Natalie Bulger  0:02

The chaos leaders feel around them often isn't accidental. The table really is shifting, and most leaders are navigating all this noise without ever really having been prepared for what it looks like. Trial by fire, thrown into the deep end, faking it until they make it. It's all real life right now. Alana Cheeks-Lomax and I bring our elder millennial passion and perspective to this exact conversation. So let's get into it.

​

Hey everyone, welcome back to another episode of Motivation N'at. I'm Natalie, your host, and this is where we take hot mess to high potential. Today I am joined by a former Pittsburgh loving person who has now migrated not in our city anymore, but fantastically still connected to the heart of how we, our network, connected us together. So former podcast guest.

​

Jim was able, when we got done, he goes, there's someone that I think you should talk to. And those are my favorite references. We chatted, we were like, yes, this is gonna be a fantastic conversation. So without further ado, I'm gonna introduce Alana Cheeks-Lomax. She is the co-founder and CEO of Untold Impact, a strategy consulting firm dedicated to helping brands forge authentic connections with multicultural communities, and empowering them to thrive in today's competitive marketplace. She's also the former global head of inclusion and diversity at Cash App and a diversity executive at Microsoft and has built DEI programs from the ground up and is a trusted advisor to executives. And like what presence to be in because those are some heavy rooms to be sitting in, especially at this point in time in our society and all those great things. And now to kind of see you launching out there to take this further. And I think it's the beauty of consulting, right, is that you're not necessarily under the thumb of someone in those high positions. can be a little bit more challenging. So Alana, tell us a little bit about you. Like, how the heck did you get to this industry and where you are, and why does it speak to you?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  2:13

Yeah, thank you so much, Natalie, for the intro. Really excited to be here. You know, it's interesting as you started off talking about like Pittsburgh adjacent, I really feel like a lot of my interests and the things that I have decided to do and pursue came from my time at Pittsburgh as an undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon. You know, one of our slogans or one of the slogans of Andrew Carnegie was my heart is in the work. And that's something that's really embedded in you as a student there. And for me, I am always focused on

mission-driven impact, like how are we making the world a better place? How are we solving the really, really hard problems? And I think throughout my career, I've always tried to tackle the hard problems. So started off in healthcare, was very focused on health equity, health access, and that eventually led me to the people space where I was thinking, well, why aren't companies thinking about access and equity and making sure that everyone has the ability to... climb the ladder and be successful, which is how I got into the diversity equity inclusion space. And after doing that for many years in tech, saw other problems that were happening, especially in tech, but realized that there were a lot of brands who were also not thinking about how to build authenticity with consumers. And I think we're in a really interesting point in time in our society where we have a lot of these challenges coming together. We see lots of generational shifts. We see where our economy is heading. We see conversations about technology, AI. And I think we're in a very interesting place right now of how we think about the future and what the future looks like for consumers, what it looks like for employees, what it looks like for the workforce. So my career has not been a straight line, but it's always been rooted in impact. And I'm just trying to make sure people get what they need. And right now with my company, we're trying to help brands understand how to tap in and do it in the right way because the world is shifting and it's shifting fast.

 

Natalie Bulger  4:03

Yeah, and not only through this, I mean, this is an incredible broad topic, right? So we're in the midst of this really huge clash of ideals. We've got disruptions, we've got this drive for the buzzword psychological safety, which is I'm growing to hate that word, not the premise, but the word, you know, right? The rollback, the conscious rollback of a lot of places of DEI, we've got a really stagnant declining marketplace, declining morale.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  4:21

Yeah, it's overused.

​

Natalie Bulger  4:31

And so we're not going to be able to touch on it here. And I failed to mention at the intro, you also have a podcast. So when we get done here, we definitely want to have people note that you also have the Office Hours Black Girl podcast. We'll talk a little bit about that as we get going. But if we scratch the surface and get people interested, you can hear more from Alana over on that pod as well. Talk to us a little bit about your experience right now, consciously in this moment entering into boardrooms and executive tables, what are you seeing as the new or emerging dynamic that we are encountering with these leadership teams?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  5:08

Yeah, actually, Natalie, leaders are trying to figure it out. Like they are overwhelmed as much as we all are overwhelmed. They are as well because it's hard being a leader in general. It's hard being a CEO. It's hard being a C-suite. It's hard, you know, managing teams and, you know, making sure that people are excited about what they're doing and getting projects across the finish line.

​

But then you add on top of that innovation and technology, and then you add on top of that what's happening in this administration, and then you add on top of that worldviews. Like people are really overwhelmed. And I find that a lot of leaders just don't know what to do. They're afraid of making mistakes. They're afraid of tackling the wrong things. And they are also getting burnt out because every which way they look, there's something that needs to be addressed. And I think that's a very unique space. I think prior to 2020,

know, leadership was hard, but I think the past six years has just been like this fire that we've seen across leadership, no matter what industry you're in. If you're in academia, tech, healthcare, like whatever, I think it's just, we've been inundated with a lot. And I think leaders are trying to figure it out, just like many of us are.

