Cross-functional collaboration couldn’t be more important today. Building, buying, and using AI raises critical questions that cut across disciplines: Is licensing this AI product worth it? Is our new AI product safe to use? How can we make this new AI tool useful for customers? 

The only way organizations can answer these questions is to draw upon the combined expertise housed across its various functions — including engineering, data, design, product, legal, and more. 

It’s tempting to imagine cross-functional collaboration as just another corporate buzzword, or a fancy term for a skill we all learned in grade school. 

But as it turns out, organizations get cross-functional collaboration wrong more often than not.

Just a few common activities people mistake for cross-functional collaboration include:

* Sharing round robin updates in cross-functional meetings and emails.

* Including a representative from every function in every discussion or decision.

* Ambushing cross-functional partners with requests for input without providing relevant context or sufficient time to respond.

Recognize any of these activities?

They can be more accurately described as cross-functional coordination and have the undesirable effect of increasing coordination overhead (a variation on the concept of Josh Kaufman’s communication overhead). I’ve certainly mistaken these and other activities for cross-functional collaboration in the past — and I can attest first hand that they actually increase inefficiency without driving meaningful impact. 

So, what should organizations do instead?

Here are five tips for implementing cross-functional collaboration at scale.

* Ring-fence initiatives with clear objectives to experiment with cross-functional collaboration approaches that make sense for your organization. The ring-fence can prevent ineffective past ways of working or unhelpful reporting lines from bogging down these efforts.

* Empower teams to execute these ring-fenced initiatives, and assign clear accountability for execution. Empowerment must be meaningful, so factors like appropriate decisionmaking authority, resources, and organizational support are key.

* Identify domain translators, i.e., people in your organization who are ‘fluent’ in more than one discipline. Plug them into cross-functional work to translate across teams and address common points of confusion. For example, they can help develop internal taxonomies to drive common understanding of terms with different meanings among different disciplines. And make sure to formally recognize this work — it is a real skill whose value should not be taken for granted. (Thanks to Jordan Famularo for the suggestion to make this explicit!)

* Establish feedback loops about cross-functional work to identify useful collaboration practices. For example: Which team(s) needs to be involved and when? What context does each team need to contribute meaningfully? How can we remove these common bottlenecks? This feedback should be recorded and can inform the next cross-functional effort, and so on.

* Design formal incentives for cross-functional collaboration, e.g., cross-functional KPIs, performance review goals. This may seem unnecessary (we all want to work together, right?), but it is critical for aligning priorities and resources like budget. 

What do you think?

Would you add anything to this list? Would you change anything? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

Over the past decade, baseline requirements for building data-driven tech responsibly have shifted dramatically. 

What changed? 

Well, a lot. Among other things, the Cambridge Analytica scandal became a household reference; GDPR and privacy starred in dozens of mainstream news stories; and digital tools and apps infiltrated every corner of our lives. 

What does this mean for organizations building data-driven tech? 

For one thing, it means expectations are higher. In addition to quality and utility, people expect some degree of privacy protection, cybersecurity, and transparency as a baseline. These expectations and more are increasingly codified, and tech and data policy continues to evolve. Expectations also come in the form of consumer preferences and public opinion (here is one of my favorite recent examples).

This is why responsible tech programs are quickly becoming a must-have. As it turns out, though, these programs aren’t easy to build. They are cross-functional, multi-disciplinary, dynamic; they are technical, legal, strategic, operational, and more. And organizations have no choice but to figure it out. 

What does a ‘good’ responsible tech program look like? 

There is fantastic guidance and commentary on the substance – the ‘what’ – of responsible tech programs (e.g., risk frameworks, guidelines, principles). I’ve also started to see more commentary on functions, roles, activities, and best practices organizations should adopt. 

But one gap I’ve been thinking about a lot over the past decade or so is guidance on designing a responsible tech program that both scales and ages well. To me, this means a program that:

* Keeps up with the external landscape (laws, societal norms, etc.)

* Aligns incentives across functions

* Clarifies responsibility and accountability across functions

* Transcends cross-functional cooperation and drives cross-functional collaboration

* Has a sustainable FTE forecast (another way to look at this one: how large do you really want your, e.g., legal or compliance department to be 3 years from now?)

