Larry Kramer and Charmaine Mercer on paving the way for racial justice at the Hewlett Foundation

In 2020, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation committed $150M to support racial justice alongside the development of an entirely new office – the Office of Culture, Race and Equity – to incorporate equity efforts across the foundation’s culture, operations, and grantmaking. 

In this episode, President Larry Kramer and Chief Equity Officer Charmaine Mercer reflect on what it took to get there and how their unique decentralized approach – called “the Hewlett Way” – played a role. 

Along the way, Larry provides visibility into his role as a translator between the staff and board; Charmaine shares the foundation’s approach to advancing racial justice across 18 unique teams and 130 staff members; and together they emphasize the importance of trusting and supporting those closest to the work. 

Transcript

Charmaine   

The second thing I would say is to support and trust the person or people who are actually leading equity and justice work. This person oftentimes is probably a bit of a maverick inside of their organization, because this is usually something new that many organizations are embarking on. It's usually a person of color too. So it's a person of color starting off doing something that's never been done. It's really important that this person feels that they're supportive for our success 

Nancy (Host)   

From The Giving Practice at Philanthropy Northwest this is "Can we talk about...?" a project to normalize the messiness of leading for racial equity, and reflect on what it takes to create lasting transformation. In this episode, we're joined by Larry Kramer and Charmaine Mercer from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Here they are introducing themselves. 

Larry   

Hi, my name is Larry Kramer. I am the president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and have been the president for 11 years. I'm actually coming near the end of my tenure as the president here and moving on to a new job in London, but it's been a you know, an amazing opportunity to work for this foundation. I don't know that there's anything else in particular I need to share at the at the outset I use, he/him his pronouns. I have a daughter who's 23 and lives in New York, trying to make it as a singer songwriter, every father's dream. That's pretty much 

Charmaine   

Good afternoon. My name is Charmaine Mercer. I am the chief of equity and culture at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. I've been proud to serve in this role for almost three years. I live in the Bay Area and I'm a proud mom of a proud mom to two amazing twins, Agilent Mayer and I'm married to my husband. 

Nancy (Host)   

Larry and Charmaine recount the foundation's equity journey describing how their unique decentralized approach helped to propel their racial justice commitment forward, affectionately called the HP way, this approach is about instilling a strong sense of individual and shared responsibility, trusting the expertise of those on the ground and paving the way for action and impact. Let's listen. 

Charmaine   

Well, Larry here we go. 

Larry   

We've been wanting to do this forever.  

Charmaine   

We have been wanting to do this for forever. And I'm, I'm so excited to actually have this conversation with you to reflect on all of the work that we have done together to really advance racial equity at Hewlett. I will say, It's bittersweet for being truly bittersweet as you prepare to step down from your role as president after 11 years. And it gives me a chance, though, to reflect on how grateful I am for our time being able to work together and how you supported me in the role is chief of equity and culture being the first ever chief of equity and culture for the foundation, as well as it gives me an opportunity to share gives us an opportunity to share what we've learned so far. And you know, that was something that was really important to me, when I took this role that we would have an opportunity to share with other organizations, what we were learning, as we were learning. So this part is really, really exciting for me, we kicked off, you know, I guess, in 2020 2021, with our commitment of $150 million for 10 years, for the grant making side of what we were doing, and we are proudly and fervently maintaining our commitment to doing so. But in addition are next door to our grant making is the work that we're doing internally, I say it's equal to what we've been doing in our in our grantmaking, to really begin to shift our internal culture and to really deepen or strengthen our commitment to advancing diversity, equity, inclusion and justice inside of what we do. And because we're here later, we shorten everything, you know, at some point, I'm going to say DEIJ. So I should say that now, when we get later in the conversation, everyone knows what I'm talking about, but how we have worked around DEIJ, to really begin to think about our culture as well. And one aspect of our culture that you're aware of that influences our work, including the work we do on DEIJ is the reliance upon our staff leadership, and expertise. This approach changes the role that our board actually assumes and all of the work that we do, right, our board, you know, looks to the staff to actively learn and engage and lead across all of the issues that we work on, including, again, that there's no difference for us, and how we're thinking about this on diversity or racial justice. We're still going to the staff to think about how best to do that we're not going to the board to get the direction that the board comes to us to think about how we're thinking about that. So since we are here today, you and I are having this conversation and at least in part about the board. I'm wondering if you think it might be helpful to give a little bit of context for the little listeners about how our approach really is little bit unique at at Hewlett. So can you maybe give a little bit of background on the governance and how you as the president, as the leader are actually helping to cultivate? 