​

Natalie Bulger  6:17

Well, and you've mentioned, and it's one of my favorite words, authenticity and being authentic. And I think what we're seeing with some leaders is a crisis of who are they at their authentic self, because to your point, we led a certain way for a long time, and now there is no calmness in the world around us. And I think it's challenging people's perspective of themselves and even other people around them. What are you seeing as people going, is this really who I am? Like, are there things that leaders in the rooms that you're in are starting to question about themselves?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  6:55

Yeah, I actually was having this conversation with a leader that I'm working with recently because we were, this person's a younger leader and I also think there's generational differences, but as a leader, we were talking about all the things that are on his plate, right? So it's like you're managing a company, you have a C-suite that you're leading. We were talking about return to office, return to work. This leader actually has small children at home. We were talking about what employees are asking for.

​

And he was just having a moment where he was like, I'm struggling. And I had to remind him, you got to stay grounded in who you are right now. And you got to stay grounded in the values that you founded this company on and the values that you hold true to heart. And I think when you're in what can feel chaotic, we tend to start second guessing ourselves or questioning ourselves, right? I know I've done this when things seem really hectic around me. I don't know what I'm doing, but we really do know what we're doing.

but we have to remind ourselves what's important, but also we have to say to ourselves, if we need help, get support, right? Find a coach, find someone that you can, you know, bounce ideas off of. But I've had to remind this person to stay grounded because right now the environment is so chaotic, but some of that is by design. But also too, as a leader, you can't solve everything. And I think that's the challenge leaders have. They want to solve a lot.

​

But some of the things that are happening don't get solved overnight, if that makes sense.

​

Natalie Bulger  8:23

Yeah. Who do you see leaving the table right now? So I listened to that and I'm like, man, if that doesn't change, they're gonna intentionally or unintentionally find themselves not at the table anymore. You know, a break of some nature, maybe of their own choosing or, you know, some other process. But who is leaving? Because it's not historically just retirees at this point. We have exodus going from other spots, right?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  8:52

Yeah, yeah. So I think there's a lot of people leaving the table. We see the headlines or the lack of headlines around Black women leaving the table. There's over 600,000 Black women. I actually think it's more. I think it's probably close to a million, but the data is not being tracked correctly, who have left the proverbial table. I think people are leaving the table because they're checked out, right? So as I talked about COVID, you know, we've had really unprecedented times in the workforce over the course of six years, right?

And people are just burnt out. So I see a lot of people just checking out from the table and just saying, you know what, I'm going to collect my paycheck and just move on. But the one leader that I see leaving most from the table is actually the people leaders. Like people function HR. I see a lot of HR leaders saying, I'm good. It's almost like there's too much to fix and they're deciding to go independent or completely take time off and I think that function has had a really challenging time over the last six years and we see a big exodus right now from the people function.

​

Natalie Bulger  9:57

Yeah, so I want to definitely dive into that a little bit, pivot from the plan. But it gets me thinking, right, what role has had its title changed more than the chief HR? We've had Chief People Officer, Chief Well-being, you know, and so it's almost like the identity of what that role does has been a little lost. And honestly, I'm thinking about it, I'm like, well, is that the person that handles the training and the empowerment and the build? Or is that the person mostly for hiring, retention, retirement? So what even is that role anymore? And I'm assuming a little bit of that plays into why no one, why we're not seeing a lot of people entering that space, but also why we're seeing people doing that whole wash my hands, I need to get out of this for my own good.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  10:42

Yeah, I think the role has changed a lot, Natalie, over the past 10, 15 years. And I think in the past couple of years, we've seen it change a lot. To your point, we're talking about, we always knew it as like a chief human resource officer. And a lot of that work might've been rooted in compliance or risk management from a people perspective or from an HR perspective. And now we're seeing more organizations focusing on wellness and training and development and... purpose and all of these terms that are lumped up into what we would call the people space. I think what's really interesting is that even with all the changes that we're seeing and the additional responsibilities of this person, it's still grounded in people. And at the end of the day, I always say the most important function, I personally think the most important function is the HR people function. Because if you don't have a workforce, then you don't have a company, you don't have a product, you don't have anything.

​

But I think we're seeing a lot more pressure being placed to really make sure people are good, employees are good, et cetera. But it has evolved because there's a need that's there. Right now we're sitting in a workforce that has four generations. That's very unique, right? Everyone has different ideas and thoughts about how work should be, how they should get paid, what their employer should be doing, how their employer should be saying something versus not saying something.

​

We're also in a space right now where people have very different ideas around the future of work and what that looks like. And, you know, it's all grounded in this human experience, but for a very long time, HR wasn't that human experience function. It was just, like I said, these compliance risk things, but now it's morphed and, you know, if you don't have the right people in place, if you don't have the right training, resources, money, support, people will get burnt out and they'll move on.

