Shane Lloyd: Are You Promoting Talent–or Survival? | MOVE Like This

This is a preview. The complete video episode, with commentary and transcript, is first and always available exclusively to PRO Members | Go PRO here

Sponsored by Radical Pricing by Jody Padar, CPA | See Today’s Special Offer

Subscribe to CPA Trendlines Research podcasts anywhere: Apple, Google/YouTube, Spotify, iHeart, Deezer, Amazon Music, Audible, Player FM, Audacy, RSS.

MOVE Like This
With Bonnie Buol Ruszczyk
For CPA Trendlines Research

In this episode of MOVE Like This, Shane Lloyd, chief inclusion officer at Baker Tilly, joins Bonnie Buol Ruszczyk to talk about what it really takes to build a workplace where people have the opportunity to contribute, advance, and succeed.

For Lloyd, inclusion isn’t an extracurricular activity or a collection of programs. It should be embedded throughout the talent lifecycle and understood as part of how leaders run the business. 

MORE MOVE Like This | MORE Caregiving Research | MORE CPA Trendlines Streaming Network

Lloyd’s background in behavioral neuroscience and public health shapes how he approaches that work. Rather than focusing only on changing individual behavior, he looks at the environment in which people are working and asks what conditions allow some people to thrive while creating barriers for others. In the workplace, he says, some employees may advance as though they have a rocket propelling their careers, while others are climbing “invisible hills and mountains” to reach the same place. 

That perspective also informs his thinking about the changing DEI conversation. While the public and regulatory landscape has shifted, Lloyd argues that one problem has been a lack of clarity about what organizations are trying to accomplish through this work.

 

Sponsored by Radical Pricing by Jody Padar, CPA | See Today’s Special Offer

Diversity also extends well beyond race and gender to include generation, disability, socioeconomic status, religion, and caregiving. Who is underrepresented can change as conditions change, making inclusion an evolving business issue rather than a fixed set of programs focused on particular groups. 

Caregiving is a particularly good example. Lloyd describes caregivers as potentially one of the largest yet most underexamined populations in organizations. Employers may offer benefits and flexibility but still expect employees to identify themselves as caregivers, determine what they need, and seek out available resources. A more systemic approach asks how organizations can design flexible work, hybrid schedules, return-to-office policies, and other workplace structures with caregivers in mind from the beginning. 

Those changes can benefit far more than the group they were originally intended to help. Lloyd points to the “curb cut” phenomenon: curb cuts designed for wheelchair accessibility also help parents with strollers, travelers with luggage, and people with temporary injuries. Workplace policies can work the same way. Designing around the needs of people facing particular barriers can ultimately create a better environment for everyone. 

It also raises an important question about merit. If talented people are pushed out of the competition because of caregiving responsibilities, workplace structures or other factors unrelated to their ability, advancement isn’t based solely on skill. Lloyd asks whether someone reached principal because of merit or because they “survived.” Removing those extraneous barriers creates healthier competition and gives firms a better opportunity to retain and advance their strongest people. 

 

For leaders wondering where to begin, Lloyd’s advice is straightforward: start somewhere, but don’t stop there. Attend an employee resource group event, mentor someone, listen or seek out new perspectives, then continue building on those experiences. Inclusive leadership, like technical expertise, is a skill developed over time. 

 

Quotables:

• On inclusion and business: “The work of inclusion is not an extracurricular activity but a facet of how you run your business.”
• On creating opportunity: “How do we design an organization that allows everyone to thrive?”
• On underrepresentation: “Underrepresented status is not innate to an identity group; it is the byproduct of conditions.”
• On caregiving: “The caregiver demographic is one of the largest but under-examined populations within the context of our organizations.”
• On merit and advancement: “Did you really make it to principal because of your merit, or did you make it to principal because you survived?”
• On developing as an inclusive leader: “Where you start is not the stopping place.”

5 Key Takeaways

1. Inclusion works best when it’s built into the business. Recruiting and employee programs are only part of the equation. Inclusion also belongs in development, compensation, benefits, advancement, leadership, and the other systems that shape an employee’s experience.
2. Changing the environment can be more effective than expecting individuals to adapt. Lloyd’s public health perspective shifts the question from what employees need to do differently to what conditions organizations can create so more people have an opportunity to thrive.
3. Caregivers are a workforce population worth understanding. Organizations often treat caregiving as an individual responsibility rather than examining caregivers as a significant employee demographic. Understanding who is providing care and where workplace structures create barriers can inform better talent decisions.
4. Removing barriers makes competition more about merit. When talented people are pushed out or held back by factors unrelated to their ability to perform, advancement isn’t based solely on skill. Creating more equitable conditions allows firms to better evaluate people on what they actually contribute.
5. Inclusive leadership is a skill, not a box to check. Leaders don’t need to know everything before they begin. They do need to start somewhere, remain open to learning and continue building their ability to lead people with different experiences and needs over time.