Larry   

Yeah, I mean, the interesting thing, right, in some sense, the way we've approached the DEIJ and racial justice work is the same way we approach everything at the foundation. And, you know, it all derives back to Bill Hewlett, and Dave Packard, of course, you know, together, they created the Hewlett Packard company, and I think pretty famous HP way of managing which they brought into their foundations, it's interesting to me that it was so successful as a way to run a company and nobody follows it. But you know, the core principles of the HP way were you, you set goals, you know, and what you want to achieve, then you hire the best people you can to achieve those goals. And then you support them, and you let them do it, you don't tell them how to do the work, you don't get in their way. And, you know, Bill brought that philosophy into the foundation as a whole. You know, it's basically a decentralization all the way down. So the board really defers to the president and staff, as president, I defer very much to the staff, and the staff defers to the grantees. And, you know, it's a way of empowering people to take respond, empowering, but also asking them to take responsibility. So, you know, when we started the DEI work, which I mean, well, let me say another word about how that pertains, then to the board. So our board does not work like most other boards, they do not actively tell us what we should be doing, they expect the staff to take the initiative to bring to them what it is that we want to do. And then they view their role as to ensure that we've thought it through but to support those decisions. And it's a really, really healthy actually relationship, because, of course, the board, you know, they're here four times a year, I mean, they're not in the day to day, and most of them are not experts in philanthropy. As such, they're really smart people, they have a lot of great experience and that they bring to us, but you know, in terms of really the particulars of how to do philanthropy, they appropriately defer to the people who are doing it on the day to day and know better. And, as I say, that has been applied to everything that we do. So you know, when I got to the foundation back in 2012, is when we actually started the DEI work, broadly understood. And it started out of a sense that people had things that they were unhappy about, or didn't think were right, and didn't feel comfortable talking about them. Some of those were around things like identity and racial justice. But there were also broader things around hierarchy and educational attainment. And, you know, the way in which we talked about things and the work. And so the first phase of that was to recall the building an inclusive culture, I should say, this was before people were using that language, that DEI as a phrase wasn't really out there at that point. And so it wasn't sort of done with that in mind, so much as how can we just facilitate a culture in which people feel comfortable talking about what it is that is on their mind, people now refer to that as bringing your whole self to work, you know, and, you know, I'm okay with that, as long as people understand that, it's, they're bringing their whole self to work. And, you know, and that's been, you know, pretty good. And we started with, you know, just opening up for conversation. And so we spent a long time really doing facilitated group small group conversations, and seeing what emerges out of those, and then acting on those, and then, you know, taking another round of it, and, and so on. So that's really where the work originated. And the key all through that period, was to say to the staff, you're all responsible for this, right? We didn't create an office like yours, or have a role, you know, a chief diversity officer or anything like that, precisely because we wanted didn't want people to say, oh, that person is responsible for telling us what we should be doing. Same reason we didn't work with outside consultants to come in and tell us what we should be doing. We, we it was very much a do it yourself approach in which everyone on the staff was asked to and expected to take some responsibility, both for bringing ideas and for acting on them. And, you know, that worked for, you know, quite some time. I mean, you came here as a program officer, and we're in the education program, and I think you experienced it was a lot of activities, all different kinds of things happening in program level at the some at the foundation level some you know, that all sorts of different levels, you know, until 2020. Well, hey, let me put you over here by then. So why don't you talk a little bit about, you know, your how you you're, you're sitting there at the staff end. 

Charmaine   

I would love to go back a little bit though, could you talk a bit about as the leader, how would you share with people how you see your role is being a bit of a in between the board and the staff like how have you supported the staff and going before the board and then ensuring that the board is fully informed of all of this different activity that has been gone on here? How do you see yourself facilitating or supporting that from both sides, the board and the staff. 

Larry   

So I mean, I think to some extent, it is a very particular kind of way of approaching this the CEO role, right. So, part of my job is to actually know and understand the board as a whole and the individual board members, and anticipate what it is that they are actually going to want to know about. And will have questions about it, and bring those to them. And same thing in reverse to anticipate what those might be and make sure the staff is thinking that through. So you end up with this system that I often talk about as a system of dual deference, they give us that kind of deference, because we try and anticipate and give deference to what we're pretty sure will be their issues. And so in that sense, I'm a conduit back and forth. But but not exclusively, right. So at board meetings, whether it's the Board Advisory Committee meetings, or formal presentations of strategies, or programs, or just, you know, in executive sessions, or you know, open sessions, that will always just be me talking about this, I'll bring staff and have them talk about, but we try and do it in the form of informing them what we're doing and what we're thinking to get the reactions, as opposed to coming to them to ask them to tell us what we should be doing. And that notion of it is really clear. And and, you know, we were able to do that because first Bill and then Walter Hewlett his son, who co founded the foundation, and then served as board chair until after my first year here, were very strong and clear that that was what they wanted the organization to be. So it's very deeply embedded into the culture at this point. 