​

Natalie Bulger  12:32

And I don't think, ironically, we give probably the HR world enough credit. One of my best friends at the VA, and I say best friends professionally, I called him more than anyone else, was my employee labor rep because I was navigating employee situations I had never been trained on. And I was like, what am I allowed to say? What am I not allowed to say? I don't want to get anyone in trouble, but this isn't all right. So they were appropriately coaching in the right way, but then also having to identify people to support staff when necessary. And then on top of that, they're trying to run investigations of their own right. And I'm like, wow, no one's been trained for this because they're all pulled 15 different ways. There's a lot of things that make a good human resources department, but I think we've parsed them out a little bit and then we've overwhelmed them too. And one of the elements being this whole piece of employees think they know best sometimes. And it causes some conflict on now having to navigate not just doing work, but dealing with a lot of opinions that are coming up. How do we, and I'm hoping you've got at least a starting point on this, given everything that you've navigated, how do we start to talk about the employee's appropriate role in the workplace? How much are we entertaining these opinions versus going, we have a job to do and I don't have five hours in my day to debate the return to office stance.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  14:05

Yeah, that's a great question, Natalie. I don't think anyone's posed this question to me. I have a very, I don't know, radical is not the right word. I am very, like my thoughts of how the workforce should be set up, I don't think everyone would agree with me, but I actually think at the end of the day, your people are your most important asset, right? Like that is the overhead, that is your biggest cost. And I feel like if Alana and Natalie enter an organization, and we're not happy, it's not working for us, know productivity wise, it's going to go down. We know retention is going to be really hard. So I feel like employees should be listening more to their employees around what they want and build workforces around them. And I think where the rubber's meeting the road right now is what I mentioned before, there's different generations in the workforce. So Boomers and Gen X are used to something very different than Gen Z, Gen Alpha that's coming up and millennials, right? There's this idea right now among younger generations, they're not trying to work forever. They're okay with nine to five at 5:01, don't call, don't text. That's just not what they want to do. And that's totally fine. But I don't think the workforce has caught up with the needs of these younger generations. And I think they're not always listening to them.

​

And at the same time, it can be hard as well because organizations are constantly changing their minds, right? I think about what we experienced during COVID. Everyone was like remote work. We're making this work. We're making this happen. A lot of companies were making record profits and they were like, yes, this is innovation. We don't need to be sitting in the same place. Now, a couple of years later, everyone's mandating people to get back in the office. And as an employee, you're like, wait a second, two and a half years ago, you told me this was the future, and now I gotta get back in my car, deal with traffic, pay for transportation, whatever it may be, and now you're demanding I get back into the office? Well, that's not what you said before, right? So I think those are the things that make it hard for employees. And really, if your employees are not trying to do certain things, that's why we do pulse surveys and we figure out what's important for people, I think you gotta be listening to them as well.

​

Natalie Bulger  16:18

Well, and as I listen to you say that, I think of things. I'm of the strong component. I like the idea of logging out and not being reachable. But then I think about my expectations as a consumer, right? And I go, I had a disaster happen in my home last weekend. I want to be able to talk to an insurance agent at 10 o'clock at night, find out what's going on. And so it's like we are applying expectations in an unbalanced way, right? We know what we want as the consumer, but we may not be willing to answer it as the professional or talk about what are those solutions? What does it look like if we did four day work weeks and, you know, certain setups, would that make people more available at different times? How does the healthcare space work when, you know, you've got a huge night shift population that may need treatment at night or maybe we don't? Are there innovative discussions that you have seen start to trickle in about this future of work conversation where it's like status quo is not going to function for the next five years? Are there any crazy off the wall ideas that you've been hearing or starting to get floated around?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  17:31

I think it really depends on the organization and just really the willingness of leaders to be innovative and what that looks like, right? There are some standard practices I think that people have adopted that most people expect from their organization, whether it's a wellness benefit or, you know, a day or two off a quarter to volunteer, you know, outside of the standard benefits and kind of how we think about the future of work.

​

I think when we talk about the future of work, there's the benefit side of it. And then the other part of future of work is around time and how people are using their time. I read an article about a company one time that instead of giving people stipends for the traditional wellness, they were giving people stipends for things that made a difference in their life. So you could use your money for a personal chef or a house cleaner, like things to help you really save time and be efficient in your life. And people were like, we love this. We don't necessarily want to spend 500 on a gym, but if someone can come to my house once a week and I can use that 500 for that, done. Like that makes a difference in my life. So I think we will continue to see that. But I think on the other hand, when we talk about the future of work, lots of conversations about four-day work week, most of us work more than 40 hours in four days if we actually really add up our time. So we're taking a Friday off or every other week doesn't feel so crazy. There are lots of countries globally who have actually already started to utilize this and their productivity hasn't gone down. I think if we're gonna start retaining people, especially younger generations, we're gonna need to be thinking about compensation and what's important for them. Do we give people more sabbaticals? Do we give them an opportunity to work in other places and experience other cultures? I think there's a lot of things that can be done. But unfortunately, I think what we're seeing right now is that AI is taking up a lot of costs and money and the innovation has slowed down because we're investing in this technology so much right now.

​

Natalie Bulger  19:33

We're gonna get into AI, believe me. I have found a way to put it in every one of my episodes lately for sure. But I have to touch on compensation, because you brought it up. And as you were talking, it made me think. I listened to a congressional hearing a couple of weeks ago with some healthcare CEOs. And I'm the jerk that went online and found out what those CEOs make in their salary, because a lot of it is publicly posted on their 990s. And even if it's not, you can find the for-profits. And the one was touting, well, we opened a daycare at our hospital because the nurses couldn't find, and the staff couldn't find caretakers. And I'm like, they couldn't find or they couldn't afford. And it's like, there's a moment where, great idea. They're right there. You can go see your kids if you want to. But I also want to be like, if you took a 10% salary cut and disperse that along your staff, your staff could actually afford probably a nanny a couple times a week that came to the house or something, you know, in childcare and all this. Why are leaders, and maybe this is generational, so against taking cuts to disperse and remove the wealth gap that we are seeing in major industries right now? And I just know healthcare because I live in it. And I know a starting wage is $14 for a certain role that could kill a patient.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  20:51

Yeah. Natalie, my God, if I had the answer for this, I think, you know, it's so, some days it's so infuriating to me because the capitalism is, the level of capitalism we're at right now is just, I feel like it's really killing us. So when you hear, like you said, the CEO is making.

