Why do we urgently need "Diversity"? 

To ethically address the problems we face today, while accelerating our ability to react and institute change. 

We need both the best and most equitable solutions. 

 

How do we accomplish this? 

Bring all walks of life to the table to innovate our way out of critical problems at an accelerated pace.  

There is talent in all roles and value to all perspectives - the caretaker, friend, parent, child, sibling, etc., are all variables that affect Experiential Diversity.

 

Evolve Education is brainstorming on ways to address our most critical needs for advancement of society in an ethically responsible and equitable manner.  We want to set up specialized programs to educate and train youth following a curriculum designed to prioritize the skill set that is most important to advancements in the cause.  

 

Evolve Mag - a new way to influence

We need all the help we can get to come up with solutions fast enough to protect us from the accelerated social changes we are experiencing.  I believe Cyber-theft is going to skyrocket due to inflation and higher interest rates to borrow, and lower stock values than you want to sell.  Are we equipped to get out of a cyber-driven revolution?

 

We need to dedicate resources to solving problems and brainstorming differently, harnessing the power of technology and communication channels we now have. 

​

We need networks of real, knowledgeable people, from all walks of life, to make society function more efficiently.

​

Why would we not listen to a brilliant idea from anyone on a topic of interest?  We need means to get great ideas from a diverse, talented network to the right people.  A place where influencers of all different age groups and types can unite on causes to be able to gain traction for bigger picture solutions.

​

Diversify All is on a mission to increase Experiential Diversity in the workforce.  Ecosystems in our society, including Tech, Health, Energy, Privacy, and Security are determining how to use and implement new technologies.  Do they have the best interest of individuals from all walks of life who rely on those ecosystems providing input to decisions? 

 

Without ideas from and sufficient power to be heard, individuals with different perspectives are lost even though they're really an instant away from being able to regularly provide input.  We must find the best solutions for the most people and eliminate the inherent biases certain employment constraints have on the applicant pool?

 

I don't think we should have to face the fork in the road - whether to stay on your career path or stay at home with your infant is one of the most excruciating decision a mom faces, and it is the result of a system built around a male workforce.  We can re-think this.  We have the capability.  What is the problem? 

 

Congress cannot move fast enough.  Courts cannot move fast enough.  Law enforcement cannot get funding and attention for it.  That leaves the sophistication of technology available for unfettered use in the world exponentially increasing unchecked and accelerating out of control.  We need all hands on deck.  We need to focus and get organized.  We need to build some security around us.

 

Promotion of part-time, remote roles would be effective.  If de-stigmatized, it would provide a route that could be hard to pass up. 

 

If there were two part-time, remote options regularly available for every full-time position, many full-time and stay-at-home parents would choose this option.  Why would you instead, refuse to provide a part-time option, which you know has a high likelihood of pushing them out of the company?  Why wouldn't you want them to have a seat at the problem-solving table? 

 

The development and use of newly developed tech should not be sitting in the hands of a subset of people who are on one end of any spectrum - including those who work extraordinary hours to accumulate money and power and have been and continue to be rewarded for aggressive behavior.  I do not want my entire digital existence to be held in the hands of aggressive executives.

​

Give people with different lives and motivations, different priorities in life, a chance to weigh in.

​

Help Your Employees 

Companies must listen to employees and support them.  Providing better benefits and treating employees with respect is the simplest way to instill loyalty and work ethic, and should be the first priority when it comes to the betterment of our society.  If a company does not support its own workforce, how can it stand by its commitments to customers? 

 

If a company does the bare minimum for employees, why do they expect anything above the bare minimum from the employees?

​

Employees should have input and be given the opportunity to teach corporate employers about how they actually live and what would enable them to sustain a quality of life that promotes a healthy workforce and society. 

 

As the line continues to fade between work and personal life, and we get more comfortable with them blending, employers must be agile enough to give talented employees what they need to best innovate, even if that environment is not what could have been advised in a business management book on how to get the most out of your workers. 

 

We don't live in a static enough environment to govern in traditional ways.  Things are changing too fast to miss the boat on evolution.  We must use the power of the communication networks to influence collectively.  I think it could be incredibly powerful.  I think we could move mountains together with accelerated innovation through Experiential Diversity.

​

One Size Does Not Fit All - Why is Employment so Rigid?

In-office vs remote debates and emotions surrounding those decisions is causing another unnecessary dividing line, separating employees from one another, reducing their power.  This is an unnecessary and wasteful separation.  It is consuming energy with negative, adversarial feelings.  Why not change?

 

Managers and employees should have the ability to negotiate variables for each position and to revisit the variables during the course of employment. 

 

Why does employment have to be so uniform and rigid, especially in terms of number of hours and location?  I used to love the fact that Apple was wildly successful without losing its start up agility and problem solving acumen. 

 

I think something along the line seems to have changed.  It doesn't seem like there is agility or solidarity and conviction on employment issues.  Why does Apple have no interest in even thinking about a new employment model?  It feels like a company being stubborn.

​

How is one-size fits all requirements for in-office vs. remote work healthy or in line with Apple's principles?  Diversity, Ethics, Equity.  It perpetuates the advantage of a certain type of family for whom the schedule was built.  What about the families disadvantaged by the schedule?  The ones who can't afford the $3m to have a decent house close to the Silicon Valley offices?  The ones who don't have sufficient child care for the extra precautions that need to be taken for Covid?

