Roger: Hey everyone, welcome to the show! Today we're tackling something that's a “really” big deal—equity. I mean, what does it really take to build organizations, systems, even societies where everyone has a fair shot and can truly flourish? Patricia: Yeah, Roger, exactly. It's one of those concepts that sounds amazing, right? But honestly, how often do we actually see it play out in the real world? And what are the real roadblocks preventing us from achieving it? Roger: Right. That's where Minal Bopaiah's book, Equity: How to Design Organizations Where Everyone Thrives, comes in. It's not just another analysis of why inequities exist. It’s a practical guide, a toolkit if you will, for dismantling them. Minal gives us concrete strategies, from addressing systemic biases to designing systems that truly put marginalized voices front and center. And her approach is rooted in empathy and human-centered design. Patricia: And what I find fascinating is how she blends these big, almost philosophical ideas—like fundamentally rethinking leadership—with very tangible, real-world examples that illustrate these ideas in action. You know, case studies, frameworks, looking at the systemic challenges but, importantly, also offering real solutions. That's what makes this conversation so compelling. Roger: So, here’s what we're going to unpack today: First, we'll explore how to identify those really deeply ingrained inequities that organizations often miss or ignore. Then, we're going to dive into the magic of human-centered design—looking at what happens when we build solutions around the people who are most affected by the problems. Patricia: Okay, and third, we're going to challenge some of the traditional notions of how leadership works—and spoiler alert, it's definitely not just "diversity hires." Fourth, we will examine how to craft impactful messages that don't just sound inclusive but actually drive meaningful change. And finally, we will look at what happens when we redefine success itself—beyond just profit margins, beyond just ticking boxes—to something that is genuinely equitable. Roger: Think of it like this: building a bridge. You can’t just throw down a few planks and hope for the best. We need to diagnose the gaps, build a solid foundation, and make sure everyone can cross it together, not just a select few. So let’s jump in! Patricia: Alright, Roger, but let's see if this bridge can actually hold some weight, okay? I've got questions, and I'm sure our listeners do too.

Roger: Okay, Patricia, let's kick things off with a critical foundation for our conversation: understanding systemic inequities and bias. Because, honestly, before we can even start talking solutions, we've got to be crystal clear about exactly what we're up against, right? Patricia: Absolutely. It's like... diagnosing a disease. You can't prescribe the right treatment if you don't understand the symptoms and, more importantly, the underlying “cause”. So, Roger, where do these inequities actually stem from? What are the root causes? Roger: Well, they're really deeply rooted in historical, social, and cultural systems. These systems create and perpetuate disparities, you know, in power, privilege, and access to opportunities. A key factor is implicit bias—those unconscious attitudes or stereotypes. They kind of seep into our decisions and actions without us even realizing it. Mahzarin Banaji, who's a leading voice in implicit bias research, famously described it as, get this, "the thumbprint of the culture on our brain." I mean, basically, we're all shaped by the social conditioning that we've been subjected to. Patricia: "Thumbprint of the culture"... Hmm. I like that imagery, it paints a picture. Make it real for me, though. Can you give me a tangible example of how that "thumbprint" works in practice? Roger: Sure. One of the clearest examples is in hiring practices. Research has consistently shown that resumes with "ethnic-sounding" names are less likely to get callbacks than identical resumes with more Anglo-sounding names. I mean, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Black candidates, for example, had to send out about 50% more applications than White candidates just to get the same number of interview opportunities. Patricia: Wait, just so I’m clear... a hiring manager looks at the exact same qualifications and experience, but just because the name suggests a different racial or ethnic background, they just pass? That's not just implicit bias, that feels like outright discrimination! Roger: It does, doesn't it? And it highlights how even without any conscious intention to discriminate, these implicit biases can create systemic barriers. It's not just about an individual decision-maker being "bad" or "prejudiced." It's about how these biases become sort of baked into organizational processes. And over time, this actually warps entire systems – it unfairly favors certain groups over others. Patricia: Right. So even the well-meaning people out there, their unconscious biases still leave a mark. But you mentioned