Diversity on Conference Stages: Lessons from Lean Leaders Chris & Val Chapman

Yesterday's podcast is admittedly very long (almost two hours), but it's a very important topic, and I appreciate the opportunity to have had this discussion with  Christopher D. Chapman and Dr. Valeria Sinclair-Chapman.

Diversity on stage isn't just a numbers game–it's about making sure Lean events truly reflect the communities we serve. In this 20-minute clip from our conversation, we explore why representation matters, how to avoid tokenism, and what practical steps organizers can take to create more inclusive conferences and podcasts.

Here is that 20-minute segment, below, as video, audio podcast, and written transcript:

---

---

Creating truly inclusive Lean events starts with intention–asking who's missing from the stage, seeking out underrepresented voices, and giving people the support they need to succeed. As Chris and Val share, it's not just about inviting diverse speakers–it's about changing the systems that determine who gets invited in the first place. The result isn't just better representation; it's richer conversations, stronger connections, and a community that truly reflects the principles of Respect for People.

Transcript:

Mark Graban: Let me ask one other question that comes to mind. While we're on this topic, I've got to ask it. I want to hear your thoughts, Chris, as the consultant in this space, and Val, your thoughts in terms of advising an organization on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

I'm not speaking on behalf of any of the major Lean conferences. As an attendee and as somebody who has spoken at these conferences, it's hard not to notice that if 13 percent of Americans are Black, you don't see 13 percent Black faces on stage speaking. You also don't see 51 percent women on stage.

Defining that gap–that inequity–is easier than figuring out how aggressively to act and what actions can and should be taken to address it. I don't know what to do beyond identifying the gap.

---

Dr. Valeria Sinclair-Chapman: I can jump in here.

Mark: Please.

Valeria: Part of it is who is elevated, who is trained, who is called to the front. In those spaces, we often begin with perhaps one or two. They will be tokens, and they will probably feel like tokens. There's a lot of pressure on a token–does that make sense?

That one representative feels, “I can't make a mistake. If I get out there, then I represent everybody that's going to come behind me. If I make a mistake, there's not going to be another chance.”

Mark: Sorry to interrupt. That's part of the privilege I have. If I go up there and I stink as a speaker, people will say, “Mark was a bad speaker.” It doesn't reflect that it was a mistake to invite white men to speak.

Valeria: Exactly.

Mark: That doesn't occur to me. That's my blind spot. Thank you for sharing that perspective.

Valeria: One way we can get around that is by doing things in cohorts. In academia, when we hire, we bring in a set of people instead of just one person. When you bring in speakers, maybe you bring in a set of speakers.

You give them opportunities to practice and talk with each other. You make sure they have mentors and coaching. You invest in them for the long haul. You become a sponsor, supporter, ally, and coach.

Research shows that when there is more than one woman in a diverse team, women are more likely to speak. The more isolated a woman is, the quieter she is likely to be.

We can see similar outcomes with people of color. It's not always the case–sometimes a single individual can rise to the top and be outspoken. These aren't prescriptive rules, but they are observable trends.

How do you change that? You need to have internships. You need to make sure you don't fire your intern because they're five minutes late. You have conversations about what it means to do the work and to try. When people are quiet, you ask them to speak up.

You encourage them. You give them a chance to make a mistake, and the mistake isn't deadly. That is one of the privileges of white malehood. It's not universal–there are white men who make a deadly mistake at the beginning. I'm using “deadly” career-wise, not physically.

Mark: Or reputation-wise.

Valeria: Exactly. In one of my previous positions, I felt there was an unspoken rule. Sometimes people would share things with me, and I didn't know I shouldn't repeat them. My personality is, “If you tell me, I'll tell everybody.” I thought it was a strategy, not a secret.

How do you get a promotion? You go on the job market, establish your value, and then someone says, “You're great–we want to keep you.” We create competition.

I repeated this to others, not realizing it was private. That person never said anything; they just stopped talking to me. I was perplexed for years.

One thing we teach in our workshop on building inclusive research environments–called IRE–is to make implicit norms explicit.

If there are things you usually share quietly over coffee, I'm not saying all that goes away, but you need to make more of it explicit. What are the norms of my lab? My office? My department?

Sometimes you have to pull people aside and say, “I don't know if you're aware of this,” instead of assuming, “They should have known.” Part of why some people remain privileged is because they know the inside game.

If you don't know the inside game, you think, “If I just work harder and get more degrees, I'll be protected.” That's not necessarily the case.