Transcript
(Transcripts have not been edited for spelling, grammar, or punctuation.)

Bonnie: [00:00:00] Hello, and welcome to this episode of Move Like This. I am really looking forward to a conversation with Shane Lloyd. He is the chief inclusion officer at Baker Tilly, and I will say we at The Accounting Move Project are incredibly grateful for their support from the beginning back when it was Moss Adams, but now Moss Adams and Baker Tilly are together, and they have continued their support of our work.

Shane: And frankly, I don’t think we’d be here without you. So, uh, thank you for that, Shane, and tell us a little bit about yourself Bonnie, I’m very excited to be here, and we’re very excited to partner. I think research is integral to ensuring that our firm [00:01:00] can continue to evolve and be dynamic and stay ahead of the curve, and it also offers us valuable insights for populations that are also themselves evolving and dynamic.

So I think the partnership really just offers lots of benefits. To say a little bit myself, my name is Shane Lloyd. I am the chief inclusion officer here at Baker Tilly. How I like to think about my job is I think there are three key things I wish to advance in my tenure here at Baker Tilly. The first of which is whether or not you’re an entry-level team member or an executive, you know exactly what you need to do to drive inclusion forward.

Two, how do we make sure that an inclusive framework is embedded within each element of the talent life cycle? Particularly with the work of inclusion and diversity, there’s a lot of attention to the front of the funnel, how we’re recruiting people, and then also at the engagement level around, you know, employee resource groups and what activities are we doing within the [00:02:00] firm- Mm

to continue to cultivate an inclusive environment. And I think that leaves out, you know, the learning and development, compensation and benefits, in- uh, investigations and escalations, but also looking at, you know, where are we experiencing pinch points and bottlenecks where we’re not seeing the representation throughout the, the levels within our firm.

And then of course, I think that there’s something to be said for external partnerships inclusive of exercises like this that yield thought leadership. And then the third item is making sure that when it comes to our business leaders who are also actively involved in a lot of the different work we do throughout our inclusion efforts, but also helping them understand that the e- the work of inclusion is not an extracurricular activity but a facet of how you run your business.

When you think creatively about how you can expand your market share, how you can cross-sell, how you can… how the way you- your products and services might be used differently by different populations, that also in and of itself spurs innovation, [00:03:00] that is an inclusion lens, in my opinion, that also advances our growth goals and makes us better business professionals.

Yeah. All of that is so important, and I love the fact that they have somebody, uh, paying attention to that and leading those initiatives, so you have a big job there, Shane. Well, um, you’ve spent a lot of your career obviously thinking about inclusion, belonging, and how people experience the workplace, but you also come to this work with a background in behavioral neuroscience and public health.

So how has that shaped the way you think about inclusion, particularly what actually changes people’s behavior versus what sounds good in paper or in a firm policy? Sure. So I’ll weave the two. When it comes to behavioral neuroscience, I think that there is certainly a [00:04:00] science to how people make decisions and behave, but we also know through science that people are also predictably irrational.

So relying solely on the behaviors of individuals or even the dynamics of teams alone leaves your change management agenda without a really important dimension, which is how do we actually shape the overall environment in which teams are working and individuals are behaving? And that is where public health comes in because I always think of public health as the fundamentally the An assessment and understanding of the systems and the overall environment that allow people to obtain their optimal health status.

So access to fresh fruits and vegetables, green spaces so people can walk around and play. Um, econ- an economic landscape that is diverse enough to provide people with meaningful work that aligns with their skills and interests. [00:05:00] Uh, a government landscape that provides a social safety net should any of those other aspects, uh, not be at the level that they need to be to support overall health across a dires- diverse population.

So if you substitute optimal health status for, in the case of my context in higher education, ensuring that students of color or students from underrepresented backgrounds broadly are able to thrive at elite institutions, or the work that I used to do as a consultant around how do you… And even here at Baker Tilly, how do you create an overall ecosystem that allows everybody to thrive regardless of their background and reduces the environmental, or rather the, hmm, the context that people enter in with, where you have some people who are able to advance as if they’re, you know, there’s a rocket propeller guiding their career, whereas others are climbing invisible hills and mountains in order to get to the same place, if they can.

