I think a lot of times when people talk about diversity in the workplace, they're really taking categorical perspectives. So, they're really saying, okay, traditionally, most spaces of power, let's say a corporate space or even an NGO space has been run, at least at the highest levels, by a white man. And so, the way to combat that problem is to just include a couple brown folks, couple black folks, couple women, maybe preferably a couple of woman of color, and they've solved their diversity issue, right? It's in the token inclusion of human beings from different backgrounds that solve the diversity issue. But what the problem with that approach tends to be, the same practices stay in place, the same rules stay in place, even through you've included different people in the conversation. And so what that means is, you're not really changing how the workplace functions, you're really incorporating the experiences of those who come from other backgrounds into the conversation, which would therefore change your practices, your rules, and the overall culture of the organization. So, the way that I tend to think about that problem is personal. And I think about the fact that I grew up in the United States, I grew up in a predominantly white area in California. Probably when I was growing up, it changed a lot, when I was growing up it was about 80% white. So I learned to act white, I learned to inhabit white spaces in a way that was comfortable for the majority, in that case. And so when we translate that experience into traditional workspaces or into the modern corporate workspace, it functions the same way. I come into that workspace, and I'm expected to act unmarked way, I'm acting white, which is a cultural form, but it's unmarked, right? It's just the way we do things in this business, in this organization. And so, when I'm entering that space, I'm leaving something behind, I'm leaving 600 pieces of my identity behind in order to function and prosper in that workspace. Preferably what would happen in that workspace, is all of those other pieces of who I am, get incorporated into that conversation, to change how we even think about our work. Changing a corporate culture to change what's acceptable social behavior, what emotional registers we might want to include, would be a way of breaking some of these social norms that we see in a larger society. I couldn't imagine an office in which women are not already characterized as a, angry or shrill when they speak up, right? Or aggressive really when they speak up. I couldn't imagine a work place where the first thing one says when somebody challenges someone in a position of power, if they're black, is they are being angry black man. These kind of characters that become, and play it subtlety, right? They're implicit biases. We don't see them when we're talking everyday, or we don't explicitly understand or are aware of them when we're talking everyday, but they're there. And the classic example is even in looking at people's CVs, and understanding that how we read a CV changes based on a name. And so, if it can happen without even a conversation, then you better believe that it's definitely there when we're speaking in everyday life. Do we naturally assume that somebody wearing a jacket and a tie, is necessarily the boss? Do we necessarily assume that someone wearing a jacket and a tie who is white, is necessary the boss versus somebody who is black who might not be. I've been talking a lot about being male and being white as a category, right? But those are two different identity categories that intersect with one another in the same way that being a white woman would be two categories that intersect. Being a black woman are two identity categories intersect. Being a brown man, two identity categories that intersect. And what I think happens in lot of work places is that each of those categories get segmented. So, were either looking on in terms of men and women. Or brown, black, white, whatever the other categories are there, rather than seeing those things in conversation. So in a particular meeting or a conference space, let's say, you're not just inhabiting one of your identities at any time, you're inhabiting both. So it takes a far different kind of sophistication to change a culture of a workspace to really say, okay, someone who is a woman of color is inhabiting this space differently than someone who's a man of color. How might they feel and be positioned given a history of black woman in this country being treated in particular ways that we need to change? Otherwise, what happens is we try to create policies or change practices that either group based on all gender. Being a white women and being a black women are very different categories, they're very different experiences at the world. So, we know what they're thinking about is different, we know what their histories of oppression are different. And so, how do we bring that into the workplace? I think it's just a question that ought to be asked versus saying we're now more diverse on say a category of woman/man or the category of black/white. I would say, speaking about this more practically, I do a lot of research on curiosity. And one of my big goals or thoughts on workplace culture, is that the best workplace culture would be one that's really based on a culture of curiosity. How do you ask questions to your personnel such that one, you get to know who they are as best as possible, which then has secondary and tertiary results. One being that you know how they might perform best, because you know who they are. Two is, you may not make them feel outside of the group that is dominant there. All of these things which will change the culture, change the performance, change what you can do. So what does it mean to have a culture of curiosity? Well, it means to ask questions about who people are, and how they feel comfortable, and what they do best. And so, I would say, that in one way makes all of these lived experience questions visible, because you're asking the question and getting the answer. The language we use impacts diversity in everywhere because it's our medium of communication. And so, everybody, I'll start this way, a word is not a word, is not a word, is not a word. How we speak, is not just how we speak, it carries with it many other variances, right? Which impact how people feel. And so when it comes to gendered language, I think that's really where I see my biggest issues with this and where I struggle the most. So, for example, when we're looking at, again, the meeting room is a great place to really think about some of this stuff. Who's interrupting whom? There's a whole concept of mansplaining, all right? Mansplaining can take two forms. One form is a woman in the room says something, and it is repeated in perhaps a different voice with a different authority by a man to explain the same concept. Or mansplaining might be something like, well, what you have to understand is, as if the other person, generally a woman in this case, doesn't understand what's going on. So, the way we frame conversations, creates hierarchy in which many cases, privileges the male, the man, in this case. Women feeling like they need to wait to be talked to, another example of this. Versus men always taking up a lot of room in conversation or feeling like they can, without any sort of questioning of their authority. Saying I'm sorry is something that happens with women a lot in these kind of workspaces, where it's almost like one has to apologize for having an idea if you're a woman, and it comes up all the time. And so, how do we change a culture where women don't feel like they ought to act that way, versus, and how do we change the culture of men, I think is the bigger question, right? Because sure, we can always put the burden on a woman to act differently. But how do we actually get men in these workspaces to stop talking so much, for example, right? Or to change their language such that it doesn't come off as this kind of universalist sentiment. Well, I think this is the way we ought to run this company, right? In a way that just takes over the room. How do we have a discussion, how do we have a dialog, how do we open up the conversation to other voices? And I think that's something that needs to be a changed learning, unlearning and a re-learning for most of the men in rooms. Because to be completely fair, if you spent the last 35 to 45 years of your life, never being told that what you're saying wrong or always feeling that the way that you're speaking is correct, it's unlikely that you're going to feel you need to change your practice unless, you're really forced to. And so, I think that's where we need to go with that conversation. Really picking out those moments in dialogs where men are taking up too much room or really taking too much power that they need not, and showing that back to them.