Allies and sponsors can help you interpret what you're hearing. That's especially important for women and people of color who've been on the margins.

It's no different in academia. Congress is 85 percent white and male. That's astounding–it's supposed to represent the entire nation. These are sticky problems, but not impossible ones. There are strategies out there already.

---

Christopher D. Chapman: I often think about something Val says: “Who's not in the room? Who's not at the table?”

Look at Lean steering committees, kaizen teams, performance huddles. Who's underrepresented? Who's not participating?

There are opportunities when you ask that question and reflect on it. As a consultant, I lead kaizen teams and help designate leaders and co-leaders. I can have that conversation with leadership: “Who might we give an opportunity to lead?”

---

Valeria: Because those conversations are difficult, how might you do it in action? You can say, “Who is missing from this table, and why are they important? Who would bring a valuable perspective we don't have?”

I once helped create an organization led mostly by women. They were intolerant of one male student–the football team captain–who didn't respond to constant emails and texts. He preferred to show up when decisions were being made and help then, not during debates.

They saw him as uninterested and uncommitted. It was a misinterpretation. Because the women had power, they removed him from leadership.

This isn't common, but it's an example of how we evaluate people differently. We might lock onto one behavior that's different and decide it's the most important factor–often without realizing it. That's implicit bias.

You see it in classrooms. I have two Black sons, so I see how they get noticed for bad behavior. They're good kids, but they sometimes get singled out.

I'll ask, “Who else was there? What punishment did they receive?” Often, it's different. I have to bring it up because people aren't aware.

The statistics tell the story: Black students are more highly disciplined than white students, more likely to be expelled or suspended. This is not accidental–it adds up from unchecked individual acts.

---

Mark: One more question on the conference diversity gap. If I were running a conference–or a virtual one–or starting a new podcast, how do I avoid blind spots and not just invite the white males I know? People balk at quotas, but what would you recommend?

One example: Lean Startup Week, run by Eric Ries and others, has made statements like, “We value diversity and encourage participation.”

How much should we just encourage people of all backgrounds, versus actively seeking diversity? Is it enough to say, “You are welcome,” or do we have to intentionally network and seek people out?

---

Valeria: I love the question. Often we end up with homogenous outcomes because we go to our own networks, which are filled with people like us.

When those networks aren't diverse, these are the results. We hear people say, “We need to build a pipeline.” I think, “No, there's already a whole pool out there.” You can find it if you look–with intention.

Organizations often perceive risk as one-sided: “We're taking a risk on this person; they may not be ready.” But that individual is also taking a risk–walking into a culture that may not be prepared for them.

There's risk-taking and trust-making on both sides.

Also, the talent in people of color or women isn't only for topics about race or gender. Don't pigeonhole people–explore their broader expertise.

We also see that women often wait much longer before seeking promotions or big opportunities. Men jump sooner. I tell my freshman students: “Now is the easiest time to speak up–nobody knows much yet.”

We have to encourage people who may not feel confident. That can mean post-docs, internships, fellowships, recognition–ways to elevate them meaningfully.

We must also measure progress. Lean loves measures. We need creative ways to identify factors that help or slow people's progress.

If you want to change a one-way street to two-way, you just decide and do it. The same with diversity–it's a matter of commitment.

---

Christopher: When you commit to increasing sales or reducing errors year over year, you go for it. Everyone falls in line.

Valeria: Exactly. Hold people accountable. I love the safety example–zero accidents. Imagine setting a goal of zero racism. That's audacious, but if we set it, we'd leverage resources to get there.

Christopher: Lean strives for perfection.

Mark: Paul O'Neill, former CEO of Alcoa, set the goal of zero workplace injuries. Did they reach zero? No–but they reduced harm far more than if they'd aimed for 5 percent per year.

He proved that false trade-offs like “We can't afford safety” are wrong. The same applies to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Valeria: Absolutely. The illusion of that trade-off is costly–especially for people on the margins, but also for the majority. You pay now, or you pay later. [laughs]

---

Please scroll down (or click) to post a comment. Connect with me on LinkedIn.

---

Let’s build a culture of continuous improvement and psychological safety—together. If you're a leader aiming for lasting change (not just more projects), I help organizations:

• Engage people at all levels in sustainable improvement
• Shift from fear of mistakes to learning from them
• Apply Lean thinking in practical, people-centered ways

Interested in coaching or a keynote talk? Let’s talk.

---

Join me for a Lean Healthcare Accelerator Trip to Japan! Learn More

---