[00:06:00] And that’s where I see that public health framework around the systems analysis being exceedingly valuable in the context of leading in this role at, in professional services or any other industry. ‘Cause our fundamental question is to say, okay, where does inequity exist within our organization? How could we potentially level the playing field?

And then how do we design an organization that allows everyone to thrive? Because the promise and potential that people could rely upon to help support our business is not gonna be organized around any visible or invisible social marker. So we do need to ensure that all of our talent can thrive so that we- they can bring their best and do their best in the spirit of us achieving our business goals I love that, and something that you’re kind of mentioning there, two things actually.

Bonnie: I love that public health is, you’re describing it as kind of the whole being, and it’s not just [00:07:00] physical, like are we sick or are we well? Yeah. Um, it is, you know, what we eat, how we can access, I love the idea of accessing parks, and all of those kind of things as part of just being a whole human being, and that makes us healthier in all aspects of our lives.

Shane: Absolutely. And I, let’s say I would even add to that too that no organization can be everything to all of their employee population. Right. But the pressure to do more certainly increases if, I think of the Trust Edelman Barometer study, where they say that over the past, I’m, I wanna say what, five to seven years, there has been increasing distrust with media and governments across the world, or even the non-profits, to lead in areas where society is being impacted for whatever reason, whether, whether it’s a pandemic or strife or political unrest or economic dis- deterioration, and then the pressure [00:08:00] increases for companies.

Bonnie: So essentially, if we don’t take a holistic view when it comes to our talent or even with how our societies are structured, companies are gonna find themselves overtaxed and overstretched in a manner that doesn’t actually serve their business goals or their commitment to their people. Yeah. Wow. Um, I’m going to need to read that study, ’cause I’m kind of fascinated in that.

But it makes sense. Mm-hmm. You know, that if, if somebody is not taking care of a need that they’re supposed to take care of, then w- we’re gonna go elsewhere to get that need met. And often, I mean, we spend more time at work than most anywhere else. Yeah. So that, I could see that absolutely being a natural, um, outcome of that.

Fascinating. Well, kind of gonna go to the, uh, three letters that shall not be spoken it seems anymore. Um, and, you know, the conversation around [00:09:00] DEI has changed considerably over the last couple of years, and some organizations have pulled back or changed the way they talk about this work. I, some of that I, I understand.

You know, if it’s as easy as changing a word or two, then, and we can continue doing the work, then that’s a small sacrifice to make. But from where you sit, what do you feel like has actually changed and what hasn’t about the need to create workplaces where people have a real opportunity to contribute, advance, and succeed?

Shane: Mm-hmm. Let’s see. So there are a few ways to- Tackle this issue. First, I’ll start with what I think has actually changed significantly is the narrative around DEI, and then, and in the… And par- particularly if we think about it from the federal and federal regulation landscape, [00:10:00] and I think that’s important because I was actually just reminded of this today where I was looking at a professor who I follow and, um, actually her name is Stephanie Creary, and she’s a professor at Wharton School of Business.

And in 2025, she actually released an interesting study that said the vast majority of people are actually ambivalent towards diversity, equity, and inclusion, not hostile. And even though generally speaking most people would say, well, don’t we want enthusiasm, energy, and engagement? Anybody who knows anything about human people is that, you know, it, it, it’s a, a set of poles.

You have proponents, you have opponents, and then you have the middle, and the middle could be passive or active on any end of the continuum. Right. But ambivalence is also something that exists along that continuum. So what I liked about her, her research is that it reminds us that it is not just the federal government or the news media, [00:11:00] or even those of us who sit in these positions alone who set the context and understanding of what is the goal of DEI programming, and then what falls within the portfolio.

And I would, I would add on to say that part of the ambivalence comes from just generally confusion around what the goal is to achieve and what are the mechanisms needed to achieve those goals, and are those always gonna be the goals or do these goals evolve in the first place? So I’ll give you two examples.

So one, I oftentimes tell people if DEI were like the ABCs, we probably wouldn’t be in the situation that we’re in now. Nobody’s ever tried to reorder the alpha- alphabet, or at least the English alphabet. Maybe they’re doing it in other countries and I don’t know. But if we think of something as, I think part of that is there i- ABCs are sacrosanct in some respect, and then two, they’re universally understood And where we probably had a missed opportunity [00:12:00] within the diversity, equity, inclusion landscape is really building up this universal understanding of here’s what we aim to achieve, here’s how we’ll achieve it, and then where do we provide opportunities for, frankly, robust dialogue and debate to help us better make decisions?