Charmaine   

That is something that I certainly have experienced. And I'll share a bit about when I get to mind the support of the board and believing that the staff are the ones who are directing this. People are often surprise fail. And I would love if you could say a little bit more drill down on even how the dual deference has worked alongside of our efforts to do DEIJ, with a board has been there and you've been leading it and we've been leading it, but how have you can you share more about even again, that dual deference around the work that we've been doing to advance racial justice, because that is not something that is really commonly experienced, across a lot of foundations that we can take these kinds of bold steps and get supported. 

Larry   

And again, there were two phases to that. So the first phase being, you know, from the time I arrived, through 2020. And in that phase, when we were first starting, it was then just DEI work. In fact, it wasn't even that I resisted that language for a long time, just because I didn't want people like, you know, putting it into boxes, where they felt they already knew what the answers were to things. But I talked to the board about it right at the very beginning that we were gonna do that kind of work. The approach was, we didn't know where we were gonna go. Right, it was we're opening this up, and it'll go where it goes. And I wanted to talk to the board about that, because, of course, it had its risks, or one might have worried about it, you know, because you don't know where it's gonna go. But they were as I said very supportive of that. And then I would, you know, keep feedback to them so that they would know how things were going done both in one on ones in regular conversations that I might be having with board members. And formally, they're not not in writing, you know, again, the idea was to this is culture change, right? It wasn't a program, it wasn't a strategy. So I wanted to treat it like culture change, which is just what's happening at the foundation in this particular domain. Also other things, you know, that we've been talking about. And so I wanted to keep it as informal as possible, like a steady stream of information, and get their reactions and thoughts and feedback, but not turn it into something formal that required that kind of governance. So in that sense, you know, even though there's the difference on the formal stuff, it was a little different. And as I said they were they were quite supportive. The other things that I did not do, right, I did not ask them to do a process for us, again, because my view was I wasn't inviting them in that way, I didn't think it would actually be productive or helpful for the same reason, I don't think it would be productive or helpful on a lot of the substantive work, the reactions, based on the kind of experience they have is great, but they're not here on the day to day. And so they're not really you know, and I think this is true for boards, generally, I think, maybe for a very small organization where the board is really actively engaged much more, but you know, we're a pretty mature organization and a pretty large one. And so a lot of this is the informality as you know, I believe in informality across the board, I think it makes for better governance. The other feature of it then is, is the constantness of it. So, you know, I like to say that by the time when I when there are things that require a vote, I'd like to have it so that by the time we bring it up for a vote, a lot of the reactions are Wait, I didn't we already do that, because we've talked about it so much in the period. And so it is something that requires a constant flow of information, constant conversations in order to work and to get you know, I did get help had feedback and reactions and questions that would make me rethink things from them as well as from the staff. 

Charmaine   

Now. Now, did you feel when you went before the board in 2020, you had an idea on the racial justice initiative, but you didn't have it all mapped out with the other initiatives that you've done. You've had papers they've been written, you knew exactly what you wanted to do. But with this one, it was a conceptual idea. And the board supported you in that conceptual idea of that, can you share more about? 

Larry   

Yeah, 2020 was different, right? Because there was this cataclysmic event or this event that had a cataclysmic consequence, across the board for us, as well as for everybody else. To a large extent, I think we were in a better position to adapt to it and adjust to it, and a lot of organizations because of all the work we've done, but the work we had done had not situated us to the point where we were right there, you know, like nothing needed to change. So you know, what was the cataclysmic event it was one that basically said to all organizations, including ours, you need to focus a little more do a little more on racial justice in particular. And that had been part of what we were doing. But it wasn't a particular focus. And it wasn't a special focus either of our external grantmaking, or of our internal work. And so that required some serious rethinking and thought, how are we going to do that. And that included, so was not just cultural change at that point, right. It was a lot of formal institution. So it was the creation of your office, and it was the launching of a racial justice initiative. And that all those ideas came out of conversations with the whole staff. But once it had been kind of boiled down to a set of proposals, I, you know, wrote a memo, 15 page memo and sent it to the board and to the staff, right, and got feedback back and forth, adjusted rewrote it fixed it up. And then we had a board meeting in which I actually obviously had to ask them to vote in particular on on the allocation of funding for an external grantmaking initiative, and for their approval of the internal reorganization, you know, that included, so it still didn't fundamentally change the notion that we were taking the initiative and saying, Here's what we think we should do. And they were saying, let's hear about it. And we'll give you our thoughts and reactions. And if we really think something's wrong, we'll push back. But if it makes sense, then we will support you. That was still their, their approach, and they were quick to sign on. Indeed, at that point in time, the pushback I got from them was they wanted to make sure that we weren't doing less than we might out of concerned that maybe they wouldn't want us to. So the message that came back was you can go farther, if you want, I do what you guys think we will support whatever you want to do in this respect. I don't know if they would have said whatever. You know, if I'd said, Hey, let's put the whole endowment down into just racial justice and abandoned all over their work, they probably would have said no. But you know, it was a really affirming message of we want you to do as much as you think is appropriate. 

