is speaking to me this way, and I wonder
that kind of feeling of being gas lit or maybe
in microaggression, or maybe is this related to race? Is
it related to is there something here? It could also
(18:02):
be work styles, it could be age differences, it could
be geographic differences, or it could be just personality. There's
so many things that can interrupt or create that sense
of oh, I can't speak now, like I don't know
if I'm in a place that can speak. So I
love what you're saying about trying to root it in
both the how the workplace becomes better, but then how
(18:25):
the market impact becomes better. And I've heard you say
before that idea of being crystal clear, like trying to
be crystal clear in the moment. Are there any stories
or examples that come to mind of where a clarity
of language helped to bring greater understanding or examples that
you know people who may be listening would relate to
that you've seen in the past storytelling.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Personal storytelling often illuminates in a way that other things don't.
And so I've seen in an individual example with a
we were having a conversation in a group and there
(19:09):
was an employee and their manager was in a meeting,
and this person was explaining that the way they grew
up though in their personal culture, there was a great
reverence for authority and elders, and one of the ways
(19:30):
you demonstrated that was by always letting them speak first,
and even you know, kind of not necessarily looking at
them directly. And her manager said, who was a and
she was younger, and her manager, who was an older male, said, oh,
(19:53):
is that what you're doing? Because I was always a
little insulted and felt that you were not listening to
me because you never looked at me, you averted your eyes,
you didn't speak up. And she said, oh, no, no, right,
And so it was this aha moment where they were
(20:15):
both like okay. And if she hadn't shared about her culture,
they would have never gotten to that point because they
were both a little concerned about their relationship and about the other.
And you know, those are the kinds of individual conversations
that I've seen had on a broader level a couple.
(20:41):
It feels like so long ago, but I guess it
was in twenty twenty three when the Supreme Court ruled
on affirmative action in the academic environment. What I said
to r C suite maybe a month or two before
(21:03):
the ruling actually came out. No matter what is rule,
it's going to have a long term impact, and I
think we've got to get in front of it just too.
And it gets back to your comment about history, just
to kind of remind our employees our history with this
(21:27):
topic and the why we do it and actually what
we do, because what that ruling is going to raise
will be questions about what you do and how you're
doing it and why you're doing it and how do
you measure it? And so literally I did a little
(21:49):
internal tour, if you will, and said to every member
of the C suite, I'd love to get in front
of your leadership team and just make it up regularly,
schedule mee or it can be a special meeting, however
you want to handle it and however you want to
define your leadership team. And then I just had a
sit and I started that again, probably about a month
(22:14):
or two before the ruling came down. We continued, you know,
as we went through the whole team, but got great
feedback about how helpful that was because it's like, yeah,
you know, I'm hearing so much in the news or
I'm having this kind of discussion. Yeah, you're right, I
(22:34):
remember our history, or I didn't know that piece of
our history. I'm glad you said that. I'm glad this
is what we're actually doing. So being able to actually
be very clear is important to ground everyone in this
(22:57):
is what's going on, and this is life manners.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I love that intentionality around let's talk about it, let's
get past headlines that may or may not be helpful.
And that's even ramped up now with the way the
news cycle moves of social media with AIS impact on it.
We're seeing in live time right now. We're taping this
in the middle of June, and there's so much now
(23:20):
going on where there's a lot of coverage of things
in social media that's being pulled into AI and it's
giving a very interesting skewed view of various news stories
that are really hot in the news right now. So
we're in a strange information environment. So as communications counselors,
we're especially keen to watch those trends. But I think
this idea of stepping back and saying, let's get be
(23:42):
on the headlines and let's get into my interest is
getting into a world of both and meaning we can
ensure that the best people have the job, and we
can also lean into diversifying the representation across all dimensions.
We can do both of those, and we can do
it with intentionality, and we can explore how difference is
(24:04):
a superpower, and we can explore how difference helps us
to misunderstand each other at times, and we can have
heart for each other. We can do all of these things,
and we can still follow the law too, as the
law evolves, and I hope that the law remains in
a camp that I would consider to be fair and just.
That's laws don't always follow that, So that's another thing
(24:25):
as a leader we have to look at. But of
the one of the letters in this acronym, the E equity,
it seems like it's particularly tricky topic. And you know,
I love your point of view on this. I know
that I heard the CEO of SHERM, the large HR
organization wonderful organization. He is an incredible individual, incredible leader.
