Diversity Requires Equity and Inclusion
Pros
-From what I've heard, there are newer resources in place that serve to support employees who often lack a voice in the workplace -Lots of genuine people who care about the company’s mission and want to make a difference in the lives of customers and their students. -Teamwork and camaraderie was such an integral part of work that it was pretty much impossible for me to not end up making a few lasting friendships -There was always time set aside for team building and social activities outside of work. -Potential market opportunity of ed-tech is vast, particularly given the current global climate -There are managers and individual contributors who are committed to continuing to nurture diverse teams -A fair amount of work flexibility, perks, and sound benefits
Cons
- Because it was a growth centered culture, I felt we often needed to make concessions that impeded our ability to deliver sound and sustainable results. To be fair, this often the case with many VC backed startups. - Intuitive rather than data-driven decisions and inexplicably shifting directives made it difficult to plan long-term. Resources that could have been used to better serve customers instead were diverted to cleaning up preventable mistakes. Rather than acknowledge and commit to fixing this cycle, it was often handwaved as unavoidable growing pains. - Without an executive team seriously invested in diversity & inclusion, efforts in that arena felt performative, if not compulsory, and ultimately ineffective without real and fully transparent dedication to inclusion in the form of equitable pay, open dialogue, and equal respect. - During my tenure, we lacked an empowered people leader who was equipped to effectively and respectfully work with marginalized groups. In retrospect, leadership (myself included) could have worked harder to find someone able to work in the interest of the company yet remain independent and passionate enough to advocate for employees regardless of role or background. - Social currency can sometimes be more valuable than performance currency. It began to seem to me like the accomplishments, efforts, and aspirations of colleagues, as well as some candidates, were downplayed or dismissed altogether because they weren't what success was supposed to be or look like (i.e. white, male, pedigreed, lighter-skinned, etc.). Conversely, underperformers might keep their jobs if they were perceived as being or having been valuable by virtue of their role, personal affinity/relationship, or past performance (either at or prior to Teachable) -Accountability was an issue. This sense was exacerbated by the fact that, in the absence of easily tracked data and public benchmarks, there wasn’t a way to determine whether certain efforts were successful or not. Further, the push for accountability and critical feedback was sometimes misconstrued as personal, which led to a bit of pettiness and backbiting. I believe this is often the case in environments where acknowledging and taking responsibility mistakes is not actively promoted from the top.