* Includes iterative capability gap assessments and development 

* Recognizes people as program drivers and accordingly models the program’s teams as humans – not cogs in a system – which means leadership considerations like engagement, org design, professional development, etc. are key

Based on what I’ve seen, the last bullet seems easiest to forget (or ignore?) because it usually isn’t functionally critical. But the last bullet also tends to be the difference between an effective responsible tech team over time, versus a team constantly fighting burnout, morale, competence, and productivity battles. 

With all that in mind, I’ve been brainstorming a responsible tech program maturity model, in the form of a grading scale. I’m excited to share my brainstorm soon!!

In the meantime… what do you think?

What responsible tech program models do you think are most effective? What are the pros/cons of the models you’ve seen, and what are the gaps we need to work on? Would love your thoughts!

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

So. You want to get from Point A to Point B, and the distance to travel is significant. Your very intelligent colleague says they can help you, and they give you a car engine.

You look at the engine. You look at Point A and Point B on a map. And you’re not seeing how that engine is going to transport you over that distance. 

You turn to your intelligent colleague and ask them to explain. They assure you the engine is what you need. Then they go home for dinner.

As you scratch your head in confusion, you call your practical colleague and explain your situation. They chuckle to themselves for a minute. Then they say not to worry and promise to help you get to Point B.

The next day, you wake up worried about whether your practical colleague can actually help. But it turns out there’s no need to worry! You find your practical colleague standing next to the engine – but now the engine is under the hood of a car that’s gassed up and ready to roll. 

You high-five your practical colleague, send a quick text of thanks to your intelligent colleague (after all, they did provide the engine powering the car), and set off to Point B.

You arrive safely, and all is well.

So… what does this silly little story have to do with responsible tech? 

As things currently stand, many of us tend to focus on principles, frameworks, and requirements as we embark on the journey toward building responsible tech. These elements – principles, frameworks, requirements – are critical. 

But they are like the engine in our story.

They won’t get you from Point A to Point B. Just like we needed the car (product) to make use of the engine (technology), we need responsible tech products to make use of these ‘technologies’ (i.e., principles, frameworks, requirements). Otherwise, we end up with teams scratching their heads in confusion when they’re asked to be ‘transparent’ or ‘fair’ or ‘privacy-protective’ – especially in high-context, low-precedence use cases. 

Today, the main responsible tech ‘product’ is advice from subject matter experts. This approach works well in theory, especially for addressing novel questions. This way, teams get comprehensive advice that’s tailored to the specific details of a particular use case. 

But this advisory model has a flaw: The only way to effectively scale advice is to hire more advisors. That’s not usually a sustainable model for organizations. 

* It creates operational inefficiencies like bottlenecks, overlapping areas of responsibility, etc.

* It introduces new risks resulting from inconsistent advice.

* It incentivizes unwanted behaviors like ‘forum shopping’ (in-house advisors know what I’m talking about!).

We could think of the advisory model like a bicycle. It will get us from Point A to Point B, but with a lot of labor that’s not easily repeatable (remember, the distance between is significant). A bicycle is not an optimal solution by any means. It’s an MVP at best.

We need a more sustainable, scalable solution.

So what are we to do?

We need to approach responsible tech with product-led thinking.

To do this, organizations must develop responsible tech product development capabilities (whew, that’s a lot of words… Improve Branding is officially on the backlog!). BigTech is increasingly investing in these capabilities. In the meantime, companies across all industries, including tech itself, have the benefit of learning from BigTech’s often-painful lessons and can get ahead on this investment. 

The engine is critical, but it’s the car – the product – that’s ultimately going to get us where we’re going!

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

Last week, I had the pleasure of presenting a keynote at the AI/ML Technology Leadership Forum. I discussed Responsible AI and shared practical tips for how to practice Responsible AI in your organization.

You can view a video of the presentation here.

Key takeaway

Responsible AI is about day-to-day decisions: Should we build it? Can we build it? Are we building it right? It’s a personal responsibility.

And it's as much about the small stuff as it is about the big stuff.

Below is a summary of some tips I shared during the talk.

*****

Commit to cross-functional collaboration

Responsible AI is one of the most cross-functional topics out there, and this is what makes it super interesting—and super challenging—to implement. What does it take?

* Develop internal taxonomies to bridge cross-disciplinary vocabulary gaps.

* Ring-fence one or a few projects staffed with tight cross-functional teams. Get these teams beyond coordination and closer to integration. Enable experimentation without being bogged down by past ways of working.

* Design incentives for cross-functional work. Unless KPIs, performance reviews, etc., are aligned—collaboration borne of curiosity and goodwill won’t last.