Because in a country, if we just take the United States, for example, there’s about, um, frankly, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of different kinds of businesses of varying sizes and different industries. So how each of these companies would approach the landscape of diversity, equity, inclusion would look different.

Not all companies were necessarily, um, actively engaged dating back to the ’60s, and then a fair amount of companies actually just started their efforts in 2020. Right. So when we’re looking at the landscape, you have some companies that have started within the past five to seven years, and other companies that have been doing this work for decades, and even still the portfolio could look different.

Yeah. It could only rely on [00:13:00] data, it could only focus on trainings, or maybe it’s only on internal, external activities, um, and the smorgasbord looks different. I would say to your question around what has fundamentally changed, I think there are a few things. One- Sentiment, public sentiment and how it is narrated has certainly changed.

Two, I think programs that were restricted to identities in the spirit of historical redress have also become highly scrutinized, um, and sunset. However, it does- hasn’t necessarily changed the context in which those historical, the con- the historical conditions that resulted in having those targeted programs hasn’t in and of itself been upended just yet.

So now there’s essentially a gap in the support services that could have been provided. I would say what also has changed too is, [00:14:00] mm, well, actually, what I would say maybe hasn’t changed is if a company hasn’t actually been that mature in their inclusion portfolio, or if a company could eliminate 100% of their portfolio because of the hyper scrutiny, that begs the question of, you know, well, what were they doing exactly?

Because I think Move is a great reminder of here we are in this conversation of diversity, but the forthcoming research is focusing on the topic of caregivers. That is also a population that falls within the bucket of diversity. And I would say one of the common sources of confusion is this idea that diversity, equity, inclusion is only focused on maybe dynamics of race and dynamics of gender in the absence of all the other diversity categories that exist in the world, which includes generation, disability status, socioeconomic status, which is very understudied and under investigated in the United States and other parts, or even religious [00:15:00] identity.

So I think that, um- The false presumption that diversity, equity, inclusion is narrowly focused and doesn’t evolve, I think also fed into some of the strong reactions that we’re seeing in this period of hyper-scrutiny. And I’ll even give you one more example. The, what is it? 2021 CalCPA, the Institute for Management Accountants and several other organizations gathered together to do a research project on diversifying the accounting industry, and they found some really interesting insights when they looked at the 2019 demographics of accounting professionals.

And what they found was that, I wanna say something like over 60% of the 2019 audit and tax workforce were women, but only in the window of 23 or 26% of partners at firms were [00:16:00] women. Yeah. So then it begs the question about discrepancies. However, there’s actually lots of questions one could ask about just that snapshot of data.

And I’ll never forget one of my colleagues asking the question, I think we were doing a presentation and with a discussion, I wanna say it was in Pennsylvania, and someone said, “Well, Shane- If over 60% of the talent of tax and insurance professionals are women, where are the men? That is an important question.

Now, we see that they’re still represented in the principal pathway, but eventually those people will retire, and we’re going to have ourselves in a dilemma, ’cause we’re also gonna be asking the question of, where are the men, and what are we going to do about it? And I think this is super helpful, because if you thought that this idea of, oh, well, we’ll only perpetually be focusing on one demographic until time ends.

No, we also… The, the focus areas for underrepresented will shift with the context of a nation or different circumstances. [00:17:00] So seeing that as an evolving indicator and not fixed is a reminder that the idea of underrepresented status is not innate to an identity group, it is the byproduct of conditions.

And when we’re able to change the conditions, we can change, turn our attention to another population so that we can continue leveling the playing field for all the communities that would benefit from the opportunities that we provide in our industry. Yes, and- That was very long-winded. I’m so sorry. No, no, that’s fine.

Bonnie: And I, I wanna build on something that you said, and I have argued a little bit, is I feel like those of us that are in this space, um, particularly since 2020, and so did arguably a poor job at explaining what the goals of DEI were. Mm-hmm. And so, you know, there were groups that, like, jumped to a conclusion or didn’t have information to, um, [00:18:00] evaluate that were like, oh, we’re gonna lower standards to let people in that haven’t generally come in, which is in no way what w- the, the goal of it was.