(24:47):
They made a very interesting decision about almost two years ago,
now maybe a year and a half ago, to drop
equity from their nomenclature and really focus on diversity and
inclusion and belonging. And he talked about it, you know,
about why diversity and inclusion were the areas and recognizing
I think the heat around the word equity. But you know,
(25:10):
this is a big topic show. But from your perspective,
you know, how do you help people understand why the
concept of equity is more challenging and how do you
try to root that topic a little bit more deeply
so people can feel more connected to it and not
alienated by it.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
It is tough because in some ways some it will
strike some as counter to the concept of a meritocracy,
because equity meets people where they are, and it acknowledges
(25:47):
that we're not all starting from the same place, that
there may be some extra steps needed to get up
to the level playing field where then we judge thing.
I'm married and so you know the whole Hey, you
(26:08):
can just it doesn't matter where you start from. You
can just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. That is,
assuming you have boots and that your boots have straps.
Hard to do that if you're missing either one of
those things. So I love you know, I'm sure you've
seen that cartooner illustration of a fence and let's say
(26:30):
the fence is six feet and you have people, what
one who's like five and a half feet, one who's
four and a half feet, one who's three and a
half feet. Well, equality is you give everybody a one
foot pinch. That's great, everybody got the exact same thing,
but only one person can see over. Accessibility. True equity
(26:52):
is removing the barrier for everybody. So tear down the
fence so no one has to look over the fence.
Every body can sit where they are and see the fence. Well,
that often entails processes and practices, and many of which
(27:12):
the organization doesn't have direct control over. So getting back
to being very clear about what you're actually doing or
actually trying to do. And you know, equity was never
a term that we used because we understand there's some
things we just can't do anything about. But for what
(27:37):
we can do in this environment, we're going to look
at our processes and practices and make sure that there's
no artificial hindrances to opportunity or access irrespective of your
age and stage in this workplace. Right, So it really
requires embedding inclusion in this concept of how do we
(28:04):
include the wide spectrum of humanity that's either in our
workplace or in our marketplace. What do we have to do?
You know, from a client design perspective, if you're a
retailer and you're looking at the front of your building, right,
multiple steps might be beautiful and dramatic, but if I'm
(28:26):
in a wheelchair, they can be problematic. Right, So it
really requires a depth I think of thought to actually
see how can I make it open to all.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
You know, I'm glad you brought up the little cartoon
with the fence, because I think that we know, again
as communicators, the visual metaphors, verbal metaphors, they help light
us up, they help us understand, right, And the first
iteration of that explanation of equity with the fence is that, Okay,
everybody gets the one foot step and only one can
see over. And then you would see the next iteration, well,
(29:06):
one has a one footstep, one has a two foot step,
one has a three foot step. Now they can all
see over the fence, and I think in some ways
the evolution of it, the recognition of h that doesn't
that metaphor, in some ways reinforces what some people want
to feel as the glass half empty view of this
is well, they got a taller step, you know, And
that gets back to that US versus some thinking that
(29:27):
it's a zero sum game that if you win, I lose,
which is historically why, you know, some of the most
beautiful swimming pools across America were filled in with concrete
when there was integration. Rather than integrating, you know, we're
going to fill that hole with dirt and stop anyone
from using it, which is really such a vision of
scarcity and negativity, right, But I love the idea that
(29:50):
you evolved to that metaphor of what if the fence
wasn't there, that structural barrier. And I think one of
the things that really pains me, and I've talked to
a lot of people about and you and I have
kind of danced around this, but I'd love to hear
your point of view on it, is that I was
excited in recent years that in the corporate world, in
the society at large. We were starting to build a
shared language about concepts that were closer to the truth
(30:11):
of our history and who we are today, which is
there are structural barriers. There is a written, deep and
profound and tangible reverberations of a legacy of slavery, of
legacies of many interactions in our history and in global history,
and that everybody doesn't have boots or straps. You know,
my dad, who I love his memory, was such an
(30:32):
amazing person, but he was definitely the Horatio Algear, pull
yourself up or your bootstraps. And still he moved to
a community that was really still grappling with that structural
racism and structural barriers and started volunteering in the schools
and saw these incredible, bright children and came to the
very shocking and painful realization that they did not have
(30:53):
the same opportunity there would face barriers.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Right.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
So that's that kind of human forward, heart open realization
that can strike you and really change the course of
your life, which it did for him. So my question is,
we started to build the shared language in a corporate space,
in a societal space, and I feel the energy now
is stripping that back that we're losing some of that
shared language about all the different ways in which people
(31:19):
experience these things. You know, what are your thoughts on that,
and how do we retain some of this understanding we
started to build. How do we lean into it and
keep it going?