intersectionality way back in the beginning too, playing a role. Could you, like, unpack that a little bit for us? Roger: Absolutely. So, intersectionality, a term introduced by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, explores how overlapping aspects of identity—like race, gender, class, and ability—create unique experiences of either privilege or discrimination. For example, a Black woman might face challenges that are different from those faced by a White woman or a Black man, because her identity intersects multiple systems of bias simultaneously. Patricia: Kind of like a crossroads where all the disadvantages just pile up on each other, huh? Let me guess: a lot of organizations just completely ignore those intersections, right? Roger: They do, yeah. And when solutions only focus on single-axis identities, focusing on gender alone or race alone kind of thing, they completely miss the compounded oppressions that some individuals have to face. And historically, this has left huge gaps in what people are doing to try and make things more equitable. I mean, one example of intersectional oppression comes from colonial histories. In India, for example, colonialism didn't just impose oppression. It reinforced the rigid caste system, which still affects millions of Dalits, or the so-called "untouchables." I mean, not only are they excluded from opportunities, but they're also socially marginalized. Patricia: The ripple effects of structural oppression... they don’t just disappear because someone updates a policy or passes a law. It’s like trying to put new wallpaper over cracked walls – it doesn’t fix the core structure! Roger: Exactly! And, speaking of structural cracks, here's another area where inequities show up in full force: technology. Specifically, AI systems are increasingly under scrutiny for how they perpetuate bias. Take facial recognition software, for example. These systems are often trained on predominantly lighter-skinned data sets. And this leads to significant errors in recognizing darker-skinned individuals. Patricia: Let me guess – errors that disproportionately affect Black and Brown people? Roger: You've got it. Studies show that facial recognition tools are far less accurate for people with darker skin tones. Which is a huge problem when law enforcement agencies are relying on this technology. I mean, it's led to some horrifying outcomes, cases of misidentification and downright wrongful arrests. Just imagine the compounded inequities when you have faulty tech reinforcing human bias in something as critical as the justice system. Patricia: So it’s not just the tech itself, it’s the data feeding these systems and the way they’re deployed. But here’s my question: if we know the data’s bad and the designers are biased, why do organizations keep acting so surprised when these systems fail? Roger: Yeah, ah... that's a hard truth to swallow. I mean, a lot of tech companies prioritize speed and profit over equity. They don't always test their algorithms on diverse data sets—or better yet, involve diverse teams in designing them, right? And this brings us back to the larger issue: systemic inequity can't be "innovated" away unless we're intentional about addressing bias at, like, every level. Patricia: Right. And it’s not just tech, is it? Media is just as guilty of all this bias reinforcement. I read that even though we’re seeing more female leads in movies now, women of color are still only placed in secondary roles or just those stereotypical portrayals. What’s up with that? Roger: That's spot-on! This is what the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media highlights. While we've made strides in gender representation overall, women of color remain underrepresented or misrepresented. I mean, even young viewers who see more female protagonists, they're still encountering a pretty narrow standard. Characters that often align with Eurocentric ideals, you know, of beauty and of success. Patricia: So the message they’re picking up isn’t just, “You can be a hero” – it’s, “You can be a hero... but only if you fit this mold.” It’s progress wrapped in bias! Roger: Exactly. And that superficial inclusivity does little to challenge the underlying systems of inequity. So, whether it's hiring, technology, media representation, we're seeing the same pattern. These systems don't organically become more equitable. It takes structural, intentional change to move the needle. Patricia: “Definitely” a tall order, Roger. So... if bias is so baked into every institution, from hiring to AI, where do we even begin? What’s the first step in untangling all of this mess? Roger: It starts with recognition. Quite simply, leaders, organizations, and all of us need to examine the roots of these systems and how they advantage some groups while disadvantaging others. Only then can we start redesigning those structures thoughtfully. Patricia: Got it. Diagnose the disease first, then get to work on the cure. I hope these organizations are paying attention, because we’re just getting started here!