Shane: It was… I, you know, I’ve always said it’s, we just want, we want more people in the pool. Mm-hmm. We don’t necessarily want to kick anybody out of the pool, but let’s make sure that, um, that groups that may not have had opportunities in the past now have opportunities. Mm-hmm. And that got lost in s- for some people, and in some cases.

Absolutely. And I would say, too, I think sometimes it also helps to help, to level set around, okay, before we even get to social identity markers, let’s actually just talk about the real pressing challenges that people have achieving their recruiting goals as an example. I always say that if most organizations say that they want to recruit the best and brightest talent- Yep

and to do that is actually quite difficult. [00:19:00] Because to, one, you have to make sure that in an ideal circumstance- We only, we know that when it comes to job applications, there are people who are gonna apply to jobs even if they don’t actually have any skill sets Yeah … that we are seeking. So that’s, you know, something.

So if we say, under ideal circumstances, we want 100% of the people who have the skills we want applying to the right jobs that we have posted, that alone can be a challenge because what if someone already has a job that they like? What if they’re not looking for a job, or they don’t know that jobs exist within your company?

Yeah. Or they’re not looking at your website at the time the posting happens, or they, or we don’t offer the job in a format that they would so desire, whether that’s remote, hybrid, or in person. All of that alone could already significantly shape the pool. Mm-hmm. And then when you add in the conditions that limit opportunities for different communities, now I’ve really got quite a challenge.

So, and [00:20:00] then we also have to acknowledge that recruiting for 100% of everybody who has the skills certainly has a price point when we think of the kinds of partnerships that are needed or the posting strategy that we need or making sure that we have recruiters who can be in different places, whether that’s campuses or different conferences and the like.

So once you add in that compounding set of dynamics, it is actually quite a challenge to get 100% of the people that we want to have apply to our jobs apply. Yeah. And I think when people see that, they’re like, “Oh.” Well then, and we, we could talk about this topic all day long, because then you can add in some, uh, innate unconscious bias in the interview- Right

process, where people make assumptions that maybe somebody that grew up in a poorer household wouldn’t understand or, you know, wouldn’t fit into the culture, and there’s- Mm-hmm … so many other elements that, in some cases, getting the right people to the table is a [00:21:00] really hard job, as you just pointed out.

Right. And then identifying the people at the table that are gonna be the best at the job. Mm-hmm. Sometimes elements that come into that decision that aren’t necessarily allowing the, like you say, 100% qualified people to wind up in those positions. Right. And, and, and, and looking at the other end when it comes to terminations and exits, I think in an ideal circumstance, an organization wants to be able to performance manage out the people who are not performing well, and those who…

And ideally, if they have the skills we want, and we’re meeting their needs, we wouldn’t really want them to leave for any other reason than maybe they drop dead- … or they found a better job, but ideally they wouldn’t find a better job than the one we can provide them. Right. So then if you add to that, “Oh, I’m leaving this job because I don’t have a supportive manager.

I’m leaving this job because I’m one of the few of my background, and I don’t feel the social [00:22:00] cohesion, representation, or the value. I’m leaving this job because I can’t find work-life balance. I’m leaving this job because- I have caregiving responsibilities and the demands just don’t allow me to keep this up at the full-time or even on a flexible schedule.

I think those are terrible reasons for you to leave. They’re valid reasons, but I think that they’re terrible reasons from an employment perspective, because why would we wanna let go of good talent for any other reason than they’re no longer performing? Right. Uh, whether they’re no longer performing because they’re dead now or- Right, exactly.

Bonnie: for some other reas- They must go. Right, yeah. Um- Yeah … yeah, that’s a really good point. Um, well, uh, Baker Tilly talks about inclusion and belonging as something that should be embedded in the business, and we’ve kinda touched on that a little bit today- Mm-hmm … um, rather than a separate initiative. And, uh, what does that look like in [00:23:00] practice?

Shane: And how do you know when inclusion has become a part of an organization, uh, rather than something that people talk about, but it’s not really embedded in the structure? Sure. So I would say that here are a few indicators, in my opinion, where you know that inclusion is thoughtfully embedded. One, when we see the announcements of new leaders, we don’t just talk about their technical acumen and their tenure and the organizations that they worked for previously, we also talk about the committees that they served on that helped to advance an inclusive workplace.

So that is seen as just important as, uh, an important reference point to their resume and bio as all of their technical skills and prior companies worked. That is number one. Two, you find that people are actually being very creative and innovative around how they think about expanding our business opportunities.