Speaker 1 (31:27):
Yeah, that's a really pretty amazing question and concept. I
think I've heard you say before. We haven't learned to
sit in our history and part of that, and you know,
(31:54):
whether that is a personal history or even a shared history,
part of that is understanding that there are lessons and
there is value in seeing what went well, in seeing
(32:19):
how we overcame things, as well as in seeing where
we may have missed the mark and you know, where
was tough, where was painful, and what might be the
lesson or what might make this applicable to something we're
(32:44):
facing today. You know, what can we bring from that experience?
Because it's all learning, right, it's all learning. I do
believe that there is. One of the things I've been
doing over the last year is producing a documentary on
(33:06):
the civil rights movement and had the pleasure of meeting
these seven you know quote ordinary people who, in telling
the story of how they right where they were, decided
to make a difference back to the conversation were having earlier.
(33:27):
They knew they couldn't change the whole structure, but they
knew that where they were they could make a difference.
And to a person, and they're all in their nineties
to their the youngest person is in his minister in
(33:48):
his early sixties. And when I told him he was
the youngest person in the film, he started laughing. He said,
oh my gosh, there there you go. But to a person,
they said, you know, we just don't do well in
(34:09):
telling our history. This one incredible woman who worked in
a mental health profession, was actually fourteen on bloody Sunday
marching across the Edmund Pettit's bridge, got beaten, suffered. I
(34:31):
had to have thirty five stitches. And she said it
was only relatively a short time ago before she realized
she was still traumatized by it. That and she didn't
talk about it, and her sister said, you've got to
tell your story. So now she's written a book and
you know, she speaks to audiences about it, and I
(34:55):
mean just very It is hard work. It is is
no one leaves having heard her story. I think with
the same perspective as when you came in. But it's
hard to do. It's hard for those who've gone through
it to open up and share about it, and it's
(35:19):
hard for those to listen and say, well, what am
I supposed to do with it? And you know, I
think the criticism you hear is, well that was then,
this is now and why are we bringing this up?
And you're just trying to make us feel bad? And
it's like, no, no, no, no no, this is not about judgment.
(35:41):
This is about understanding because it gives you a better
just like the experience with your father, seeing it, experiencing
it for yourself gives you a better understanding of how
and why things sit where they are. So are we
(36:02):
losing a little bit of ground? I think we are,
But it's happened before. So the back and forth, if
you will, we go forward three steps, we go back
two steps. And that's why, again, knowing the history, you
don't want to miss the fact that we are still
(36:24):
net one step ahead. And it doesn't mean we're there,
but understand we are net one step ahead.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
I like this is another both and to me again,
I'm very on this right now because in a world
of polarization, I want to be as a leader, as
a counselor as a person in the world, somebody who
opens myself to multiple things being true at once and
the humanity of others. But I think in terms of
you know, I really want to be in a place personally,
and I think I hope for this for society, that
(36:56):
we can sit and say, I can accept what my
ancestors do in the past, and I can also accept
the beauty of them. I could accept the hard things,
and I can. I don't feel personally responsible, but I
feel accountable for my own history. And I kind of say,
and it sounds like glib, but it's really true to me.
The truth will set you free, like it sets you
free in a way. So to bring this into the
(37:19):
context of this business that you and I have been
in for decades and is really an amazing business to
be into, to think about how to communicate, to connect
with others, to shape perceptions, to have people be heard,
to tell stories. And I love that you're doing that documentary.