And these CEOs are making a lot, there are some people who are taking home compensation packages of 20, 30, $40 million. And then they're laying off 10,000, 15, 20. I'm like, wait a second, right? And I don't think that, I think we have gotten used to, and I think we've made it okay for the senior level executives to get away with this because it's so normalized, right? It's not like there's one outlier of a CEO it's making 30 million and then every other CEO is making a million dollars, a half a million, it's the norm, right? So it's like, well, this is what you get when you get to C-suite. Now, you and I also know, Natalie, too, that some of these people that as they climb C-suite aren't the smartest people, aren't the best people, but they are just compensated very well because they're in these lanes. But I think as a leader, this comes down to almost an individual decision, right? I think we've seen examples. I think it was Ed,

Bastian, who's the CEO of Delta. I think during the pandemic, he took a huge pay cut so that Delta didn't have to lay off anybody. Like that was a decision. I want to assume that's the decision he made, but I'm sure with his team and the board, they figured out the numbers, but that was something he publicly shared. He said, I'm not taking an increase or I took a cut so we didn't have to furlough anyone on our staff and we can make it happen. And I'm like, okay, if Ed can do that, other people can do that.

​

But I think we've just gotten to this place of greed that is just so, it's so bad. So to your point, there are people who are still making 10, 14, $15 an hour and other people who are just making so much. And we have just normalized this wealth gap in a way that feels, sometimes it just feels irreversible. Like it's just so big. And I also think as part of that, we have also normalized people just making

lots and lots of money because we've lost a lot of collectivism and a lot of community. So everyone's like, let me just hoard as many resources that I can because no one else, there's nothing else that's supporting me or my community. So people are like, let me just make all the money. So even if you're not a CEO making $30 million a year, you're a worker who's just like money, money, money, money. Cause the system is not helping me any way, shape or form.

​

Natalie Bulger  23:37

Yeah, and I know we sometimes have justified those big paychecks and they're like, oh, well, they're taking on the majority of risk for the organization and they could be fired if something goes wrong. And I hate to break it to folks, they're going to fire 10 other people before their head ends up on the chopping block. Things are built in that way and there's, sure, if they donate to charity, but what if you didn't even have to donate to the charities? Because the charities were able to be funded from a different pathway. The looking at the root cause piece I think is gone missing and there's a powerful dynamic of that big table that sits there and the question of what do you really do to earn that check? And it's just, it's really hard having sat in those rooms sometimes and I'm like, I don't even know if I deserve this paycheck, you know?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  24:26

Yeah, it's hard. And even if they get fired, their severance package is going to set them up for life for the next 10, 15. Even if they do get fired, they're fine. They're not hurting, CEOs, if they lose their job in a year or two, you know?

​

Natalie Bulger  24:41

Yeah, well, and we mentioned, you know, working more than 40 hours and certainly a lot of these folks are working more than 40 hours when you get into those seats. Their assistants also are. Their, you know, their staff have probably ingested that as an expectation of everyone under that chain, also become someone that can answer emails at any hour of the day as we've gone forward. And it's funny because if you look back before there was email, you know, I remember my dad running a hospital and he was home at 5 p.m. almost every day, unless there was a board meeting and then he stayed late, you know? And so it's like we've reset our expectations in a non-realistic way and then made it a norm. And there's a part of the generational piece that I think is coming into play, which is people going, why the heck is it the norm? If 40 hours a week is the expectation, how come the whispers are actually it's 55? If you make a certain amount, it's gonna be 55. Is anyone challenging that right now beyond that generational component? Are there people that are actually saying, no, we need balance again and really living it?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  25:53

Yeah, I think it's definitely younger generations because they're like, you don't pay us for all of this. They're like, we're not getting paid for all of this. I do think conversations I'm having with people, just being a millennial, being an older millennial. I have conversations with my generational cohort and many people are talking about how, you know, we were raised for a world that actually doesn't exist anymore. And we did certain things like we went to college, we got certifications, went to grad school, but we're still at this space of it's hard to buy a home. It's hard to save for retirement. It's like, if you want kids, you talked about childcare earlier, how expensive that is. And I think what I'm starting to see, especially now where we're going through all these layoffs, that people are starting to uncouple their identity from their job which I think is very refreshing that it's not just our titles, but we are all human beings who have hobbies and families and things that we want out of life. And I think that's the change that's coming that allows us to think differently about how we show up to work. Because at the end of the day, it is a job, right? It is a job that serves a purpose to pay bills and do the things we need to do. So yeah, I hope these conversations keep happening. Cause I think it's I think it's time. And I think go back to what we were saying earlier about generationally, what we saw too, for so long, as you talk about these CEOs making all this money and the boomer generation too, they grew up in the eighties of Reaganomics and Gordon Gekko and you just hoard, hoard, hoard. That's just not what we see as valuable. This past week they had the Met Gala in New York and Jeff Bezos was on the committee and people were not supporting a billionaire who can literally solve world problems with less than 1% of his wealth. He could solve some stuff and he's just hoarding. And I don't think people want that anymore. We don't want to support that.