I think of one example being, you [00:24:00] know, the work in public sector, where they’re working with a lot of different communities and constituencies to get to find funding and get work done. Many of these municipalities have leaders of all kinds of backgrounds, uh, depending on where you’re working with. And I think of, you know, how there’s oftentimes these, um…

I’ll take the Midwest, for example, where there’s all of these preconceived stereotypes around who the population served is, when there’s also a healthy population of immigrants and refugees in the Midwest as well, that are, you know, leading in different ways in different organizations, and considering a broad set of the population, including who would his- we would historically associate with, you know, living and thriving in the Midwest, and those who are new and emerging Another example is when you see leaders really being thoughtful about just nuanced dynamics of inclusion.

So I think one of the other misunderstandings around diversity inclusion is that underrepresented people experience DEI strategies [00:25:00] all in the same way. There’s actually a nuance depending on group size. If I’m the only person of my background on a team, more likely than not, I don’t actually want any attention to my difference.

I just want it to be treat- I wanna be treated equally to everybody else, because a facet of one of the ways in which belonging comes to life is feeling included based on the circumstances of the group that you’re belonging to. So if it’s a group that, you know, indexes on similarities for better or worse, and I’m different in some noticeable way, then that could really be affecting to my sense of belonging.

Now, if I’m in a group where there’s critical mass of people of my background, whatever that background might be, I have the opportunity to toggle between being an individual and a member of the group, and that kind of flexibility really means something. And then the fourth example I think of is when people think about The support or allyship that they provide to others, they don’t just [00:26:00] seek insights from a person of a different background that has proximity to them.

They’re thinking, “Wait, there’s a lot of different resources, whether it’s research or podcasts or personal narratives or even the research provided by MOVE, for example, where I could learn about the experiences of people different than me.” So when I’m engaging with someone of a different background, I’m not asking them to tell me, “Tell me everything about your experience.”

I’m actually asking, “Has this actually been a part of your experience? Could you have needed this assistance? Did we actually… Knowing that you’re a caregiver, have we overlooked something in your experience that could have been really helpful or unlocked something for you that would have allowed you to bring your best self?”

So it’s more of a validation/verification conversation versus, uh, I would say the, um, uh, duck imprinting, where I’m going to facilitate your awakening or your, uh, first encounter with this facet of living that you may never have thought of before. Yeah. [00:27:00] It’s that, uh, uh, not doing the work yourself and- Mm-hmm

that going to the person that i- w- whatever their, uh, characteristics are and saying, “Educate me on this-” Right … “stuff,” where it’s like that’s not really their job. Right. Um, and, and, you know, asking questions and, like you say, getting confirmation or- Mm-hmm … hearing somebody’s story is one thing, but you know, not doing the work and expecting them to do that on top of everything else you’re asking of them is really- Right

Bonnie: putting somebody in an unfair position. There’s ample resources for people to gather this information. Yeah. You Google produce. Uh, completely agree. Um, so, uh, another thing that Baker Tilly has done has, uh, I understand you have supported research in addition to ours looking at gender and caregiving, career advancement, and all of those obviously support to what the work that we [00:28:00] do at MOVE.

But what are you seeing around caregiving specifically right now, and are organizations, from what you can see, beginning to understand it as a talent and leadership issue rather than simply a personal challenge that employees need to manage? Yeah. That’s a huge question, and I would say that frankly it’s evolving.

Shane: I think both from the organizational perspective, but even from the individual employee perspective, there isn’t a uniform consensus around this being treated or handled similar to other demographic markers. And oftentimes this idea of a caregiver is, this is my personal obligation based on my choosing to have children, for example, or being born into a family where I’m sandwiched between having kids or taking care of elders.

And, you know, if my firm offers benefits, I just need to find them for myself. But as you’ve [00:29:00] astutely pointed out, Bonnie, that is only part of the equation, and we actually need to think of caregivers as a sizable but oftentimes unaccounted for demographic population. Because, I mean, a lot of organizations might…

Rather, I would imagine that there are a fair amount of organizations that have never looked at, well, how many people are tapping into benefits related to having dependents as a proxy for how many, what the size of the caregiver population within their organization. Most organizations aren’t running analyses in that kind of way.

So in some respects, I would argue that the caregiver demographic is one of the largest but under examined populations within the context of our organizations. I would say the second thing is, given some of the hyper scrutiny to immutable characteristics like race and gender, you know, looking at cross-cutting identities such as caregiver status or generation or veteran [00:30:00] status can be very useful vehicles for us looking at diversity, equity, inclusion in a different way to say, “Okay, well, women are part of caregivers, Black professionals are part of caregivers, Latinx professionals, people who speak English as a second language, all those populations exist also within this community, so let’s dig in and see where in supporting this community we can also lift all boats for other demographic groups as well.”