Roger: So, with that foundation laid, let's dive into how we can actually build systems that push back against these inequalities. And that leads us straight to Human-Centered Design, or HCD, for equity. Patricia: Okay, Roger, break down HCD for me. Imagine I’m sitting in a boardroom, and I need to see how this connects to the real world. What’s the core idea, and why is it so important? Roger: Well, Patricia, at its heart, Human-Centered Design is about focusing solutions on the people who are most impacted by a problem, especially those who are marginalized. It’s about avoiding those top-down, one-size-fits-all approaches, and instead, really understanding the specific experiences people have. There's a structure – you know, five key phases: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Each of these steps makes sure we’re not just imposing solutions, but actually co-creating them with the people we're trying to help. Patricia: So, it’s not just about asking for feedback at the end, but actually designing alongside the people facing the challenges, right? Roger: Exactly! Instead of saying, "Here's what we think you need," it's about asking, "What do you need?" and "How can we design this solution together?" Take, for example, the Embrace infant warmer – a real breakthrough in neonatal care that came from applying HCD principles in rural India. Patricia: Ah, the Embrace warmer. Didn’t that project start with Stanford design students looking to tackle infant mortality? Roger: That's right. So, the problem was this: India had a really high rate of infant deaths, especially among premature and underweight babies. And a lot of them just didn’t have access to the warmth they needed to survive. Western-style incubators were just too expensive, they needed electricity, and required skilled technicians. Rural hospitals and homes just couldn’t support that. Patricia: Let me guess, the first instinct was probably to donate a bunch of those expensive incubators, thinking that would solve everything. Roger: Exactly. That's the kind of solution that sounds good on paper, but completely misses the reality on the ground. The design team at Stanford’s d.school knew they needed a different approach, so they started with that first phase of HCD: empathy. Patricia: Right, getting to the source. What specific insights did they gain during that empathy phase that really shaped their approach? Roger: Great question, Patricia. They spent a lot of time with these rural communities, really listening to the mothers, healthcare workers, and families. Three key things came up repeatedly: first, many births happened at home, not in hospitals, often because of cultural norms or lack of transportation. Second, frequent power outages made relying on electric incubators impossible. And third, cost was a huge barrier. Even when incubators were available, they were just too expensive for hospitals and completely out of reach for families. Patricia: All of which scream, "This system was not designed for us!" Roger: Exactly! So, from there, the team moved into the next phase: defining the problem. But they didn't just frame it as "Build cheaper incubators." Instead, they asked: how can we provide consistent warmth for vulnerable infants in a way that’s culturally relevant, low-cost, and accessible? Reframing like that really opened doors to creative solutions. Patricia: Okay, so we've got a clearly defined problem, one that can’t be solved by just slapping a Band-Aid on Western tech. What’s next? Roger: Next came ideation and prototyping. The team brainstormed ideas that directly addressed those challenges. And what came out of it was the Embrace infant warmer—a kind of portable swaddle that used a phase-change material to keep a baby's body temperature at 37 degrees Celsius. Patricia: Phase-change material… Sounds pretty high-tech. What is that, and how did it work? Roger: Actually, it's brilliantly simple. Think of it like a wax that stores heat and releases it slowly, keeping the baby warm for hours without electricity. Patricia: So, no high-tech maintenance, no power grid needed, and – if I remember correctly – this thing cost under $25? Roger: That's right, a fraction of what a traditional incubator costs. Plus, it’s culturally usable. You can use it at home, in hospitals, it's simple enough for families without medical training to handle, but effective enough to save lives. And now it's credited with saving over 300,000 infants' lives. Patricia: Wow, that's incredible! Not just the innovation itself, but how tailored it was to those specific community needs. What strikes me is the scalability. This wasn’t