 

Natalie Bulger  27:54

No, and I think it actually, and it's curious because I don't know if the folks that we're doing this with realize it, but I even think of the shows that we watch, right, where they're touting this wealth and you kind of just watch and you're like, show me the train wreck. You know, it's like, it doesn't make me want to be like that. It's almost like, I can't believe there are people who think like this. And I think it should be a wake up call for some folks, but to dive further into the generational piece, I want to talk about boards for a second, because I did an article the other day, I mentioned it before we started recording, that showed that for the top, I think Fortune 500, the average age of a board member is 66. And in many cases, these board members actually get paid, because if they're for-profit tech, any of those kind of things. Then you look at executive management, their average age, a little lower, it's like 57. It's like you age out of exec management, then you go sit on the cushy board jobs, you know, and do that. And then their workforce is younger. They're in their 40s, late 40s to 30s in the most part. And so it makes me think, what the heck does someone in their late 60s understand? And this is Congress too, so let me just point out it happens in all industries. Actually understand about what someone today, in today's world, grasps as their real problems and the real things they're doing. Is there any effort to bring younger people onto those boards at this point, or are they still relying on you don't have enough experience, you don't understand, you'll get here when the time is right?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  29:29

Yeah, yeah. Well, let me start off by saying I am, I want to be one of those on one of those paid boards one day, Natalie, I am not there yet because it is very lucrative for all those who know the paid boards. But obviously, you know, comes with a lot of responsibility as well. But I do sit on other boards like nonprofit boards. And I am seeing a lot more people my age getting involved in that. I think there's just some this idea of what philanthropy looks like and volunteering looks like for these organizations that you don't necessarily have to be independently wealthy to support a nonprofit or a board or help fundraise. So I do think more people are getting involved. But I think to go back to your broader question as we talk about this idea of leadership and who's in control, I do think we're seeing it right now. We're seeing younger people wanting to have a seat at the table and be a part of decision making. And you reference Congress, and this has always been politics is one of my Achilles heel because I just get so frustrated when people are literally dying in office. They're in their 70s, 80s and they've served for many years. Thank you for your service, but it is time for some new blood, some new energy, some new thoughts and ideas and we're just seeing this push and pull and this fighting for power among old guard and new guard and you know, I think that's the workforce too. People are wanting different things and some folks are just not willing to let go. And I was reading, I think it was Michelle Obama who was talking about her podcast a couple of weeks ago that she was saying that older people, one of the disservices we've done is we haven't given older people, and I'm not sure if I'm using the right language, but older people something to do to make them feel important post them leaving. And I think she was referencing politics, of okay, thank you so much. You've done what we need you to do. But they're used to being important. They're used to feeling important. But what's their role when they decide to take a step back? And I don't think we have solved that. Which is why I think we have people who want to be in power as long as they can, or they're retired and they come out of retirement. The famous example I talk about is, Bob Iger, who led Disney for years. He retired and then all of a sudden he was back. And it was like, Bob, you probably don't need to come back, right? Disney clearly is in trouble if they're bringing Bob back, but it's also like, are there other leaders that could be there, probably, you know? So, you know, but I think the shift is here. People are wanting different.

 

Natalie Bulger  32:00

Well, it makes you question, Bob, when did you set up right and what did you not? That it didn't work when you left. That's the biggest challenge to a leader is, did you build the systems that they don't need you anymore? Right, work your way out of a job. Well, and it's funny you mentioned, you know, giving the folks that are retiring something to retire to. And I think of everyone that I know that have retired. And the number one thing they say is, I'm going to go be grandpa or grandma. And then I think about how many of us who they would be grandpa and grandma for didn't have kids. And I'm like, oh, okay. And as you mentioned, this massive tech generational boom. And I'm like, sure, there are people that are in their seventies that wanna learn new tech. I'm sure there are, but there's also a lot that have no interest in doing that. So the hobbies and even anything that could replace that seems to have that unknown, so let me stay with what I know.

 

I have to ask, what the heck is the feel around Gen X? Because I feel like I don't understand Gen X in the workforce. We've tagged boomers for so long. I'm a millennial, so I definitely know where I sit. I can point out a Gen Alpha, Gen Z. I don't know who the heck the Gen X are and what are they filling? Where are they at in the workforce? What do we need to look for? How do we help them?

 

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  33:25

Oh my gosh. I don't know if they know who they are either. It's like, yeah. Cause when you talk about the workforce, it's so interesting. Cause Gen X, they were taught by boomers, right? But if we think about the generations, and I'm biased in saying this, but I do think millennials is probably the most innovative generation in modern time just because of what we live through. Like we are the analog and digital. We saw so much in our lifetime that we remember rotary phones and before there was the internet, but then we also were the generation that grew up with it, had access to it, picked it up very quickly. So I feel like we have a very different perspective on technology, but I also think we move a little quicker. And I feel like with Gen X there's, you know, they obviously are next after baby boomers, but there are sometimes I wonder if they got enough from boomers in order to really lead it to the next generation. And I don't know if I hear enough from them. I don't know, I just feel like it's either boomers or millennials. I'm like, who is talking and representing for the Gen X because every other generation is making noise, but I'm not sure where they are at.