Charmaine   

Thank you for that. That's good background, good context, I think, for everyone to understand not only just our board governance and how that piece is working, but also a bit about your experience in helping advance and lead the work around diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as racial justice inside of what we do. 

Larry   

That's the perspective from my side, right as this as the president, even before you got the current job. I mean, you're here as a program officer, and during first couple of years before the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and all those killings that finally triggered something, and through and after. So I'd be really curious sort of the, you know, we haven't talked that much about the lead up, sort of the your experience as a program officer. 

Charmaine   

Yeah the other side, I know. So having the I feel myself is I have a unique experience, because I'd had an opportunity to have two different roles, both as a program officer, but then also as a chief of equity and culture. When I was a program officer in education, my experience with the board or how I certainly saw my role is that I was expected to bring my knowledge and experience that I had acquired from being in DC, doing research and advocacy, but also as a grantee of the foundation before I came here and use that as a way of informing the strategy and the grantmaking. While Hewlett does provide structures, and I think about one of the best structures we have is the outcome focused philanthropy guidebook, the guidebook helped literally guide me through the development of the strategy for the education team. But there's a wide amount of latitude in terms of how you might go about doing that. So as you know, Larry, the team before the education team that I came in, we were trying to figure out how to take deeper learning and really kind of center equity and place it inside of certain situations to see which parts of it could be tested in different contexts. And we were able to go to the field talk to experts in the field about what was happening, including our grantee partners. So when I came back with the education team to go before the board, I felt really confident that I had followed the guidance that I took the different steps that we had heard from those who were working You know, in the field around the work about what needed to be done. And that the engagement with a board at that point was really about asking great questions to ensure that we had thought about certain things or a way of better understanding some of what we were doing, but it wasn't attempting to change the direction. So I've never had that feeling that the board was there to tell me to do something different. I also experienced you in those settings as being obviously like Larry's like the best defender inside of any space because he knows the work that you're doing. And if you found yourself in a situation where it might not be clear, you've always been the person who helps provide that clarity is well between the in between the board. So that was the way I kind of entered as a program officer. So by the time we got to the CEC and then working on the racial justice strategy, four years later, nothing had changed. So I did 2018 was the education team strategy. So when we got to 2022, it didn't feel different. I was like, Okay, you're gonna go back before the board, there's a process you need to go through, we want to talk to our Hewlett colleagues, some of the same ones who had spoken to to develop the memo, we wanted to talk to people who were working in the field, certainly around racial justice, because we recognize, we were entering into this space with a slightly different footprint. And we wanted to be really mindful of ensuring that other people were supporting us and informing what we did. And all of these conversations guided the work, they really helped us say this is the direction so whether it was focusing on our internal learning, whether it was thinking about the advent of this advisory council that would have this external and internal kind of hybrid way of combining that with our internal learning. I felt like when we put this all together in a package, the board felt really reassured by this, similar to what had happened before, they asked questions, they were really great questions, but it was a way to really understanding the work inside of the context of Hewlett but then also externally, and really trying to strengthen our approach and ensure sustainability, which I also thought was like critically important. Whenever they asked questions about our internal learning, which the way we view the internal learning is, that's the thing that's going to make sure that these things are kind of embedded inside of what happens inside with Hewlett after the 150 million is spent or after all of the money has gone, we will have changed the culture and many of the practices that exist. And so the discussions with the board, when they ask about the internal work, it's affirming to me that they also are equally interested in invested in that internal culture pieces as well. Their questions did help remind me though, the importance is and so do you, of the importance of really trying to bring everyone along, right, everyone along if we want this whole journey to include everybody, if you're really trying to get to the transformative change that people say they want, you know, alignment is important for sustainability. And so you can't just leave people behind, you have to make sure that you're meeting people where they are, which is why our approach, which really is based so much on individuals, and those individuals being in teams and what the team's context for their work is where they're working in different geographies where they're working in different political climates, whether they're using policy, whether they're using research and advocacy, but those are all different. So we rely upon the individuals and the teams as a way of shaping and influencing what we do. And I've always felt that we've had the board's support in that. 