a solution limited to one village; it created a ripple effect across neonatal care. Roger: Exactly! And that wasn't by accident. The design team kept refining the product during the testing phase, iterating based on real-world feedback. The takeaway? Empathy drives innovation. By engaging directly with the people they were trying to serve, the designers uncovered barriers they wouldn't have otherwise understood – and created something revolutionary. Patricia: But even with success stories like this, HCD can’t be perfect, can it? What happens when the "human-centered" part of your design process isn't truly diverse? I mean, there have to be some challenges there, right? Roger: Absolutely. A big limitation of HCD as it’s often practiced is a lack of diversity among the designers themselves. We see this in the U.S.: 71% of designers identify as White, according to the 2019 AIGA Design Census. Without different perspectives in the room, even well-intentioned teams risk missing key nuances or even accidentally building bias into their solutions. Patricia: So, it’s like trying to design a bridge while standing on only one side of the river – you’re completely blind to what the other side actually looks and feels like. Roger: That’s a great way to put it. It’s why teams need to actively engage with marginalized communities and really prioritize inclusivity in their hiring and collaboration. Otherwise, frameworks like HCD won't reach their full potential. Patricia: Got it. So, great design doesn't just come from good intentions – it comes from leveling the playing field throughout the entire process. Otherwise, you're just reinforcing the inequities you're trying to solve, aren't you? Roger: Exactly! When done right, though, HCD is a catalyst for equity, as the Embrace infant warmer demonstrates. It’s not just about designing better things – it’s about designing better systems to center those who’ve historically been left out.

Roger: So, equitable design really hinges on having leadership that embodies these principles . Which smoothly brings us to our next topic: engaged and inclusive leadership . This is where we shift from talking about design principles to focusing on the human side – the leadership and organizational change aspects . Patricia: Leadership, right . The age-old topic that every company “claims” to nail, and yet so many fall flat when it comes to actual equity . So, Roger, how is “engaged and inclusive leadership” any different from, say, your typical “we're hiring for diversity” PR move? Roger: It’s fundamentally different, Patricia, because it requires leaders to go beyond just talking the talk . They have to take a really introspective, systemic look at things . Engaged and inclusive leadership, it starts with something very personal - acknowledging your own privilege and vulnerability . And honestly, without that kind of self-awareness, I think most efforts are just going to be surface-level or, you know, even backfire . Patricia: Vulnerability? You mean, like, leaders openly admitting they don't have all the answers? Or maybe even admitting how they've benefited from systems that weren't exactly fair? That doesn't exactly scream, "ideal corporate leader," does it? Roger: It doesn't, usually ! But that's precisely what makes it so powerful and transformative . Let’s take Evans Consulting, for example, and their leader, Jack Moore . After George Floyd’s murder, Jack really struggled talking about racism and equity . He'd been taught to see racism as a personal issue, you know, something to just avoid in professional settings . But those tragic events in 2020, they kind of forced him to confront those old beliefs head-on . Patricia: So, he went from avoiding the conversation to actually jumping into it . What flipped the switch for him? Roger: It was that willingness to be vulnerable . He openly shared his discomfort with his team and acknowledged his blind spots when it came to systemic racism . And that act of authenticity, it set a really important example: the importance of being open and taking personal responsibility in cultivating a culture of equity . It created a space for his team to have those tough, but necessary, conversations . So it became a turning point for the organization . Patricia: Interesting . But let me push back a bit here – being vulnerable sounds great in theory, but how do you actually move from, you know, "talking about equity" to making actual systemic changes? Roger: That’s a great question . So, vulnerability, it is just step one . Leaders like Jack, they also commit to “redesigning inequitable systems” . So, for Evans Consulting, that