Make it all about driving value

Responsible AI is largely about anticipating and mitigating risks. But this framing can fall short due to a cognitive bias called 'absence blindness', which refers to our difficulty acknowledging what we can’t see. When we successfully mitigate a risk—nothing happens. Absence blindness makes us forget the importance of risk mitigation.To hack absence blindness, reframe risk mitigation in terms of concrete, tangible value propositions. This helps us both create and protect value—not destroy it. The outcome is a trusted AI product. And in fostering trust, you create a sustained innovation cycle.To help think in terms of driving value:

* Ground yourself in the purpose of the AI to keep value tradeoffs in perspective. 

* Make sure to consider the full lifecycle of an AI product in your value calculation. Specifically, don’t forget the importance of ML Ops.

* Look through the eyes of your various stakeholders. Each sees value differently. In the best case, you can align their views; otherwise, you’ll be empowered to make deliberate and informed value tradeoffs.

Always be learning

This space is incredibly fast-moving. If you aren’t seeking to learn what’s out there, you will miss out on others’ hard-earned lessons. How to do this with a busy schedule:

* There are many high-quality Responsible AI voices on LinkedIn, so take advantage and follow them! 

* If you are driven by what’s in your calendar, write in 15-30 minute calendar blocks for reading articles or for virtual coffee chats with smart colleagues. 

* Double-task (e.g., commuting, walking your dog, washing dishes) while listening to podcasts.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between value and responsible innovation.

When making the case for responsible innovation within an organization, the conversation almost inevitably turns to a discussion about managing risk. And while responsible innovation absolutely helps manage risk, this defensive framing fails to capture the upside that responsible innovation can generate. 

This framing also ushers in a compliance mindset, which can often be at odds with an innovation mindset. Enterprises are more likely to ask what steps they must take to stay out of trouble—instead of what steps they can proactively take to make the pie bigger, i.e., to generate value not just for users and the P&L, but also for the company’s brand and reputation, affected communities, and even the environment.

To make things complicated, the definition of “responsible innovation” is far from settled. I searched for how others have defined it and liked these examples:

“Responsible innovation means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present.” Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, Phil Macnaghten, “Developing a framework for responsible innovation”, Research Policy 42:9, 1568-1580 (2013).

“Responsible innovation considers the role that new products, processes or business models have in society.” Charlotte Evans, “What Is Responsible Innovation and Why Does It Matter?” (2021). 

The fact remains, however, that risk mitigation is a significant driver for responsible innovation, and it effectively conveys the urgency around investments in responsible innovation capabilities and tools. 

So—how to square this defensive vs proactive framing without overcomplicating things? 

After some brainstorming, I’ve landed on a responsible innovation framework rooted in the concept of value, specifically protecting value and creating value.

As a personal matter, I prefer this value-focused framing because it is optimistic, exciting to me, and aligns with my interests. But as a practical matter, this framing is helpful for organizations because it highlights the potential upside of responsible innovation and orients teams toward generative, collaborative—and innovative—thinking.

Here’s a working draft of this value-based responsible innovation framework.*

What do you think about this approach? Any suggestions or other feedback?

*At a future date, I will experiment with making the value axis vertical and adding a time scale, i.e., short-term to long-term, on the horizontal access.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

I decided to take a month off before starting a new job at a new company. 

(If you have the opportunity and the means, taking time off between jobs is something I highly, highly recommend. It’s about the best thing you can do for your soul: there are no professional responsibilities hanging over your head, and this does wonders for self-reflection, revelation, creativity, and the like.) 

So what have I been doing with my time? Well, thinking about the meaning of life, of course! Leave it to me to go down an existential rabbit hole when I should be binging on bad TV (which I’ve also been doing…). 

Well, I’m happy to report that this has been a fruitful meandering! 

While I certainly haven’t discovered the meaning of life, I have come up with a clue: that ASPIRATION is a major source of fuel for life, and without it, we become stale.

What started this line of inquiry?

The other day, I was reflecting on my time off so far. In addition to pondering the meaning of life, I’ve predominantly spent my time aspiring to:

* Create music. My husband gave me the most wonderful gift of repairing my childhood guitar (it’s a real beauty). I’ve been practicing daily to get my chops back, and it’s been a joy to plunk out some tunes.