Larry   

You know, there's I'm gonna tease out a couple of different things there. I want to talk more about that last point. But the first one, you know, I think what most people might not understand it is I think it reveals kind of the strengths of the decentralization all the way down approach was the proposal that I made to the board in 2020, after all, those conversations with staff was very different than what had emerged by 2021. Right. So both, there was no sense of an internal team, there was going to be a position, there was no sense of internal work other than we'll continue what we've been doing, which is to say that kind of do it yourself approach with the CEC officer to play the role that I had been playing as president because I just wouldn't have the bandwidth and didn't have the knowledge to sort of help and support people do that. And the external grantmaking was supposed to be a very conventional, you know, Hewlett like initiative where we would pick a problem to find a goal grant make for that goal, and so on. And, you know, what emerged was a team of what five or six people with an integration of internal and external work and collaborative grantmaking with the programs as well as independent grantmaking of a type that is not strategic in the conventional sense. It's much more field building, and all of that, sort of that was your, you did that right with within conversations with me and others, but it was bottom up, and the board supported it right. And seamlessly, you know, even though so we kept them apprised that this is actually changing directions, a lot as we're going along, and they were good with that, so that's from the perspective of board but it was also taking advantage of, you know, the using the people who were to use the parlance and philanthropy closest to the problem here the problems were internal. At Hewlett, how do we want to do this, but letting the staff really figure stuff out. The other thing I would say, in that respect, I just, I would, you know, when we were thinking about who to hire for the position of chief of equity and culture, I mean, so much thought went into it, even the title, now you hear that language a lot, we made that title up, because I didn't want it to be candid, like a diversity officer, which is what everybody was doing. And we worked with, you know, other people that come up with a title. But, you know, the decision, you weren't a candidate, right? Initially, you were a staff member. And I asked you to be a candidate. And part of that was because of the conversations we were having. And part of it was conversations with, you know, I was working in a coaching form with Akaya Windwood, and some other people, and everybody's like, you know, Charmaine might be really good for this. But you know, part of it, and I just offer this, for other people, as they think about this positions like this require a couple of things, you can, the way we were doing it, the person was going to need to have external grantmaking, you know, they, that was going to be part of the job. But they also needed to know a lot about the sort of not just the language, but the field of internal work, you know, culture work on racial justice, and the broader set of issues around DEIJ, and then they needed to know Hewlett, because that was to me, you know, like, every organization is different, and the people are different. And if that goes wrong, then you can have a disaster. So finding somebody who I felt, knew had the other expertise, but also knew Hewlett was a big part of the job. So that, you know, could take off successfully, we've seen in so many organizations where somebody comes in, they have their approaches, and they don't fit. And then you get friction and, and a lot of problems. 

Charmaine   

Now, I often say to people, that was my unique value add is that I had been at the foundation just long enough to begin to understand the culture and how things worked here, but probably not long enough to be fully fully bought in. And the other candidates for this position are like rockstars in their own right. And so one of the things I think that made that bit of the distinction is that I felt like I have an appreciation for the foundation's culture and the things that are important to us. And I was able to kind of use those as leverage in the work. 

Larry   

It was a value add, it wasn't your only value add. It was one of the other thing to come to your last point, just because I mean, I understood what you were saying, but I don't know that somebody outside the foundation necessarily would. Right. So like one of the I think one of the key features that goes along with the decentralization and the do it yourself is kind of recognition that we shouldn't think of this as some linear progression where some people are more advanced than others, we should just recognize that people are in all different places on this. And they have different ideas about what we should do and what is required and what they should do. And part of it is because there's so many different things, right? It's not like there's this one thing that is DEIJ it can be everywhere, it is everywhere, and it can be on. So you know, the idea of trying to make sure that you're moving as an organization in a way that feels like it is addressing issues, but in a way that isn't losing people along the way is really important, because we want to maintain the integrity of the community and people's buy in. So you have those people who are like God, you're doing too much, and you're doing it too fast. And you have those people who are like, you're not doing enough, and you're doing it too slowly. And, and our goal has always been to find a way for all those people to think that and say, but I can live with what we're doing, and then be like we're still moving forward as a as a community. And one of the things that has been key and again, you get total credit for this was figuring the framework, right, the focusing on what matters framework is what you should talk about right is a way for each team to ask a set of questions in common but to come up with answers that work for them. Right. And I just think that's that's so important for us as an organization to enable this. 