meant weaving equity into their policies – like creating a salary floor to guarantee living wages for all their employees . Plus, they launched a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Council to listen to what employees were saying and put systemic reforms in place . Patricia: A salary floor – that’s a bold move . But let me double down on this: it's one thing to tweak policies in the office, but real change, it means tackling the underlying cultural norms, right? Did they go there? Roger: Absolutely . They actually scrutinized workplace norms around productivity and accountability, and how those norms might be accidentally reinforcing inequities . They even wove equity considerations into performance reviews and, really, just everyday organizational practices . This alignment between systemic practices and values, it created a much more inclusive environment where employees could contribute meaningfully . Patricia: Okay, I'll give you that – that's impressive . It's one thing to add diversity workshops, but Evans really committed to structural change . But here’s what I want to know: How do you stop these initiatives from becoming just tokenism? You know, where decisions only “look” good on paper? Roger: That's a really critical point . The key is genuine “stakeholder engagement” . Leaders at Evans, for example, they did these listening tours, creating safe spaces where employees could share their own experiences with workplace inequities . And this wasn't just lip service; the feedback directly shaped their equity initiatives . Patricia: So, you're saying equity has to be a team effort . But that takes time—and let's face it, in the corporate world, patience isn't exactly a prized virtue . How do leaders resist the urge to just rush through all of this? Roger: By tying their efforts to measurable goals and accountability structures . Take NPR, for example . They set a really clear objective: ensuring at least 27% of their sources were people of color . Managers were responsible for tracking their source diversity, and they had tools to monitor progress, and they even had to attend inclusive sourcing training . So, this created a culture of shared accountability, where equity wasn't just some buzzword; it was a measurable commitment . Patricia: Specific, trackable goals tied to actual outcomes – I can get behind that . But NPR’s case also raises a new question: Why do these efforts depend so heavily on metrics? Isn’t there a risk of creating a check-box mentality? Like, "Did we hit 27%? Great, problem solved"? Roger: Sure, that risk is always there . But well-designed metrics, they don’t just measure progress, they build accountability into daily operations . NPR’s managers, for example, they weren't just handed a quota; they were part of a cultural shift, where source diversity was essential to journalistic integrity . When accountability is tied to shared values, it goes far beyond just checking boxes . Patricia: Hmm . So, we're talking about changing behaviors, keeping folks honest ... But, how do you keep that momentum going when leadership changes, which inevitably happens? Isn't there a danger of losing all that progress? Roger: That's precisely why inclusive leadership needs to be a collective endeavor . It shouldn't depend on just one person . By really shaping organizational practices and defining measurable objectives – like that salary floor or the source diversity – these efforts become part of the system itself, not just tied to individual leaders . Patricia: Got it . Inclusive leadership, then, is about creating ecosystems that can survive long after today's leadership workshop . But here's my big takeaway so far: Whether it's vulnerability, systemic reform, or measurable goals, these transformations seem, well, daunting . How do leaders even begin to navigate the messy gray areas in all of this? Roger: The "messy gray" is where the real growth happens, Patricia . Leaders, they need to embrace it ! Which is exactly why vulnerability becomes a strength, not a weakness . When leaders admit their own uncertainties or limitations, they open the door for collaboration, sustained accountability, and, ultimately, meaningful change . Patricia: So, it's less about leaders dictating equity from the top down, and more about inspiring collective ownership? I'll admit, Roger, as cynical as I can be, even I’m feeling a flicker of optimism here . Roger: Well, hold onto that optimism, Patricia, because next, we're going to explore how engaged leadership can really build organizations with equity at their core . Not just performatively, but genuinely and systemically .