​

Natalie Bulger  34:37

No, you are. I mean, it's the same thing that I had and I had to wonder if it plays into a little bit of the dynamic of boomers not wanting to leave at this point, because maybe there's not enough trust that the millennials had enough time or they're so different in their approach. Where's the bridge the gap kind of moment coming in? You know, I think Gen X put their head down and did the work. And that was what was asked and got us through, you know, certain pieces and things. And by the way, it's no shade at anyone or any ageism. But it does kind of bring out this, if we're going to disrupt things, who is best set to disrupt what pieces? And I'm tired, I don't want to disrupt anymore.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  35:22

I think millennials, I think it's us. I know we are, we're tired. We were called lazy. We were like, you're buying too many lattes and avocado toast. That's why you can't do this. And I just, I think we are tired as a generation. Cause we've also been through a million existential crisis since we were 12. So we're just like, when are we going to get a break as a generation?

​

Natalie Bulger  35:45

Yeah, and you and I are in the same boat, right? We've left corporate world, we're on our own. I hear a lot of millennials doing this, which also makes me wonder if we're gonna be continuing to see lagging in corporate environments, boomers, maybe some Gen X. And then all of a sudden there's this wave of all these stand up little innovation groups, consulting, all this kind of stuff that are the millennials now at this point. And we don't wanna work for the man. We're tired. We're like, let us figure this out ourselves because we've been the innovative group. What are, are there certain industries that are really seeing this kind of millennial exodus and saying we can do it better without this corporate structure? And I want to call out, you mentioned the Black women leaving the workforce and where are they going? What are they potentially doing? What are the opportunities that we now have to build space for folks that are like, I'm not doing it the way that it's always been done.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  36:46

Yeah, I think, you know, I really think people kind of deciding to leave is agnostic of industry. I feel like I talk to people, whether they're women of color, men, all different backgrounds, and people are just kind of tired. I think they're tired of the rigid role, but also they were taught one formula was the recipe for success. And I think the last few years, people are like, ooh, that's not what I'm getting right now. So I do think we're going to see, continue to see an influx of people becoming entrepreneurs, but I think also even within companies like entrepreneurs, I think there's two big gaps. I'm starting to see them, but I think they're going to get highlighted very soon. We're going to have real big gaps around upskilling and re-skilling, especially with AI, because we're not seeing a lot of companies just training people on how to use this technology in the right way and helping people re-skill and retool so that they are not just totally pushed to the side because of this new technology. And then I also think because so many people are leaving corporate America, well, who's coming up behind them, right? If boomers retire, then you have Gen X as the leaders and millennials continue to leave the workforce. And then Gen Z is like, deuces, we're not trying to be in corporate for 40 years. Who is the next wave of talent?

​

I don't think anyone's, there's no solve for this. I just think it's a part of this shift that we're seeing that I don't think anyone anticipated. And we got to see how this all shakes out.

​

Natalie Bulger  38:18

Well, and I think it'd be really interesting to see which industry falters kind of first and not for the reason that we just saw Spirit, right, shut down. So not because jet fuel went up, but because people literally won't do it anymore. And, you know, I see it starting in healthcare. We see this huge breakout of direct practice medicine where it's cash only. You pay 50 bucks a month, you can call your doc whenever. And the docs still aren't overwhelmed. They're like, this is still better than having to go into a hospital and around at six in the morning and be there, you know, for super long hours because they have relationships and that's what they wanted. So it's the shift in values. It will be interesting if those grow and the nurses go, not coming in here anymore. I'm going to go work for the direct care person and work in my neighborhood and do certain things that look different. How we even maintain any sense of what the historic framework has really been, right? Because AI can't replace us in some of these industries.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  39:16

I can't replace humans. As much as they're trying to tell us, Natalie, I'm like, no, this is one big marketing campaign. It's literally a really good marketing campaign because I'm like, this is not what this technology should be used for.

​

Natalie Bulger  39:32

Well, and I've never seen something move at this rate with, I can't wait, this is awesome, let me buy it to, oh my God, you're posting another thing that clearly was written with Claude, like, come on. It has been this massive, I love this, to, we really are gonna talk about how we actually use this because it's making us look more stupid. So what are your thoughts on AI in the current state and what the heck is happening with it?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  40:04