Charmaine   

No, you're right. That is a great way to think about it. I often say like one of the beauties of the approach that we have is that it actually is tailored to the individual and the team and the context in which they work. We don't have a one size fits all approach is what I say we know there's 18 different teams, obviously of varying sizes, but 18 nonetheless, and they're completely different. Some of them are grantmaking. Some of them are admin and ops and so to try to come up with one universal goal, or one way just it just seemed impractical. And I didn't think that would get us anywhere. For those who are familiar with kind of education I will sometimes affectionately describe our approach is individualized education plan or an IEP, because we really need to try to provide the resources and support, right that enable everyone to understand DEIJ in a way that allows them to apply it to the work that they're actually doing. If you can't access it, for whatever reason, because you're lacking knowledge, or if you're lacking experiences, or there's blockages in your way, there's no way you will ever be able to actually get to the point of applying this to your work. So there isn't that way about our approach that we do rely upon every team, it's facilitated, there's a way that it has structure to it. So it's not just open. But all 18 teams at the foundation are expected to think about their policies and practices as it pertains to their people and their partners in programming and ask themselves, is there something we could be doing different? Is there something that we want to learn are there ways that we might want to partner with other people to change some of what we're doing, but the team through a set of facilitated conversations using data and for an information, the team makes that decision for itself, where the team that I lead the culture race and equity team comes in is to support them in doing that, and ensuring that they have what they need. And that's where the IEP part for me is the support that actually comes in to help that team figure out how to continue to move across the continuum. So 18, teams, 130, staff, 18 different places, and 130 different places at different times, because we're all individuals, but everyone's moving in their own way. And we kind of have this kind of constant force in moving. And that's what the team does. That's what Brooke's job and on the team is to do is to help facilitate that. I've appreciated how not just you which having you has been amazing, but also again, where the board will show up where they're actually asking questions about our internal learning. I got so excited when they wanted to hear about what was happening inside of what the internal work, because it suggests that you see that they view that as important, just like the grantmaking. we're a grantmaking foundation, obviously. And they appreciated that part of it as well. 

Larry   

Yeah, at the last board meeting, they basically asked us as teams finished, they're focusing on what matters framework for themselves and do their presentation of learning to update the board on them. And you know, that's doable, partly because although there's 18 teams, they're all going at slightly different paces. So it doesn't all come in as 100 pages that they have to read all at once. But we'll, you know, come in over the course of the coming year or so. And the other you know, the other thing that I think has worked well, for us, that is, again, something we do not just in DEIJ but also in DEIJ was that notion that you know, your guys team are not police, right, it's not your job to tell people what to do and make sure they do it. But like our effective philanthropy group, serve as an internal consultant to help teams do it, whatever it is. So the effective philanthropy group helps advise teams in developing their strategies and developing their evaluation and monitoring plans and so on, but doesn't tell them to do it and CRE, culture, race and equity your office has a similar role. Which works, I should say, it's not like there's no problems here. You know, it works as long as people are in. And you know, we've had some teams and some people who like wanted to check out of this. So you know, where your role and my role are pivotal. And here, the board in the background matters, right? Isn't saying now. Now, we're like, we're not being overly prescriptive, we're not telling you how to think or feel or what you should do other than you do need to engage in this process, and you need to do it in good faith. And as I say, knowing the board is back, they're fully supportive of the work and the idea. And what we're trying to do, I think helps in that in that respect quite a bit. 

Charmaine   

Yeah I know, that it's been hugely helpful, I think across the foundation, pick your team, everyone senses that this is something from the board to you to the care team that everyone views is something that they're doing. When I think about accountability, though, oftentimes that word gets used negatively. And I was like, you know, accountability is support and love. They like it saying, like, I care about the things that you care about. And I want to make sure that the things that you care about that there's a way that we get those things done. And that's the way the CRE team approaches is it's not again, it's not punitive, but accountability is is love and support. 

Larry   

Like I said many values added that's all the internal we should talk some about the external world. 

Charmaine   

Okay, where's it fitting to? We will add some Well, which parts we can talk external or we can also talk about the commitment around that and how we if there was something you want to share, so whichever you whichever you'd like to go about.  

Larry   

You mean how it came about?  

Charmaine   

No, like looking at like lessons learned, if there's something we want to share with people about what we've learned from the experience. 

Larry   

The internal or the external one I mean, as I say internally, I don't know that I would say like what we did is what others should do. It's all based on some notion, the only part that I feel really strongly about is every organization is different. And you really do need to think about this from the perspective of your organization. And, you know, I think external consultants can be helpful with helping you prepare for certain things. So like, when we did the facilitated conversations, it was really helpful to have Akaya come and train some of the staff to facilitate conversations, but then they were staff led conversations, or you know, your work with Katie and others, and helping with the team's facilitate the conversations, or I do think one of the best things that we stumbled into, was as we started this, and remember, after the George Floyd killing, we said to every team in the start, like we don't know exactly what we're going to do yet, but you guys should start having conversations. And Akai helped us put together that team of coaches, each team was working with a different coach, the part that was really cool for me was the coaches would meet, I would meet with the coaches, and everybody would share what was going on in the different teams, which was, you know, really helpful. For, and again, it was where you could see so clearly that a one size fits all approach would be counterproductive. I think that's probably true for most organizations, particularly, we were all still remote. Right. And it was, so it was really hard to have a good feel for what was going on with anybody. While you're, you know, while you're all sitting in your home and only popping in occasionally on Zoom. 