* A state of gratitude and, in particular, appreciation for my surroundings. We’re lucky to live near pristine New England beaches, share space with a variety of cool birds, enjoy the shade of ancient trees, and more—so all I have to do is notice the landscape.

* Artistic creativity. It’s been a long time since I’ve felt inspired to draw or paint. During this break, I managed to let go of the idea that my art had to be ‘good’ and the images started to flow. 

* Better health by exercising more regularly and challenging myself with difficult goals, like hiking Mt. Washington (we made it to the top!).

* Learn about ethical challenges in tech innovation by reading books like Hello World, listening to podcasts like Technically Human; and about working effectively with people in organizations by reading books like The Culture Map and The Change Monster.

Throughout these pursuits, I’ve felt more alive than I have in a long while! Why is that?!

Well, I’m sure some of it has to do with a decline in stress from not working. But I couldn’t help wondering if something more fundamental was fueling my newfound vivacity and pep—hence the rabbit hole. Below is what I discovered in my meandering.

Etymology

First, I looked up the dictionary definition of ‘aspiration’ to see what that might tell me. Here’s a representative sample of entries: “a hope or ambition of achieving something” (Oxford Languages); “a strong desire to achieve something high or great” (Merriam-Webster); “a strong hope or wish for achievement or success” (Cambridge Dictionary).

I also learned that ‘aspiration’ comes from the Latin word, spirare, which means, “to breathe.” In fact, an alternate definition of ‘aspiration’ means “the action or process of drawing breath”. Spirare also happens to be the origin of the word, ‘spirit.’ 

So the etymology of ‘aspiration’ links the act of breathing (something our bodies do to stay alive) and the spirit (the soul or essence of a person) to the act of striving for something. 

Perhaps the idea is that aspiring is as essential to our lives and souls as breathing…

History

Second, it occurred to me that aspiration is ingrained into the story of humanity. Humans have aspired to all sorts of things throughout history: innovation, enlightenment, security, beauty, freedom, civility (well, sometimes), and more. In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of any time past or present when aspiration in some form hasn’t been a core driving force for individuals and societies.

Here is a handful of cool examples:

* Yoga: an ancient discipline (notably, not an end-state) that is very much alive today, through which one aspires to self-awareness and higher consciousness. 

* Leonardo da Vinci: a person with lifelong aspirations to learn and create, resulting in legendary feats of art and engineering.

* Democracy: a system of government that aspires to empower and effectuate the will of the people being governed.

* Marie Curie: a person with relentless aspirations as a scientist, yielding pivotal discoveries in nuclear chemistry and physics, as well as paving the way for women in the sciences. 

Undoubtedly, by now some of you have noted to yourselves that I’m hardly the first person to link ‘aspiration’ and ‘meaning of life’; this link has been long-established by philosophers and scientists much smarter than me. While searching for resources and references (though I mostly have my Harvard historian husband to thank), I even came across this super on-point Scientific American article from 2012 titled, Aspiration Makes Us Human. 

In any case, in light of the overwhelming evidence, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to conclude that, through aspiration, we find meaning and purpose… 

Philosophy

Finally, it occurred to me that none of the aspirational endeavors I’ve taken on during my break have a true endpoint. I’m never going to be the most grateful or be the fittest or learn all the things. As a result, I’ve been compelled to enjoy the journey, not the destination. (Yes, that ol’ cliché we get from Emerson, though my favorite delivery of this line is actually by Aerosmith, timestamp 2:04.)

This journey vs destination framing seems to carry a lot of weight in the ‘meaning of life’ inquiry.

Let’s take the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer: He wrote in the 19th Century that disappointment is inherent in human life. But in Midlife: A Philosophical Guide, MIT Professor of Linguistics & Philosophy, Kieran Setiya, offers an antidote to Schopenhauer’s pessimistic view. 

Setiya starts by pointing out that in his analysis, Schopenhauer was taking into consideration mainly telic activities, that is, activities that have an end or goal (more here). From that perspective, Schopenhauer is probably right. Disappointment is built into activities with a concrete objective: either you fail to achieve the objective (disappointing) or you achieve the objective and no longer have something to strive toward until you set up the next objective (also disappointing in a different sense).

To get away from this state of perpetual disappointment and instead move toward a state of fulfillment, Setiya suggests focusing on experiential activities that are satisfying in and of themselves.  

These are called atelic activities—and they are all about the journey, not the destination. I find Setiya’s example contrasting walking home (telic) and going for a stroll (atelic) particularly useful. 

