Suggestions
Joelle Emerson
Co-Founder & CEO at Paradigm
Joelle Emerson is the Co-Founder and CEO of Paradigm, a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) company that offers innovative technology, tools, and consulting services to drive organizational transformation.
With a background in civil rights law, Joelle has a strong advocacy track record, having represented clients in discrimination and harassment cases and championed policies for workplace equality.
Joelle holds a Doctor of Law (JD) from Stanford Law School and completed her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science and Sociology from the University of Southern California.
In addition to her role at Paradigm, Joelle has been involved in various organizations, serving on boards, advisory boards, and as a lecturer at Stanford University Graduate School of Business.
Her prior experiences include roles as a Skadden Fellow at Equal Rights Advocates, a law clerk at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and as a legal intern at organizations like the ACLU of Northern California and the National Women's Law Center.
Highlights
With less than 100 days until the U.S. elections, politics are dominating social media, the news, and casual conversations. Even if your organization doesn't engage in political discussions at work, the elections are undoubtedly having an impact on your employees.
To help organizations foster inclusion and maintain productivity throughout the election season, we put together a resource with tactical advice. It covers what you can do at an organizational level, how to empower people managers, and guidance to give employees. Download it below and let me know what you think. And I’d love to hear how your company is navigating this time!
In her latest for Bloomberg News, Simone Foxman covers the SHRM situation and includes some of my (maybe controversial? or at least nuanced...) views.
In short - I don’t believe there’s one “correct” acronym to use to describe our work. Any name choice is inherently a decision to give some concepts above-the-fold coverage over others. Equity is obviously a critically important part of the work, and a prerequisite to achieving representation, fairness, or even what so many leaders claim to care about most: meritocracy. But I think it's not just reasonable but actually smart for organizations to be open to refining the way they communicate about this work in whatever way they believe will maximize impact. I think reasonable, values-aligned people can disagree on how best to do this - that's healthy, and actually good, in my view.
SHRM’s decision poses a different issue for me. One of the core reasons SHRM gave for its rebrand is that it wants to “address the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization.” In other words, SHRM said it was evolving its branding because the very practitioners it exists to support have been doing a bad job.
Nowhere in the announcement did SHRM talk about the extremist groups who have launched a very intentional attack on DEI, blaming this acronym for everything from a train derailment to a bridge collapse to antisemitism on college campuses. Yes, we’re facing backlash and polarization. And I’ve been outspoken in acknowledging that practitioners should consider what we can be doing differently to minimize that. But to place all blame on polarization on “DE&I programs,” and none on anti-diversity activists intent on dismantling every component of this work - from corporate DEI to decades-old civil rights protections - is not just offensive, it calls into question the credibility and awareness of the organization.