​

Why do government benefits have to be one-size-fits-all?  We have so much data on people but do nothing good with it.  Why do we not have an integrated system that allows customization of the benefits that will help the specific individual seeking public assistance the most?  We have the data and tech.  Why don't we use it to be more efficient and effective in how we provide assistance? 

​

The large company in the US, as a group, seems uninterested in actually effectuating change to help employees with their real world problems, even though they want to tout that they are diverse, inclusive, equitable, and trustworthy. 

 

In the face of hypocrisy, the best employees complain and leave and/or get poached.  Then, the challengers and start ups see the opportunity.  

​

Problems ahead of a corporation, I think, can be sensed when there is a rewarding of the wrong characteristics and behavior by promotions in leadership.  When leaders with certain narcissistic characteristics and behaviors take over, the corporation becomes less valuable.  It feels different. 

 

Is it inevitable or is there a way to stop this change?  Probably the former in my opinion, but it is a mystery.  Nothing is more telling about what is going on inside a corporation than employee sentiment - something very hard to get to.

 

Rewarding self-interested employees with promotions leads to decision-making and resource allocation that enables that growth or retention of that self-interested employee's kingdom - it is a serious red flag that leadership has a problem.

 

A self-interested leadership team will suffer from dysfunction, take away the organization's agility necessary to foresee and overcome problems quickly and efficiently.  Sometimes, things needed align with others' interests, sometimes not.

​

Our rigid employment Model is inherently biased

A work week consisting of ~8 hours in the office for 5 days a week, during 9-5 business hours is not good for Experiential Diversity.  It was built around a uniform, all male workforce, and family roles where the man worked and the woman stayed at home.  Therefore, it has a built in bias for those who have that family structure.  

​

There is no reason every employee must have the same hours requirement, benefits, etc.  Why don't we have better employment contracts that are tailored?  We have the technology to handle the size of data and adjustments that would be necessary to provide customized employment contracts.  Is it refusal to let go of some control?  Is it inability to trust your employees' judgment?

​

Re-thinking the model

Now that our society is no longer dominated by one family structure, we need to revisit the employment model to make it facilitate success and advancement for more people.  Experiential Diversity is needed in corporate culture.  Corporate culture is too dominated by one type of executive and the way they live and see the world.  Innovative companies need to listen to their work force and try to find ways to give them what they want to feel dignified and heard.

​

A Flex Model would enable each employee, manager and employee to agree to various options, including variables for things like number of hours, schedules, and locations.  Once agreement is reached, during employment, those variables could be revised easily on an internal system and could be periodically subject to more formal reviews.  The discussion and negotiation of certain variables is built into the employment model.

​

Be agile to get the job done in the most efficient, and often most creative way.  Reward employees with flexible employment options for reaching some milestones.  Make it transparent. 

 

Flex Employment for Experiential Diversity - Celebrate Innovation

​

Necessary for Knowledge to Control the Use of Technology in Committing Crimes

We must move faster and more efficiently to fight against fragmentation of society.  Technology is making the population evolve much faster than any law enforcement and legislative body can keep up with.  To guide the use of technology that is widely available and uncontrolled in a responsible and ethical manner, we need the best and brightest, from every profession, from every walk of life, to help find a big-picture solution.

 

Experiential Diversity - More Perspectives

Breaking the employment model is a critical step to delivering equity and diversity in the workplace.  You must have people in the room who live differently from one another to achieve the problem solving necessary to evolve with equitable and ethical solutions in today's global society.

​

No matter what you did for employment, whether you were a stay at home mom, which would make you the CEO of a household of X members, and/or you held the financial or decision-making power in your household, and/or were in a profession with a salary and benefits, you faced challenges, had to make tough decisions, and balance ethical concerns with financial, social, and familial responsibilities and expectations.  We all faced tough decisions and questioned ourselves and guilted ourselves periodically no matter which path we went down.  

​

We made our choices and honed our skills in our roles. We questioned whether it was worth it, whether we were advancing enough to make it worthwhile.   Breaking down what we did into skillsets and strengths is a better way to find a good employment fit than anything else.  

​

With social media, we now have the ability to make connections across socio-economic boundaries like never before to find like-minded people who have the same values and causes.  

​

Let's build the networks to help evolve employment with collective learnings instead of making mistakes on parallel paths.  It is not socialism.  It is not anti-trust or collusion.  It is just learning and publishing statistics.

​

Flex Employment

Would you rather be advised or assisted by an expert in her field who works 10 hours a week, and therefore is fresh and efficient when she works, and can understand a broader set of customers from experiencing both the working mom and stay at home experience part-time?  Their contributions bring more innovative problem solving and strategy and may be just as or more valuable as the employee who is effectively heads down working 60 hours a week.  If inflexibility prohibits an arrangement that works for her, she will find it elsewhere and her talent and perspective, a rarity, is working for someone else. 

​

As we contemplate whether we want to continue working for someone else, let's form a network to connect with each other as we face similar challenges in order to brainstorm about potential solutions.  If we connect, perhaps we can pressure corporations to evolve in the right direction.  An employer who is unwilling to adapt fast enough to a society that is moving at warp speed will fall by the wayside because the most talented employees will opt for better treatment elsewhere.   

 

Corporate Responsibility

Success of companies is dependent on the talent they attract, retain, develop, and motivate employees. 

Formulated statistics for publications controlled by the corporation are meaningless if the stories people experienced tell a very different story about a company's moral compass or genuineness in its causes.

​