The upshot seems to be that contentment and fulfillment stem not from achievement, but from aspiration itself… 

Putting it all together 

Here is a summary of my three takeaways in a nice, neat list:

* Aspiration is as essential to our lives and souls as breathing.

* We find purpose and meaning through aspiration.

* Contentment and fulfillment stem from aspiring, not from achieving. 

Collectively, these seem to support that Aspiration is a critical ingredient in our lives. They suggest that striving is our friend and complacency is our foe—but that in our striving, we should take care to be present and to free ourselves from expectations (whether external or self-imposed) around outcomes. 

This is a far cry from discovering the meaning of life, but it is a clue for how to live a fulfilling life.

What are your aspirations? How do you stay focused on the journey, not the destination?

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

A few weeks ago, I participated in a fireside chat for new managers at an international financial institution. We discussed feedback—and the importance of both giving and receiving it—as a team leader. Below is a summary of the key takeaways. (Check it out in video form on YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn.)

Key takeaways

1/ Investing time and energy in each of your team members’ development is a core part of being a successful leader and manager.

* Doing so fosters an environment of learning and growth, which in turn facilitates giving and receiving feedback—and fast feedback fuels high performance.

* Since your success as a team leader depends on your team’s success, it’s important to hold yourself accountable for making these investments.

2/ Humility is an important starting place for both giving and receiving feedback.

* When giving feedback, humility establishes that your goal is to help, not correct; humility fosters trust and prevents the person who’s receiving the feedback from becoming closed or defensive.

* When receiving feedback, humility puts you in an open and growth-oriented mindset; humility enhances your ability to accept and internalize the feedback, whether reinforcing or constructive.

3/ It’s tough to receive harsh feedback, but here are three actions that can help.

* First, take a deep breath when you first hear the feedback; this helps release any initial anxiety you may feel.

* Second, after receiving the feedback, show gratitude no matter what; this reinforces your own growth mindset and prompts you to assume best intent (e.g., not everyone is skilled at giving constructive feedback).

* Third, let the feedback sink in before acting on it; going for a walk or sleeping on it can often help you put the feedback into perspective (perhaps it was more minor than it seemed) or uncover useful insights that weren’t initially obvious.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

I had the great fortune to attend the Center for Women in Law (CWIL) Women’s Power Summit in Austin, Texas. The theme this year was The Power of Transitions to Transform. 

The Summit played host to some of the most impressive and powerful women in the law—general counsels, judges, law firm partners, as well as corporate board members, founders, CEOs, journalists, professors, and more. The presenters were absolute rockstars and generous with advice, anecdotes, and insights. 

Here’s a ‘lucky 13’ list of the advice that most resonated with me. There were of course many more than thirteen takeaways and significantly more richness to the experience than my words can convey—but hopefully this brief list is a helpful and inspirational one!

* * *

On empowering yourself

1/ Define what ‘success’ means for yourself. Don’t let others’ expectations or understandings of success displace what’s important to you.

2/ Name two goals you’re working toward in the next year or two. Then tell your friends and colleagues about these goals and ask if they know anyone who can help. No one can help you if they don’t know what you’re after. 

3/ Before joining a new organization, do your due diligence. Find out about the organization’s culture, leadership, successes, and critiques. Learn as much as you can about your manager, peers, and team. Then decide if it’s the right place for you.

On leading people

4/ As a leader, don’t lose sight of the fact that—at the end of the day—it’s individual people who ensure the success or failure of an organization.

5/ Listening is one of the most underrated skills of a strong leader, so practice listening more than speaking. This is particularly important when transitioning into a new role.

On leading change

6/ It’s natural to resist change. But keep in mind that it’s often a gateway to unexpected opportunities.

7/ Change is hard. You can’t “positive think” your way out of it; you have to do the hard work of confronting the discomfort and working through it.

8/ Don’t rush. Take the time to correctly diagnose persistent problems to ensure solutions address root causes. 

9/ When you’re leading change, think about how you can make people feel confident and excited about doing something new and different, rather than unsure or fearful.

On investing in yourself

10/ Throughout your life, bad things will happen to you, and you will make mistakes. These are facts of life. Decide today that you’ll do your utmost to take it all in stride and commit to learning from these experiences.

11/ Another fact of life: Your time on this earth is limited. So prioritize what’s most important. This means you’ll disappoint someone along the way—and that is a fact, too.