Now, going back to the question more directly, I think it’s evolving. I think organizations are trying to be considerate, for sure, but I still think of it very much as, well, the person will let us know what they need. Yeah. Rather than, in the spirit of public health, how do we design a system so that way they don’t- we don’t rely, we don’t have to rely solely on disclosure to be able to provide the resources that people need to be able to thrive in the workplace, whether that’s flexible work arrangements [00:31:00] or flexible hybrid scheduling, or think- being more thoughtful about our return to office protocols and how they’ll, how they’ll impact communities such as caregivers or people with disabilities.

Bonnie: Um, yes, I would say it’s, it, it spans the gamut. Yeah. I was just talking to Cassie Rushing, um, on a different podcast- Mm-hmm … recording, and she was talking about one of the firms she works with. On their employee survey that they do annually, they added a question that asked if they were a caregiver, and if- Mm-hmm

Shane: so, how. And they knew that there w- some population, of course, was, but it turns out it was substantially more than half- Mm … who identified that way. That’s right. And that was kinda shocking to them, and then they realized, “Okay, this is-” In some cases, larger than a lot of the other groups that we have been- Right

working with and building policies on. So I think [00:32:00] that is something I encourage firms to do. Just add one question to your- Right … employee pol- e- employee survey. But secondly, I love your point of, I think a lot of times we want to put people in a box. Mm-hmm. Like, I am a white woman. Um, but I am also, you know, a variety of other things, and it’s complicated.

Bonnie: It makes it a lot harder to look at, but people are complicated, and we’re more- Right … you think of a fabric that’s woven together with a whole lot of different threads. That’s more descriptive of what we are than, like you say, a caregiver- Mm-hmm … or, you know, a, a middle-aged white woman, or whatever that might be.

Shane: Um, and you know, I think it’s, we kinda have to think of people in that way versus trying to shove everybody into a box, and then creating something to address that one box. Oh, absolutely. I think a multidimensional intersectional frame can just be [00:33:00] helpful because I think that, you know, part of… Some of that comes from my training in public health, but part of it also has a practical dynamic around resource constraints.

The extent to which serving a vulnerable population can benefit everybody in a context is- Yeah … I think the phenomenon is called the curb cut phenomenon, similar to curb cuts in the street. You know, it was initially designed for people with wheelchairs, but also works for people pushing strollers, people pushing grocery carts, people who have temporary injuries, people who are using scooters.

So, you know, if we’re trying to be universal in our design approach, having that multidimensional orientation can be- Very, very helpful, and then also introduce a level of dexterity and flexibility such that when the, when you have periods of hyper-scrutiny, it’s not as if it, everything has to stop. It’s to say that everything needs to be assessed, audited, and examined within this new context to figure out how we can continue to best serve our populations and continue to achieve [00:34:00] an inclusive workplace.

Bonnie: Yeah. I have often argued and, you know, when I talk about moves work, I’m like, what is good for women- Mm … policies that are good for women that we encourage, is really good for everybody. Yes. You know, it’s not like it’s sp- very specific and, you know, men aren’t allowed to take advantage of these policies.

Shane: Mm-hmm. Uh, you know, we’re just talking about policies that allow for flexibility, that allow for, you know, everybody to thrive in the best way possible, which benefits the firm, which benefits clients, you know. It’s all working toward creating a culture where everybody can perform at their best. Right. And in a landscape of healthy competition, I remember talking about this with one of my colleagues at Baker Tilly.

They said, “You know, it doesn’t actually make me feel… It… W- when you think of healthy competition, I wanna know that I have achieved what I’ve achieved in my professional life based on my own merits.” But if you think of some of the invisible or visible dynamics that can [00:35:00] remove people from the competitive landscape, what that then creates is, okay, if you’ve made it to principal, did you really make it to principal because of your merit, or did you make it to principal ’cause you survived?

Right. It’s not Survivor. This is not Naked and Afraid. We are a business, and we want, um, healthy competition where people are really competing based on the technical skills that they’re deploying in their job landscape, and not because, okay, as if, as long as I don’t have to take care of, you know, my elderly family members, or I’m not primarily responsible for the caring of my young children, or, you know, the, the return to workforce policy doesn’t bother me because someone else is handling this, and then, you know, and that takes out other people.