Charmaine   

The coaching part, that's another thing that we do, that I will often get some inquiries about where people are curious, can you say because that started before I was in this role, and it started with the senior team. So maybe can you say a little bit more about that? 

Larry   

Well, even the idea was straightforward. For me. It's like, okay, what are we going to do to prepare the staff and get everyone on the staff sort of thinking and moving in some kind of dealing with addressing the racial justice issues. And, you know, the standard response has been training. So you bring people into training, when I thought about it, as you know, those trainings can be pretty dicey they, if they work, great. But so often, they don't, and they make things worse. And, you know, when I thought about it, it's like, the only reason to do it in that form is like economies of scale, it's cheaper, right? Because what we're actually trying to do is help every member of the staff sort of think through, understand the issues where they sit with them, and how they may want to rethink or think differently, or, you know, relate to others differently based on it. So, with most other things, like we make coaches available, one on one work, and so it's like, that's what we should do here. So the only difference was, we wanted, I thought it was important to require it for the senior staff. Because we were going to sort of really begin to take on something that it's not like it had been ignored. But it certainly hadn't been a central focus of people's thinking about our work. And it was really important. So we sort of said to the senior staff, everyone on the senior staff has to do this. And let's make it available to everybody else on the staff. And you know, I always felt encouraged people do it. It's like a great professional development opportunity, right? Because it's not like this is something you'll deal with at Hewlett and then you'll leave here and never deal with it. It's like this is an issue no matter where you are. So to the extent that you have the opportunity to work with a coach one on one, to help you really think about how to think about it, how you think about it, and that was just, it seems it's so much more effective. I mean, we can do that. Right. A lot of our grantees, for instance, probably mostly couldn't, although if somebody came with an OEE request for something like that, and you know, organizational effectiveness support. Certainly, I would be open to it. 

Charmaine   

Yeah, we could, we could certainly figure that out. 

Larry   

Because that's what it is. 

Charmaine   

Yeah. It's been great for the staff. So yes, it started with the senior team. But we then extended it and offered it to the full staff. And it continues, we have well over 30, nearly 40 of our staff who are engaged actively engaged in coaching to support them is there right now? Yeah, right now. So it's been meaningful for the work that we've done. 

Larry   

Yeah. And then, as I say, it's interesting that most of the outside so called to say, so called consultants we work with, we actually work with over such a long period of time that they effectively become part of the organization. So whether it's Katie or kya, you know, they know as much about what's going on here as anybody who works here. And that also helps, I think, quite a lot. So as I say, my biggest fear is always people come in, and that what they think you should do or how they want to do, it doesn't necessarily fit not because they're bad or wrong, but because, you know, every organization is different and people are different. And so if the goal is progress, effective progress while holding together the community. It's just works I think better that way. 

Charmaine   

So would that be some of the top lessons or guidance you would offer to another leader, you think about progress. 

Larry   

So yes, as I say, I think every organization is different. But a couple of things that at least a start, I would say, to the extent that you can do this yourself with your staff, you should, you know, I think the decentralized approach a little more cautious, because there are organizations that are structured. And their DNA is built more hierarchically, in which case, that won't necessarily work. And it could make things really bad things that look good in theory, but you know, like, yes, you're empowering staff, but if they're not used to that this is not necessarily the right set of issues to start with. And so you run the risk, again, of just making things actually worse, even despite good intentions. But at least, you know, to the extent that you can figure out who within the organization and, and really empower your, your own people to do it within the culture and structure. I think that's a really important, I would, I would advise that to anybody. The other thing that matters, I was gonna say is, is having leadership, not just me, but certainly the CEO. And definitely not just the CEO, actually committed, you know, not cynically, so. So that people believe this actually does matter if you're going to be in this organization, like we want to make this work. So there is decentralization, but there's a lot of stuff that gets also done foundation wide and centrally. And I view that as that's my team, right? So every team should be doing its things. And then my team has the whole foundation. But there, there have been a lot of efforts, as you know, over the year that our foundation right, and not just team specific. 

Charmaine   

Okay, no, that's really helpful. So as you're preparing at the end of the year to leave, what are your hopes for Hewlett as we continue down this road? 