12/ Challenge yourself to read something you disagree with; invite people to challenge the assumptions on which you’ve based your perspectives.

13/ The people in your life matter more than anything else. Save the best of yourself for them.

Top to bottom: Lucy Lopez, GC of SpencerStuart, and me; Lucy and I worked together at McKinsey, where she was Deputy GC. Me holding Betty White during the goat yoga event on Thursday morning. Blue heron on the river, spotted during a break.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

I recently had the privilege of presenting on effective leadership to an audience of tech leaders at an international finance & investment organization.

Here’s a summary of what we covered.

* * *

Authentic leadership is a gateway to other valuable team benefits. 

* Authentic leadership has a network effect: A leader who shows up authentically gives their team the license and confidence to do the same; in turn, the team gives their own subteams and peers confidence; and so on, contributing to a culture of authenticity.

* Authentic leadership is a powerful tool for inclusivity and diversity: When leaders fosters a culture of authenticity, they set a dynamic that empowers people of all different backgrounds and experiences to have a voice.

* Authentic leadership builds trust: We’re all quite adept at sensing when people are insincere; we tend not to trust those people. Same goes for inauthentic leaders. Nobody trusts them, and as a result, they’re less effective.

Trust is critical to developing strong teams.

* Leaders can build trust by establishing personal connections: If you see the people on your team as people, they won’t feel like cogs in a machine. Nobody likes to feel like a cog in a machine.

* Trust supercharges productivity: A team built on a foundation of trust is able to connect on a deeper level with each other. This connection fosters collaboration, which leads to better results.

* Empathy and good communication are key ingredients for building trust: The ability to understand and connect with team members’ experiences and perspectives unlocks trust.

As a leader, good communication is as much—if not more—about listening as it is about speaking.

* Don’t underestimate the power of communication norms: Expectations around listening (and speaking) can either mitigate or enhance biases and power dynamics. Leaders can play a significant role in setting these expectations—and therefore in mitigating or enhancing biases and power dynamics.

* A leader’s poor listening can cost their team a great idea: Great ideas come in all shapes and sizes. But leaders can’t enable or sponsor great ideas if they don’t hear them in the first place.

* Empathy and critical thinking are fundamental to good listening: Think about a speaker’s experience. Is the speaker nervous? Is there a language barrier? Is the speaker a member of a marginalized group? In addition, it’s important to decouple the merit of an idea from the skills of the speaker. These steps unlock inclusivity and professional growth opportunities, among other things.

Establishing a common purpose for a team or working group can unleash productivity.

* Purpose leads to alignment: Defining a purpose helps ensure that everyone rows in the same direction.

* Purpose is empowering: Defining a purpose provides clarity to teams around what they are working toward. In turn, this clarity grants a sense of agency and allows for increased autonomy—both of which unlock engagement and productivity.

* Purpose provides meaning: Defining a purpose allows teams to more easily make a connection between their efforts and impact. This fosters a sense of meaningful contribution.

Investing in self-care as a leader is a must.

* Self-care refills an empty tank: Leadership involves a lot of giving. So it’s incredibly important to refuel—or else risk burnout. And when leaders burnout, everyone loses: the leader, their team, and their organization.

* Self-care can take unexpected forms: One often overlooked self-care method is learning. Ways to incorporate learning into your routine include formally scheduling time in your calendar; listening to industry podcasts while doing chores; and setting up coffees with colleagues who have expertise complementary to yours.

* Self-care includes having self-empathy: Good mentors can help foster self-empathy. In sharing their advice, perspectives, and reflections, they’ll demonstrate to you that they’re human—just like you—and provide opportunities to let down your guard and be vulnerable.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com

Last week, I led a panel at SXSW called, ‘Cancel the 3rd Shift: Improving Retention of Women’.

Joining me on the panel were the very talented Chandra Adusei (business owner & entrepreneur), Aubrey Blanche (DEI consultant & designer of equitable orgs), and Ana Bracic (political science professor).

The experience was exhilarating!

We delivered a discussion on one of the most important topics about the workplace today; we delivered that discussion as part of a major international conference; and we had the privilege of delivering that discussion to an amazing and engaged audience.

* * *

Firstly: What exactly did we cover in the panel?

Below is a summary. (Fun fact: In the coming weeks, we’ll be able to share a video of the event!)

What is the 3rd Shift?

* It builds on the concept of the 2nd Shift, which was originally introduced in 1989 by Arlie Hochschild in her landmark study. It refers to the additional, unpaid housework that working women disproportionately take on.

