To be Inclusive, Change How You Collaborate
I spent the last two days at Devopsdays Atlanta, where the theme was diversity and collaboration. The experience caused me to reflect deeply on my past, present, and future relationships — some of which I will share here.
Inclusive Spaces
Dr. Sallyann Freudenberg kicked off with a talk on neurodiversity — the idea that neurological conditions such as ADHD and autism are normal human variations. By learning to change ourselves and our environment to best collaborate with non-neurotypical people, we can achieve amazing things together.
She spoke of the need for physical spaces that enabled people to do their best work. Some may like it quiet, some may like to socialize with others, some may like it dark, and some may like to be able to get outside. When asked what’s the one thing companies can do to better support non-neurotypical people, she replied:
Give people the ability to get up and escape to a place that is comfortable for them.
Her examples reminded me of conversations I’ve had over the years at Delphix when it comes to physical space. We’ve had individuals that found the lighting too harsh and painful, the open space plan too distracting and overwhelming, and the break rooms too social. And we’ve made changes for them and the company at large, including flexible work from home policies and quiet rooms.
But the framing of those conversations typically started with the standards we had established and debating the business impact of deviating from them. Rarely did I start with embracing someone’s individual experience and then testing our standards against their needs. While it is difficult to build an office to accommodate any mix of any needs at any size, it’s clear that I can be more purposeful and empathetic when creating physical environments that work for all members of the team.
Sharing Your Voice
Jamie Knight and Mike Southgate followed up with an amazing talk on ERMI, their side project for fighting financial crime. Hilarious and entertaining, I was shocked to learn from Mike at lunch the next day that it was the first time they’d given a talk together. Jamie is autistic, driving accessibility at the BBC during the day, building ERMI with Mike and supporting accessibility with his plushie sidekick lion at night.
They spoke passionately how to best collaborate together, from Jamie sometimes being non-verbal, to his intense literalism when it came to product requirements (hence their love of cucumber). I thought about my five-year-old son who, independent of where he may fall on the neurodiversity spectrum, has his share of quirks. I could see how, in bouts of frustration or ignorance, I have tried to get him to communicate as I want him to instead of understanding what works best for him.
But I also thought about communication in the workplace. On day two, Alex Harms talked about psychological safety — the idea that individuals are able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences. Those that lack psychological safety may find themselves more distracted, less effective, and unable to go beyond their comfort zone — as evidenced by Google’s Project Aristotle that identified psychological safety as the best predictor of high performing teams.
Comfort is not safety. Being safe means you are willing to be uncomfortable in pursuit of your goals. At Delphix, our core values of trust and team explicitly state that everyone should be safe being their authentic selves at work. But as I listened, I kept coming back to a recurring topic at Delphix — the role of anonymous questions in large meetings. We have always supported this, thanks in part to anonymous slack bots, but it has generated frustration.
The legions of internet trolls remind us every day that the shield of anonymity can be weaponized to become a jerk. If our core values dictate that anyone should be able to voice their opinion, and we trust in each other, then one argument follows that supporting anonymous questions act against our core values. I believe the opposite — there are plenty of people that are not, and should not have to be, safe asking arbitrary questions in front of hundreds of people. Nor should they be denied that opportunity.
Imagine you’re a 23-year-old transgender person six weeks into the company and want to ask about benefits for transgender people at the next all hands. It’s an important question, one that should be covered in that setting. But how many of us would be comfortable putting our name out there publicly, to be immediately judged by hundreds or thousands of unknown co-workers? Now imagine the breadth of personalities, neurodiversity, and experiences of marginalized groups that come into play in that situation. While anonymous questions can be frustrating, cutting off that avenue of communication for those that need it carries a far higher price.
Comfort with discomfort
Atlanta native Kim Crayton talked about the illusion of equality, including how allies like myself (cisgendered white straight men) need to not only be willing to make ourselves uncomfortable, but actively seek it out to best support and empower those from marginalized groups.
In one open space discussion around inclusion, I relayed some of my experiences of how I’ve seen doors shut to others not like me. One person challenged me by pointing out how, during the conversations, I should not have compared the impact of various experiences to those in marginalized groups. And they were right.
In Ijeoma Oluo’s fantastic book So You Want to Talk About Race, one of her first rules is “It is about race if a person of color thinks it is about race.” We are incapable of truly understanding the experiences of those in marginalized groups of which we are not a part, and we cannot assert any authority over their perspectives. I considered myself educated on the topic, and yet here I was making qualitative judgements about how others should feel. By pushing me to be uncomfortable, this person helped me see how I need to change and grow.
In the context of those experiences, they also challenged whether our company core values were truly authentic. I struggled at the time to rationalize the earnest beliefs of myself and those around me with the discomfort of having the veracity our core values called into question.
Later, I came to the conclusion that the embodiment of a core value is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Someone can earnestly believe that everyone feels safe sharing their voice, and yet not understand how large public settings may impact that feeling of safety. That doesn’t make the core value, or their belief in it, any less authentic. It just means that we need to challenge ourselves to evolve our understanding and behavior. Put another way, core values are never “done”. As long as we’re not willfully refusing to change, it’s all part of our continuous journey to better ourselves and build the best possible environment that is inclusive of everyone.
Because DevOps
This was a DevOps conference, and none of these topics has anything to do with DevOps, right? Nathen Harvey put forth a broad definition for DevOps in his talk:
DevOps is a cultural and professional movement focused on how to build and operate high velocity organizations, based on the experiences of its practitioners.
Inclusivity, diversity, and collaboration are all central to organizational success. Unless we are are bringing all perspectives to the table, enabling everyone’s voice to be heard, and creating environments where everyone is supported and effective, we can never claim to be a “high velocity organization”. DevOps has always been about people, but as the tools and practices have become increasingly capable over the years the cultural challenges have become more visible and pronounced.
DevOps or not, we need to challenge ourselves to build a better world where everyone can collaborate together for the greater good.
This story is published in Noteworthy, where thousands come every day to learn about the people & ideas shaping the products we love.
Follow our publication to see more product & design stories featured by the Journal team.