Roger: You know, Patricia, as we discuss engaged leadership and the systemic shifts it needs, communication is a common thread. Effective leadership has to include strategic communication if you want equity efforts to last. Otherwise, you could have the most transformative policies, but if the message isn’t clear – or gets muddled – it just won't stick. Patricia: That’s a great point. It's like, you can have the best blueprint, but if no one actually picks up the tools and starts building, you’re just left with good intentions, right? So, today we’re diving into "Strategic Communication for Change" in equity work? Roger: Exactly. This topic really pulls together everything we've talked about before, focusing on communicating and integrating equity into everyday routines. It's not just about getting people on board, but genuinely engaging them to bridge that gap between what we want and what actually happens. Patricia: Alright, Roger, my skeptical side is ready. How do we make sure all this “equity talk” doesn't just become a bunch of buzzwords on some memo? Roger: It starts with, what we call, "framing". Basically, structuring your message so it “really” resonates emotionally and feels relevant to whoever you're talking to. It’s not just throwing around big words like "equity" and "diversity." It's connecting with shared human values. For example, take the idea of "Opportunity for All." It shifts the focus away from divisive "us versus them" thinking and centers on breaking down barriers, so everyone has a fair shot. Patricia: I get what you're saying. Instead of, "Let’s fight discrimination," you could say, "Let's build a world where everyone gets a chance to succeed." You’re more likely to win people over with a message of hope, aren’t you? Roger: Absolutely. Another frame is "Interdependence.” Instead of just pointing out how inequities hurt marginalized groups, it emphasizes how we're all connected. It’s like Martin Luther King Jr.’s idea of a "network of mutuality." This reinforces that equity isn't just about helping a few people; it’s about lifting everyone up. Patricia: Okay, let me play devil's advocate here. How do you respond to people who say, "This interdependence thing sounds good, but seems kind of abstract. What's in it for me?" Roger: That's a great point, and it's where behavioral science comes in. People are more likely to engage when you use things like choice architecture. Instead of presenting equity as something you have to do or fix, you frame it as a shared opportunity. Language is really key too. For instance, instead of telling people to "challenge their implicit bias"—which can make them feel defensive—you focus on growth together, emphasizing curiosity and teamwork. Patricia: Alright, I'll bite. How do you guide, say, a manager who's skeptical towards these "shared growth" conversations without them tuning out or getting defensive? Roger: One effective method is "perspective-gathering." Unlike perspective-taking, where you try to imagine someone else's experience – which can lead to stereotypes – this involves actively listening to and learning from those who are marginalized. For example, NPR did these "listening tours" where they brought in staff from different backgrounds to talk about their experiences, and it directly changed how the organization restructured its practices. Patricia: Aha, so it’s not making assumptions, but creating space for people to share. Still, some leaders feel like they're already swamped. How do you convince them that spending the time listening – rather than, say, strategizing – is actually worthwhile? Roger: That's where stories come in. Behavioral science shows that collective storytelling creates empathy. When leaders hear firsthand accounts of systemic barriers, like issues with equal pay or being left out of decisions, it stops being just an abstract idea. Emotions, like vulnerability and curiosity, spark real conversations. And those raw, emotional connections make equity a shared responsibility, not just some requirement. Patricia: Gotcha. So instead of hitting people with stats, you use personal stories to kickstart change, right? Do you have an example where this “really” worked? Roger: Look at Jack Moore, the leader at Evans Consulting. Remember how he openly talked about feeling uncomfortable about racial equity discussions after George Floyd's murder? That vulnerability set the tone for his whole team. Once his employees started sharing their own stories, he saw how the company's systems needed to change – everything from setting a salary floor to overhauling workplace norms. It’s a great example of how storytelling can build trust and break down resistance. Patricia: Okay, but not every organization has – or wants to have – someone like Jack Moore. What about the companies that aren't ready for that kind of vulnerable storytelling? How do you nudge them along without them running for the hills? Roger: That's where nudging comes in, Patricia. Nudges