* The 3rd Shift refers to additional, unpaid work in the workplace, in addition to official work functions. Like the 2nd Shift, women disproportionately take on the 3rd Shift. It comes in many forms and can range from things like:

* Administrative tasks, like taking meeting minutes and ordering lunch

* Building community, like running ERGs

* Facilitating collaboration, like ‘herding cats’ for complex cross-functional projects

* 3rd Shift tasks add value to organizations, but organizations don’t proportionately assign value to 3rd Shift tasks.

What is the impact of the 3rd Shift (i.e., why should we care)?

* The 3rd Shift places an additional burden on women, and even more so on women of color and other under underrepresented groups. It also perpetuates gender stereotypes.

* 3rd Shift dynamics slow women’s advancement at work, in a time when the importance and value of women in corporate leadership positions is well-established. Consider the following facts:

* Fewer than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women; numbers are similarly low for Board seats and C-suite positions generally.

* All the while, research shows that women who have stuck it out and made it into leadership roles do more than their male counterparts—in part because women in leadership roles are bucking gender stereotypes and often feel they need to compensate by over-performing.

* 3rd Shift dynamics contribute to the attrition of women in the workforce:

* One in four women are considering slowing their career or leaving the workplace altogether post-COVID.

* Pre-pandemic, numbers were similarly high, at one in five women.

* 3rd Shift dynamics cost hundreds of billions of dollars for organizations ($500 billion in the US alone).

What can we do about the 3rd Shift?

* ‘Sit on your hands’: Individual women can opt out of 3rd Shift tasks to help protect from burnout and the like.

* This may not always be an option. When it is, not volunteering for, or simply not doing, those ‘extra’ activities that take time and energy—but will not be proportionately rewarded—can be effective.

* There is a downside to opting out, however. Many women find 3rd Shift activities rewarding, and 3rd Shift-type activities make the workplace better and projects run more smoothly. So another option is to be selective about which 3rd Shift tasks to take on.

* Lead with mindfulness and awareness: Team leaders & managers can alleviate the burden by assigning 3rd Shift tasks more equitably.

* They can also help by simply acknowledging the importance of these tasks and giving credit to those who do it.

* Team leaders & managers can also reward 3rd Shifters with professional development, such as leadership training and coaching (because don’t we want leaders who are inclined to make everyone’s work experience better and organizations more productive?).

* Revise organizational values: Organizational leaders can put in place infrastructure that appropriately values 3rd Shift work and is equitable by design.

* Since 3rd Shift tasks contribute to the bottom line—albeit indirectly in many cases—companies can more concretely tie these tasks to key business metrics and performance measurement.

* Companies can offer compensation for equity and community-building work. A number of companies are already doing this, for example, by offering compensation to ERG leads.

* In addition, companies can create policies that set the expectation on workplace experience, coupled with accountability measures to uphold and enforce those expectations.

* * *

Secondly: How did we find our way to SXSW?

It all started last year, when I fell down a rabbit hole trying to better understand performance review processes. In particular, I was hung up on my observation that most performance review processes fail to capture employees’ value-add accurately or holistically. And more specifically, I found that most performance review processes systemically put women at a disadvantage.

These observations and discoveries turned into a couple blog posts exploring problems with performance review processes and what could be done to improve them (here and here).

In writing the blog posts, the 3rd Shift as a concept was born (though at the time I was calling it the ‘New 2nd Shift’). I had the opportunity to talk with colleagues and friends about it. And I even got the opportunity to discuss the topic on Nichole Harrop’s podcast, ‘Next Level Leaders’.

This all turned into a crazy idea to propose a panel discussion about the 3rd Shift for SXSW.

I asked three amazing women (see above) if they’d be willing to participate and was floored when they all said yes.

I prepared and submitted the pitch—and was totally shocked when I received the notification that our panel had been selected!

So there you have it: from obsession over apparent injustices, to public discourse and feedback, to crazy idea, to SXSW!

* * *

What’s next?

So that was our 1-hour talk in bullet points and the story of how it came to be. As mentioned above, a video of the panel event is forthcoming.

This isn’t a one-off discussion, and I aim to keep the topic alive in my own workplace, and hopefully through future speaking and publishing opportunities.

And a book with more in-depth insights and recommendations is potentially on the table…!

As always, feedback and follow-up discussion are always welcome, so please reach out!

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com