Matthew Duff’s Post

"I understand that a more operationalized definition of #equity is useful, Lily, but what's wrong with that graphic of people on boxes? Isn't it at least a good way to start?" This is a good question, and I have a strong opinion on my answer. The people-on-boxes graphic to illustrate equity is a poor representation for how modern equity work actually looks in organizations today. Its inaccuracy results in a heavy risk of activating the threat response of those with privilege to engage in completely avoidable defensiveness, and for this reason, I sincerely believe that using it as a teaching tool may be doing more harm than good. Let me explain. The people-on-boxes graphic illustrates two core principles of equity work: a focus on outcomes (the need to see the ball game) and the recognition of differences (the people's different heights). But the story it tells about inequity and its solution is both inaccurate and dangerous. In the graphic, inequity is a wooden fence, and solutions to inequity are boxes. Equity, according to this graphic, means recognizing that some people don't need any resources, others need some, and still others need a lot. If this graphic were applied literally, moving from equality to equity would be convincing the person on the left to give up their box to the person on the right, arguing that they don't "need" their box to see the game, but that the person on the right does. Okay. Let's apply this same approach to a workplace inequity—how about "inequity in promotion opportunities." Applying this metaphor might mean seeing the inequity as "an opaque promotions process," and the boxes as "networking time with the manager." Moving from equality to equity would be convincing those with the most privilege, like white, cisgender men, to give up their networking time with the manager to those with the least privilege, like queer, trans women of color, arguing that privileged people don't "need" this networking time to get promoted, but marginalized people do. This is NOT what equity work looks like. In fact, this zero-sum metaphor is one of the most dangerous ways to describe this work, and routinely shows up in misinformation used by anti-DEI groups to activate the defensiveness of people with privilege. Outcomes are important. People are different. But equity work is NOT about a zero-sum redistribution of resources, but rather a changing of the environment—the system—to meet everyone's needs and sustain or improve benefit to everyone. By devoting resources to fix systemic issues, rather than compensate for them through disparate (and perhaps now *illegal*) treatment, effective equity work not only presents more enduring solutions but enables everyone—with any mix of privilege and marginalization—to feel like they directly benefit. This is the reality we have to be teaching. And while no infographic is perfect, if we're going to use infographics to teach—then please. Let's use better ones.

Come be my partner in the incredible community of Littleton Colorado! Let me know if you have any questions. The City of Littleton is seeking an experienced Public Works & Utilities Director to lead, plan, coordinate, and direct all the operations of the Public Works & Utilities Department.

*Steal this brilliant move from Canva* I went to cancel my Canva for Teams account today -- but Canva's cancellation flow was so good that I changed my mind. And, no, it wasn't because they made me jump through hoops. Things I ❤️: 1️⃣ They reminded me that I have an amazing deal. I still pay $12.95/month, but prices have increased to $29.99/month. I'll lose my deal if I cancel. This is how you turn a price increase into a marketing tactic. 2️⃣ They created loss aversion by reminding me of the premium features I've put to use. Did I really use the background remover 622 times? Why?! (I mean, it is genius...) Loss aversion is a big part of why reverse trials work so well, too. After you've tried a premium feature, you become much more hesitant to lose it. 3️⃣ They made some clever UX choices that subtlety influenced my decision. "Continue cancellation" is in a bright red button -- aren't you NOT supposed to click on the red button? Keeping my plan felt as simple as closing out an unwanted pop-up. --- You got me, Canva! Now this is how you do PLG 👏👏 🎁 For more PLG tactics and insights, subscribe to Growth Unhinged -- my free weekly Substack newsletter https://lnkd.in/exTbjKaM #plg #product #ux #growth

Sales Leaders: You have 13 selling days in Q1. 90% of your AEs try to AVOID risk at quarter-end. They think they can sneak risky deals under the radar. They're wrong. The best AEs SEEK deal risk. Here's 4 traits that separate great AEs on March 31: 1. They SEEK risk in their deals. The best salespeople scrutinize their deals. "What would derail this thing?" they ask themselves. When they find an answer, they take action to mitigate it. The worst salespeople don't want anything to do with that. Deep down, they know there could be risk. But they'd rather avoid it than confront it. But don't forget: Reality has teeth. You can't run from it. 2. They "bring up" unmentioned buying process steps. Legal review. Procurement review. Security review. Uncovered decision makers. The best salespeople ask their champions about these things. Even if the champion didn't mention them as part of their buying process. Great salespeople know champions don't always know their buying process. So they ask about key areas they may have left out. 3. They actively ask buyers what would derail the deal. When a deal is trending well, they don't rest on their laurels. They don't just assume it's going to close on time because the champion said so. They make their champion THINK: "Looks like we're trending well. But if something did derail us from here, what do you think that would be?" 4. They shoot their shot with "long shot" deals. When they have deals that have an uncertain timeline, they still ask for the close: "What conditions would have to be true for us to move forward together by March 31?" They're not pushy. But they know their COULD be a shot at closing on time. So they ask what conditions would have to be met to make that happens. Often, they don't get an answer they want to hear. But... sometimes they do. P.S. Closing deals has never been harder. Purchase cycles are more complex. Decisions are made at a higher level. Buying committees are bigger and more risk averse. Win rates have dipped far below what they once were. If you want to join almost 100 SaaS companies (like Hubspot, Gainsight, Blackbaud) upskilling their revenue teams and boosting win rates, talk to me here: https://lnkd.in/g2CkE295