08/29/2026
Last week’s two separate offensive situations (one a product, one an ad), involving two well-resourced global companies were likely company culture issues, not a lack of aware and informed people-in-the-room issues.
It’s not that companies lack varying demographics in the room; they have to in order to appease. Having people in the room checks a box; creating agency for perspective/idea sharing is what prevents expensive public errors and apologies (and most importantly, does not demoralize people or promote harmful acts). It’s the creating agency part that counts.
A quick observation of what happened in the decision making rooms will provide necessary information:
Who is allowed to share ideas, opinions, etc.?
Who gets talked over, ignored, dismissed, etc.?
Who is tired of trying to caution, warn, inform, etc.?
Who is valued and who is not, and why?
What modalities are used to share perspectives/ideas?
We can ask these and many other questions of global companies, and even boycott, protest, or whatever one deems productive.
But before going global, let’s check out our own working and learning spaces next week. Consider these questions and observe the answers as they occur.
Caution: once noticed, the patterns can’t be unnoticed.
Image description: a white piece of paper with the text, “When people are unwilling to share, leaders must ask themselves, is it because they do not care or do not dare?” The Center for Cultural Agility website and logo at the bottom.