That’s not because the person’s skills are better or worse than yours. That is, uh, an extraneous factor, once again. So I think that said another way, our, our talent can feel more confident in their achievements when we create a workplace that [00:36:00] is- Mitigates all these other dynamics that would ru- remove people from the competitive landscape.

Bonnie: Yeah, for sure. For n- no other reason, for something other than the skills that they have to bring to bear. Right. Right. Well, as we’ve mentioned, you, and you have demonstrated clearly, um, you’ve spent a lot of time studying organizations and helping leaders think differently about inclusion. Um, if you could get firm leaders across a profession to understand one thing about building a workplace where more people can succeed and reach leadership if that is indeed the path that they want to take, what do you want them to understand?

Shane: What I’d really like for leaders to understand is that pick a place to start wherever you decide to s- desire to start, whether that’s attending ERG activities, or going to different professional conferences, or choosing to mentor people. Where you start is a great place to start, and [00:37:00] then consider how you’re going to use that as scaffolding to evolve and mature your skills.

So where you start is not the stopping place, but there is more that you can go and time enough to really build a skill over the years that ensures that you are an inclusive leader. So don’t just think of the mentoring alone or just listening. Think of all these facets as building bigger, better skills to do your work, similar to how you’ve actually approached your career.

It wasn’t simply that you just looked at debits and credits as a student. You began to build more complex skills off of those foundational skills to be able to lead in an effective way over the years. So in a similar fashion with inclusion, think of where you’re gonna start and how you build an amazing portfolio that you can be proud of in five, seven, 15 years.

Bonnie: I love that, and the only thing I would add is be open to learning- [00:38:00] Yeah … you know, and learn from others. None of us come to the table knowing everything, and, you know, we can just be open-minded to maybe hearing some things that you don’t necessarily like. But, you know, the more we’re willing to listen to each other and learn from each other, the better our firms are gonna be and the better our culture is gonna be, and the more people are gonna feel like they belong because they have psychological safety.

Shane: Absolutely. Yeah. Well, I love this conversation, I love our collaboration, and I wanna finish with a couple of questions, uh, to get to know- Sure … you again a little bit. So when you were a, a wee lad, uh, five, six, seven years old, what did you wanna be when you grew up? Astronaut So cool I was obsessed with space.

I like that. I, that might be the first one that, it, the first astronaut answer we’ve gotten. Oh. I grew, I grew up in [00:39:00] central Florida, and I remember, you know, standing out in the front yard watching shuttle launches. Little one. You know, you could… It was tiny in the horizon, but, um… And we would always go to, um, uh, Cape Canaveral for, um, our field trips.

Bonnie: So- Oh, amazing … it was always something I was pretty fascinated by too. Though, um, I, I didn’t necessarily want to head in that direction, but I was fascinated by the process of it. Um, so secondly, if you were given a chance to travel anywhere, money, time off, none of those are, um, anything you have to worry about, where are you going and why are you going there?

Shane: Oh, I’m going to Egypt, because right around my, right around the time of my obsession with, you know, astronomy and space and planets, parallel to that was also Egypt. So I used to be able to write in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and actually still have, because I never let go of anything, I actually still have some of the books that I used to use where I used to stencil in, uh, hieroglyphs.

And then I have a collection [00:40:00] of books about Egyptian art and history. Oh, that is cool. You have got to do that trip. That sounds- Mm-hmm … amazing. Um, all right. Finally, if you could have one superpower, what would it be? Oh, my one superpower would obviously be… Well, not obvious, but I’m gonna say it.

Telekinesis. Getting that remote when you’re at a distance is a chore, or even having to go to the fridge to get your own food. So having tele- telekinetic abilities would be great. All right. I like that. And then, you know, maybe that could also get you to Egypt. I know, right? Teleportation with the gas prices.

Bonnie: With- Right … I’m waiting for someone to start with the technological advancement to say, “Let me stand on this little circle here and then find myself in the place where I’d like to be.” That is the most popular superpower I hear, is either the ability to fly or teleportation, and it usually- … comes from people that live in urban environments like we do, and it’s like, “I don’t wanna deal with that traffic.”

Shane: [00:41:00] And I also- Right. Oh, my gosh … you know, if I wanna go to Japan for a fabulous dinner, it would be really cool to stand on that circle and do that and then be back home for work tomorrow. Right. Well, this has been a fascinating conversation. I really appreciate your time and you sharing your wisdom and knowledge with us.

Posted on November 11, 2026