Larry   

Yeah, to continue, but in in ways that are different than what I would do. So I don't know what they are. But, you know, building on something, but building on it in a way that is different, I think is, is really important for keeping things alive and fresh and moving. And as you know, my my fondest hope is that, you know, in eight or 10 years, like when you're you have a term, right, yeah, grantmakers, that's an eight year term, at the end of the eight years, we don't need your office anymore, not because we're like, cynically putting this behind us. But because we have succeeded in actually embedding it in the organization. I felt like we were getting there before 2020. And we weren't, or we weren't as much as we needed to. So all these new structures, if they work, though, will get us there. So that it's just built in, you know, I think it's already built into lots of the processes. I mean, the increased diversity of the staff was not something we've intentionally, you know, we directed anybody to do anything it just developed as part of the culture. And I'm really more proud of that than things where I would be directive. 

Charmaine   

Well, I guess I would say on the flip side, having had the unique opportunity to be in this role as chief of equity and culture, and not just be in this role, but to be in this role in in deep partnership with you. I think what I would say to a leader who was considering taking on work that is similar to ours is certainly develop what works for them, I completely agree with you on that all of what you shared I agree with, I would just add three additional things from from my perspective, I would say to the person, it's important for them to show up and clearly communicate their beliefs and support. And that should be unwavering. And they can do that with humility, while they're also learning. But just saying like, this is what I believe, and this is what I'm standing for. That part is hugely important. And you've always done that consistently. The second thing I would say is to support and trust the person or people who are actually leading equity and justice work. This person oftentimes is probably a bit of a maverick inside of their organization, because this is usually something new that many organizations are embarking on, at least based on my experience, in knowing my peers across the country. It's usually a person of color too. So it's a person of color, starting off doing something that's never been done. It's really important that this person feels that they're supported for a success. And so having the CEO and the leadership there and doing that clearly is hugely important. And I've always felt that and known that from you, as well as some of my peers, many of my peers on the members of the senior team. And then I would say maintain curiosity, while allowing and allow your beliefs to be challenged, and be willing to change your mind. The number of times I've said how much I appreciate your openness and your willingness it's it's not like pulling teeth. I don't want to describe it. I want to make sure we got not doing it that way. But then you have a real openness to your beliefs what you think feel that can be challenged and then not even when it's outside of it being challenged. If you will just reconsider thing, like, you know what I thought about this, and I want to come back. And it'll be a fundamentally different way. So in as much as the strategy that we have now looks fundamentally different than what was in place in 2020, that was under you and a part of your leadership. And so I say to other leaders who are thinking about taking that on or taking on such an effort to hold a stance that is similar to yours, certainly across these three areas, I think would be critical to their success. 

Larry   

Yeah. I mean, it's been, you know, for me, this has been, I hate that word journey, that it has been right from the very beginning of when I got here, constantly evolving and changing and having to rethink and adjust how we do what we're doing. But there are a few of the things that I've had the chance to do in the 11 years, I've been here that I think, you know, what if like, I never do anything else for the rest of my life, it will have been a worthwhile life, because I got the chance to do that for a decade. And I do feel that way. I mean, I feel that way about a few things here, not just this work. But this work, precisely because it feels authentic and bespoke works for us, you know, so it feels like it was real. So I don't worry about like things backtracking or ending when I leave. And I am interested and eager to see what direction it takes next. 

Charmaine   

Well, it's good that you're interested and eager, because you know, I'm going to be calling you all the time actually tell you when when do I get to come to London will be my thing. I too, don't worry about the backtracking, because you have done an excellent job at helping us lay a really great foundation for this work. So the person who comes in who's fortunate enough to come in and succeed in this role after you will inherit a really, really well and thoughtful, and staff dedicated staff driven effort. So I will end with saying I'm grateful for you for your leadership and the work that we've done for the last nearly three years. 

Larry   

Thank you. As I say, I mostly feel like all I did was get to say yes to people who have ideas. And that I think is, you know, one of the great things about a job like this at a place like this. 

Charmaine   

So I should say thank you for saying yes. 

Larry   

I could say the same thing to you. I did have to ask you to apply for the job. So I guess I took some initiative. There was other people's suggestions to do that. So there you go. 

Charmaine   

Thank you, Larry.  

Nancy (Host)   

Thank you, Larry and Charmaine for giving us an inside look at Hewlett's journey to impact and sharing valuable resources and advice to others in this work. You can find more information on this episode, including guest bios, show notes and additional resources at thegivingpractice.org And if you have a topic that you think philanthropy should be talking about more, let us know by emailing hello@thegivingpractice.org. This podcast was written and produced by Aya Tsuruta, Emily Damon and Edit Ruano with audio engineering and editing support by Podfly and graphic design by Asha Hossain. A special thanks to our Philanthropy Northwest and Giving Practice teams for their thought partnership and the Ford Foundation for making this project possible. I'm Nancy Sanabria, and we'll see you next time.