are those small, subtle changes that guide behavior with the least amount of resistance. Take NPR again – they asked managers to keep track of the diversity of their news sources. It didn't feel like a huge deal, but over time, it changed how they found and edited stories. It made inclusive practices normal without making anyone feel alienated. Patricia: So, it’s about making equity part of the routine so people start doing it without a second thought, right? I like the subtlety – less confrontation, more habit-building. But I have to ask: isn't there a risk that these nudges just lead to superficial compliance? Roger: That's why nudges have to go hand-in-hand with systemic alignment. The pronoun visibility initiative is a perfect example. Organizations that introduce pronoun displays on badges or in email signatures aren't just signaling inclusion – they're encouraging employees to think critically about gender dynamics. It's a cultural nudge, but it's also deeply connected to the organization's values. Patricia: Pronouns on name tags – simple, yet it sends a message. Beyond those easy wins, what about messaging that tackles resistance head-on? You know, the people who actively push back? Roger: That's where tailored messaging comes in. You can't – and shouldn't – use a one-size-fits-all approach. Leaders like Jack Moore openly acknowledged his discomfort around racial equity conversations, but he framed it around shared goals, not just political correctness. His honesty invited others to join the conversation instead of pushing them away. When people see vulnerability, rather than someone standing on a moral high ground, they’re far more likely to engage. Patricia: Vulnerability and nudges – kind of a one-two punch. So, what happens when you get this right? Is the payoff “really” worth all the messaging gymnastics? Roger: Absolutely. Strategic communication, when it’s done well, turns hesitant participation into lasting collaboration. It connects individual beliefs with institutional goals, like NPR changing its newsroom practices based on genuinely inclusive input. These aren't just pleasant conversations; they're structural shifts that have a lasting impact. Patricia: Alright, Roger, I’ll admit – you’ve got me intrigued. If this approach balances empathy, data, and tailored messaging, I can see how it transforms ideals into action. And hey, for a skeptic, I might actually buy in.

Roger: So, finally, we get to see how all of this has a ripple effect on society. That leads us to our last topic: "Collective Equity and Redefining Success." Basically, it’s about zooming out and looking at how we can make changes on a broader scale, thinking about what we owe each other and how we’re in this for the long haul. Patricia: Okay, I’m curious. What do you even mean by "redefining success"? I mean, aren't we talking about profits, market position, and quarterly earnings? The things that keep leaders awake at night? Roger: Exactly! That’s my point, traditional notions of success focus on individual achievement, you know, the self-made success stories. Totally missing the bigger picture, like the systems and support networks that make those achievements possible. Redefining success means looking beyond individual wins and focusing on shared opportunities and everyone's well-being. Patricia: So, it’s not just about being first across the finish line, it's making sure everyone gets a fair start? A pretty big rethink. Sounds great in theory, but I bet you have more than just warm feelings to support this idea, right? Roger: Absolutely. Take the Embrace infant warmer, for example. It’s not just a product; it shows redefining success can actually save lives. In rural India, lots of premature babies were dying because they couldn't stay warm enough. Normal incubators were too expensive, needed electricity, and were hard to use in remote areas. So, some students from Stanford's d.school stepped in. But instead of pushing whatever they thought the solution should be, they actually listened. Patricia: Right, we talked about this earlier. Human-Centered Design, wasn’t it? Empathy first, not assumptions? Roger: Exactly. They talked to mothers, healthcare workers, families in those rural communities. They found out about things like frequent power outages and the high cost of those incubators, and, most importantly, they realized that whatever they came up with had to be practical and affordable. Patricia: This is where the magic happens, right? They designed something that actually fit the context, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. So, how did they come up with the Embrace solution? Roger: It was all about how they framed the problem. Instead of asking “How do we make a cheaper incubator?” they asked “How do we keep these babies warm given all the challenges they’re facing?” That little shift led them to something completely different: a portable swaddle with a special material that kept the baby's temperature stable