Yeah, so the reason why I mentioned it's a big marketing scheme, this is for the Pittsburgh folks, you know, University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, machine learning has been around since the 50s. Like this is not a new technology. Obviously the technology has gotten better and smarter, but the way that we see people talking about it and branding it is like it just showed up a year ago. This has always been happening. I think what we're seeing is a really big marketing play. And I think there's a lot of companies that are jumping on the AI bandwagon because they made poor financial decisions during the pandemic and they over hired, they took out loans they couldn't afford. So now they have a cashflow problem. And again, what's your biggest overhead? It's people. So they're like, we're going to lay off part of our workforce, but laying off part of their workforce just helps them get cashflow to invest in artificial intelligence. And we're already seeing data that's coming out saying these companies are not any more efficient with these tools and the technology. And I just think we're in a space where we're just continuing to push it, push it, push it. But there are a lot of organizations that are doing it for the sake of doing it, but I'm not sure if they're asking the right questions of what problems it's solving or really how you use it and enable it to actually be more efficient. Now on the other side of the coin, the problem with AI I feel like right now is that we're also not having the other conversations, which is around the data centers that are being placed in communities all around the country. We're not having the conversations about what this is doing to the labor market, right? How so many people are unemployed, the re-skilling as I've been talking about, and the up-skilling that will be needed. If this is truly something that's here to stay, how do we make sure that people understand it? I was chatting with a colleague that runs a nonprofit in the UK and he was telling me in the UK, the government has mandated that people get trained on artificial intelligence and reskilled around this. This is something the workforce has to tackle. And I'm like, I wish we had that here in the US because these companies are just more than willing to just lay folks off. So I think there's gotta be a more balanced conversation. I'm all for technology. I'm all for innovation, but I'm for responsible technology and innovation. And right now it just doesn't feel responsible. And it's creating a real big divide. And if we continue to grow in the direction we're going in, I feel like there's just going to be a real underclass of people. And when I even think about that, I'm like, that makes no sense to me too, because I'm like, if everyone's out of a job, who's paying for your technology that you're trying to build with AI? It just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

​

Natalie Bulger  42:37

Well, I mean, talk about a timely piece when we're recording this, just the other day, the National Endowment for Humanities lawsuit kind of came out and was determined that no, it was completely incorrectly done with so many elements. And one of them was how they scanned the contracts and terms they used and how it was applied. And even though there was a human behind running that piece, it just goes to show the massive risk organizations are taking on when they just kind of willy-nilly toss people out there and go figure this out and by the way get it done by tomorrow at five o'clock. And the easiest way is let me pop it into a reader, have it look for certain things, spit it all back out at me. Meanwhile, you're now training a system with proprietary information potentially depending what you've pulled up and started to use and you don't even know if you're looking for the right thing. So, you know, it takes the right people with the right tool and the right information to even start to get to that data set piece. So what are some of the things that we should be conscious of, especially if we're in a leadership role and we're like, I need this for some extent. How do I leverage it appropriately and ethically? And what are practical resources for it?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  44:04

Yeah, I think this is a great question because I do think a lot of organizations are putting themselves at risk and they don't even know. They're uploading people data, sensitive information to these systems. And of course we know that in the background, these tools are learning from all the data that you're giving it. So stuff is now out in the ethos. For me, I have found that, cause I do use Claude, I did use OpenAI or ChatGPT at one point, I use it for efficiency things, like help me understand how how to be more efficient or create a schedule for myself or like my podcast or how do I think about blocking my time? Here are my constraints. I don't use AI to, I use it to help streamline my life more so than being a thought partner. In some ways it can be a thought partner and I have used it in that way, but I have to check it and correct it. And I'm like, let me make sure this is actually accurate because I do think a lot of people are plugging and chugging and just copying and pasting and assuming it's like Bible. But we have to be thoughtful. And I think as leaders, there's ways to ask, you know, to prompt it to say, okay, can you help me rewrite this a little bit and make it sound a little bit more formal? Or, you know, can you scan my calendar? Where are the places I can save time so I can spend time with my family? I think those are the ways we think about AI because.

​

The other challenge with this technology is the people that are creating it don't represent all of us, right? So you have a lot of technical people in the background who don't have experience in healthcare and have not had an experience as a proposal writer, you know, so there's little nuances that make it more challenging. And I think until we get to that space, it's still gonna be biased and not gonna be helping all of us.

​

Natalie Bulger  45:51

I think if anyone wants a really good challenge is take something you already know the answer to that you're an expert in that you have mastered and plug that prompt into whatever system you use and see if it actually gets it right. Cause there's been times, I mean, and I'm not a coder, I'll get stuck on something on a website build or whatever, and it will send me down some really long path. And I find the workaround was just that I build an extra field and clone something. And I'm like, this is a workaround I could have used. I didn't even think of that. So right, can't lose your creativity along the way. And I know I use it. I am open about using Claude as well for when I do my articles. And I say, but if you source something, I want the source. You're only giving me sources. I want the link to the source. I want the library where the source sits. Otherwise, the hallucination piece definitely comes up. I think as managers and workers, let's just assume, right, that our staff are probably using something, co-pilot if that's in their thing. And the new question might be, show me your sources or show me the steps or show me the prompts you used, because I want to make sure you interpreted this the same way that I did, because that's where we see a lot of, I think, some of those breakdowns.

 

So as we head towards kind of the end of the conversation here, we haven't had a chance to touch on what I think is one of the things maybe getting a little mixed up with AI, the piece of what makes a high quality team versus a high performing team, right? Because AI might be helping us crank out numbers and hit volumes we've never seen before. So we're high performing, but to the point where we just talked about, is it actually high quality? And are the outcomes what we really want to look at? What do you see when especially when you're trying to rebalance someone, right, who's focused on an output number and having to say, okay, but are you making a high quality group or a high quality goal?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  47:47

Yeah, I think I'm glad that we're talking about this, the difference between quality and performance, because I do think that if I think about performance of something in the framework of AI, I think about fast, right? It's like, okay, it's performance, it's pushing out stuff, but to your point about quality, it might not be right, right? Yes, we've created multiple agents and they're spitting out reports and they were able to do a task that might take one person five hours in 30 minutes.