I think that's amazing right to help people tell their stories,
make it human. A lot of organizations today you know
(37:42):
whether your clients at or agency side know what their
values are, but they're trying to navigate a landscape that
is challenging, where there's different types of policies or ideologies
that may or may not be friendly to what they're
trying to do with their workforce or with their stakeholders. So,
do you have any advice for the communicators and brand
leaders and marketers listening to this that say, you know,
(38:04):
we know what our corporate values are about, how do
we follow them? How do we make hard decisions at
this time? Because I know for us personally, we're just
trying to, like you said, rout these concepts and the
reality of why it helps the business, why it helps
our community, why it helps our clients, Make it real,
make it tangible, get beyond the acronyms, talk about context
like that's what we're trying to do here. What are
(38:25):
your pieces of advice for those who may be listening.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
I think your spot on, you know, I think the
first we need to have a very clear eyed understanding
of where we are. And it gets back to what
we were talking about earlier. There's a lot of hype
headlines in hyperbole at the moment about what diversity and
(38:50):
inclusion practices are and what they aren't and so it's
important that we actively seek multiple voices to give us
a full bodied perspective on what people are thinking. And
(39:14):
you know, we have such a luxury in the plethora
of media outlets and information of you know, how we
curate information, and we can curate, you know, a perspective
that never varies from our own. But as communicators, I
(39:35):
think we have an obligation to try to develop a
very full bodied sense of what's actually going on, the
reality of what's going on versus what you know, anyone
headline might indicate is going on. I think we have
(39:59):
to be very as precise as possible about describing the
strategic why, why are we doing what we're doing, How
does it benefit the business, how does it benefit the organization,
(40:20):
and what will it look like as we implement it,
and what's the impact on me? Right, everybody's always interested
in with them and when often you're right, yes, what's
in it for me? Of course I use the acronym
after talking about you know, you really shouldn't use acronym, right, So,
(40:47):
but that's what draws your attention to any piece of content,
anything that someone's trying to communicate to you. You're listening
for what does it mean for me? And so the
more we can as communicators connect the dots between what
(41:08):
we're doing and why we're doing it and what it
means for all of us and for you as an individual,
the better we'll be. And you hear this when we're
talking about communicating all other strategic enablers, right, how many
conversations have you had about getting all people, not just
(41:28):
the ones on the front line, to understand the client
experience and to think about the client and really have
some empathy for what's happening to the client, and then
to connect how being more cognizant of the client, how
does that connect directly to the way you do your
job and to the way you think about what you do.
(41:50):
So making that connection from the broader this is what
we're doing back to the you, how does it impact you?
How can you make a difference? I think is really
key for communicators at this point in time. And then
that whole aligning the performance with the promise. So if
(42:14):
you're out there right, if you're out there talking about
this is what we're doing, this is what we're doing,
make sure you understand what you're actually doing and how
that meets the criteria of what you're describing, and if
there's a misalignment, then the practice has to change or
the way you talk about it.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
Guess because talking about something and not delivering on it
is a big way to break trust. I love that.
That's great pieces of advice. The only one I'd layer
on is remembering our people and our stakeholders are not
a monolith. You know, they have multitudes in them and
there's different way to connect. But getting that benefit and
making very real to say, why are you doing this?
What's the context? So this has been such a great conversation.
(42:56):
I always love to end. This is called building brand gravity,
So I always love to know what has you in
its gravity. I know your documentary, I'm sure does that
you're producing. But anything else, Cheryl, that that you're excited
about right now, that that you've been watching or listening
to or following that our listeners should know.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
I like words, uh And the word fortitude is one
that recently I was working on something and writing about
fortitude and this this concept of pressing forward in the
face of complexity or uncertainty, adversity or challenge. Uh And
(43:36):
and just persevering and what comes from that. I I'm
kind of fascinated by that because I think, you know,
now is now is the time?
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (43:50):
You know? And if I again had to pull out
another quote or the essence of a quote doctor talked about,
you know, it's really not about where we find ourselves
in times of comfort and convenience, but where do we
find ourselves in times of challenge and controversy. And if
there's ever been a time in our lifetime of challenge
(44:12):
and controversy, this is it. And so where are we
and making sure that we find ourselves That's my prayer.
Faith is my other grounder, if you will, I want
to be found in the right place, doing the right
things in these times.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
I love that fortitude. It's a great word too. It
has a lot of helf to it. Well share about us.
Thank you so much. I thank all our listeners for
joining us, for building brand gravity, share like comment, let
us know what you like here and recommend other topics.
But thank you for listening today, and thank you Cheryl
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Thank you, And this is great
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.