without electricity. Cost, like, under $25. Easy to use, perfect for both homes and clinics. Patricia: So, not fancy. Just basic warmth. Life-saving warmth. What gets me is 300,000 children saved. Huge. Tell me this wasn't just a one-time thing. What's the bigger picture? Roger: The big takeaway is that success isn’t always about fancy tech or big profits. It’s about really meeting people’s needs. The Embrace warmer wasn’t made to make money; it was made to make a difference. It shifted the focus from individual wealth to community well-being. Patricia: That's really powerful. But redefining success in a way that prioritizes equity feels... aspirational. Like, more idealistic than practical. How do we even start making this "collective equity" mindset stick? Roger: It starts with intersectionality—recognizing and tackling those overlapping, compounded inequities. You can't talk about equity in a bubble. For example, think of the "culture of overwork" in some workplaces, which disproportionately affects women, especially women of color. Flexible work or childcare support? Not just perks. Critical for progress. Patricia: Wait. So, flexible work isn’t just helping moms with daycare; it's tackling systemic inequities? That’s a big reframe. But what about the excuse that it costs too much? Roger: Let me challenge that. What's the cost of not addressing these issues? Companies lose talent, productivity drops, and toxic cultures take root. And, here’s the kicker: intersectional solutions help everyone. Flexible work helps single parents and caregivers, sure, but it also boosts morale, productivity, and engagement across the board. Patricia: Ok, say you've convinced the board that collective equity matters. How do you measure success in this new way? You can't just count inclusion audits every quarter, right? Roger: Exactly. Metrics matter, but we need to redefine them. Instead of just looking at income or individual performance, we need to measure community well-being: access to education, healthcare, and fair opportunities. Look at what NPR did: tracking source diversity in their reporting. It wasn’t just about hitting a quota. It was about making accountability part of their culture. Patricia: And that's the nuts and bolts of collective equity—not just high-minded ideals, but measurable and connected to actual change. But how do you make these changes last? Redefining success isn't a one-year project. Roger: That’s where long-term commitment comes in. It’s about building systems that don’t just reward individual wins but communal efforts. Things like reparative policies, systemic redesigns, and routinely gathering different viewpoints. It’s about setting the stage for future generations. Patricia: So, more like planting a forest than a single tree—you don’t see results right away, but the growth is exponential if you take care of it. I’ll admit it, Roger, the skeptic in me is intrigued. But let's be real—this isn't easy. Roger: Of course, it’s not easy, Patricia. But equity isn’t meant to be easy—it’s meant to be transformative. And the transformation starts when leaders, organizations, and societies commit to redefining what success truly means: not just for the privileged few, but for everyone.

Roger: Wow, Patricia, what a ride today! We really dug into some heavy stuff, didn't we? From systemic inequities to, you know, rethinking what success even “means”. The big thing for me is realizing true equity isn't about trying to "fix" people, it's about redesigning the whole system. Patricia: Yeah, we definitely didn't sugarcoat anything. It's about getting real about our biases, making sure everyone gets a seat at the table, and holding leaders responsible. It's not going to happen on its own. Roger: Exactly! And that’s where things like Human-Centered Design come in. It puts people’s actual experiences front and center. Or even something as simple as tracking source diversity like NPR does, you know, it shows what's possible. It's about baking equity “into” the system, not just slapping it on as a last-minute addition. Patricia: So, in essence, creating genuine equity means not just fixing what's broken, but really imagining something fundamentally better, right? It's ditching the whole "me, me, me" mentality and redefining success for everyone. Okay, sounds amazing, but where do we even start? Roger: Well, that's the messy, challenging part, isn't it? But honestly, it's the most impactful way to make lasting change. Patricia: Alright, challenge accepted. So, here’s my question for everyone listening – and myself, frankly: "What systems am I even a part of? And how can I help redesign them so they actually work for “everyone”?" Because, let's be honest, the way things are now? That's not set in stone. It's a “choice”. And we can choose something smarter, more equitable, right? Roger: Couldn't agree more, Patricia. The status quo is a choice! So, until next time, let’s keep pushing the envelope of what equity can be, together.