​

So yes, high performance, we've checked that. But when it comes to quality, it's not accurate. And I think when we think about teams and just the humans again, we wanna make sure that people are doing good work, right? Not making shortcuts and that they are showing up every single day in ways that allows them to contribute and drive impact. And I think if you're going to create quality teams, you need to think about the backgrounds of those teams. You need to think about the skills that people have, what they're bringing to the table you know, what are the things that they're challenging you on to make you think about something differently or innovatively? Because for me, it's not enough just to have a team that pumps out something. It's got to be good something. And oftentimes in organizations, if we're pushing people and saying, you know, hey, we want things done fast, quality often suffers, right? In that sense.

​

Natalie Bulger  49:04

Yeah. So as we officially wrap up now, because I wanted to make sure we touched on that, because I guarantee you it's something you talk about on the Office Hours Black Girl podcast, probably. What are some of the things that you cover on your podcast? What are some of the folks you've talked to? What can people expect when we send them over there to listen once they're done with this episode?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  49:25

Yeah, so Office Hours Black Girl podcast is a community dedicated to centering Black women's stories and experiences in the workplace. So we talk a lot about the intersectionalities of who we are as women, but also as Black women and what that looks like as it relates to leadership, career advancement, you know, how we show up in the workplace, our identities. But also we've been exploring this idea of entrepreneurship. And you mentioned at the top of the call, I've been spending a lot of time talking to people who are in the season right now of kind of being pushed out, let go, and they're trying to figure out what's next for them. We want it to be a space that allows people to get really real and authentic, almost like an office hours. It's one-on-one with an academic, but also really learn from each other and share resources. So we're on season three. We actually just finished season three. We actually just got picked up by a distributor. So I'm very excited about that because I think we'll be able to share more of our messaging, but it's really a space that's meant to just help us continue to thrive and share amongst one another and build community around those shared experiences.

​

Natalie Bulger  50:29

Awesome. So we will make sure we're going to tag that. It can be found on any of your streaming services. I stumble on a lot of them on LinkedIn, the little clips that you put up there a lot of. So how can people find you, reach you, learn more about Untold Impact or potentially work with you? If this is something they're like, this is the fresh voice I would like coming in to engage with. How do they do that?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  50:48

Yeah, I am very, very active on LinkedIn. So Alana, A-L-A-N-A, and last name is C-H-E-E-K-S hyphen L-O-M-A-X on LinkedIn. That's the best way to find me. I also just recently released a personal website, alanacheekslomax.com that has links to Untold Impact, my podcasts, and how to reach out to me for speaking engagements or just any other projects.

​

And then I'm also pretty active on social media. So at acheekslomax on Instagram, you can find me. I post a lot of podcast stuff and just articles and think pieces. So lots of different ways to find me on these webs out here.

​

Natalie Bulger  51:30

And I love that. And it's fun because you get a little of you and you get a little bit of the professional side and that academic side. And it's all the beautiful part of technology these days that it all kind of comes together and tells this really beautiful story about things. All right. Final thoughts. I want to know from you, what's the biggest leadership norm that if you had the power to undo it today and just say, we're not going to expect this anymore when it comes to business and leadership, what would it be?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  52:10

You know what? I think leaders aren't doing enough of holding themselves accountable. I think one of the challenging things as a leader is that we think we have to have it right all the time. And we're humans. It's okay for us not to have it right. It's okay for us to get it wrong. And I think a lot of people are afraid of making mistakes. And because they're afraid of making mistakes, if they do make mistakes, it's hard for them to hold themselves accountable and hold the mirror. And often are maybe pushing the buck to other places. So I just want people to realize it's okay to be human in that sense. And hopefully the workforce or the work environment they're in supports them in that. And that if they are not perfect, cause none of us can be perfect, that it's okay. But also how do they hold themselves accountable?

​

Natalie Bulger  52:53

And if I can add mine to it, it would be that, and this is going to be funny coming from someone in risk that loves data and wants to analyze everything. I wish leaders would follow their gut a little bit more. Go with the person that doesn't have the best resume, but they rocked it when you talk to them. And that feeling, because I feel like we've dampened the feelings lately and because we are in crisis, right? We're just like, it just needs to be done. But if we tapped into that intuition a little bit, I think we might see even more beautiful versions of some of the innovation we're trying to push. So, yeah.

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  53:25

I love that. Yeah. I always say we're drowning in data, but we're craving insights because we have so much information, but we don't know what to do with it.

​

Natalie Bulger  53:34

Right? Or what to trust or where to look or any of that. Well, Alana, thank you so much for coming on and recording this. This has been a rapid fire conversation. I know folks are going to come check out your other discussions that you have. They'll find you on those different links and everything that we'll make available in the show notes. So folks, when you exit out of here, make sure to head down there and check that out. And Alana, any last parting thoughts for everyone?

​

Alana Cheeks-Lomax  54:01

Yeah, just thank you so much, Natalie, for creating the space. I've been telling this to myself personally in the last few days and other people, just all of us just to keep going. I think it's really tough and challenging many days, and I think we're living through a lot, but just keep your head up and one day at a time.

​

Natalie Bulger  54:18

Yeah, don't let the fear hold you back about what we don't even know. Just trust it to keep up in the path that we're in. So thanks again. And thanks, everyone, for listening to another episode of Motivation N'at, where we've taken a little bit of hot mess and turned it into hopefully what you consider high potential. We will talk again soon.