Latest / The Diversity Career Podcast with Fexingo: Inclusion, Equity, and Underrepresented Professionals / How One Company Built a Career Ladder for Employees with Stuttering
Transcript
- Lucas: So last week I came across a stat that kind of stopped me: around 3 million Americans stutter, but less than 1 percent of corporate diversity programs even mention speech fluency as a dimension. Luna: And I bet most of those people are filtering themselves out of client-facing roles or management tracks early on, because the assumption is they'll be at a disadvantage. Lucas: Exactly. And one Fortune 500 tech company — I'll call it a major cloud infrastructure provider — decided to test that assumption. They partnered with the National Stuttering Association to build a career ladder specifically for employees who stutter. Luna: Wait — a whole career ladder? Not just an employee resource group or some sensitivity training? Lucas: Right. The ERG was already there. This was about structural promotion paths. The program launched in late 2024, and the first cohort had 42 employees across engineering, product, and even some customer-facing roles. They tracked them against a matched control group over 18 months. Luna: What were the concrete accommodations? Because just saying 'we support you' doesn't change the fact that most promotions involve presentations and high-stakes meetings. Lucas: That was the key insight. They created three pillars. First, alternative presentation formats: an employee could submit a written narrative, a pre-recorded video, or a one-on-one walkthrough instead of a live all-hands pitch. Second, written contribution quotas in meetings — each person was guaranteed a slot to share ideas via a shared doc during brainstorming. And third, a mentorship track pairing stuttering employees with senior execs from communication-heavy roles like sales and investor relations. Luna: That mentorship piece is interesting. Usually you'd pair them with someone from a quieter function to 'reduce pressure.' They did the opposite. Lucas: Deliberately. The rationale was: if you want to advance, you need to be comfortable in the rooms where decisions are made. The mentor didn't try to 'fix' the stutter. They worked on structuring arguments, handling interruptions, and using written follow-ups to reinforce spoken points. Luna: Did they see any pushback from managers who thought it was unfair or too much accommodation? Lucas: A few. But the company published internal data after one year: participants had a 30 percent higher retention rate than the control group, and manager satisfaction scores for those employees actually increased slightly. The managers who were initially skeptical often became advocates. Luna: So the accommodations didn't lower performance expectations. Lucas: Not at all. In fact, the innovation team noticed something: teams with at least one stuttering participant in brainstorming sessions submitted 15 percent more novel ideas in quarterly innovation challenges. The theory is that the written contribution format gave space for more deliberate, less reactive thinking. Luna: That's a fascinating spillover effect. The whole team benefits from a structure designed for one person. Lucas: Right. And that's the argument for why this isn't just charity. The company spent about $120,000 on the program over two years — training, mentorship coordination, a part-time liaison from the NSA. They estimate the retention savings alone covered that in the first year, because replacing a senior engineer can cost over $200,000. Luna: So the business case is solid. But I wonder why more companies haven't done this. Stuttering isn't invisible — it's audible — but it's rarely on the DEI radar. Lucas: I think part of it is that people see it as a communication deficit rather than a different communication style. And if you frame it as a deficit, accommodations feel like special treatment. But if you frame it as a form of neurodiversity — which it is — then it's about unlocking potential that's already there. Luna: And the external perception matters too. A company that says 'we promote people who stutter into leadership' sends a strong signal about psychological safety. Lucas: Exactly. The company actually included this in their annual shareholder letter last year as an example of talent innovation. It got picked up by a couple of business media outlets. It's not a huge story, but it's a real one. Luna: Speaking of real stories — Lucas, we've been doing this show for 96 episodes now. And one thing that keeps it going is that listeners who find value in it sometimes toss a few dollars our way. If this episode has given you a concrete idea you could use at your own company, buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo is where you can support the show. Even a couple of bucks a month genuinely helps keep this ad-free and focused on cases like this one. Lucas: Yeah, it's a small thing that makes a big difference for us. We don't have sponsors, so listener support is really what keeps these deep dives coming. Luna: Alright — back to the ladder. One thing I still want to understand: how did they measure promotion rates? Lucas: Good question. Over the 18 months, 19 percent of the program participants received a promotion, compared to 12 percent in the matched control group. That's a 58 percent relative increase. And the promotions weren't just lateral moves — seven of those were into senior management roles. Luna: That's a meaningful lift. Were there any participants who chose not to use the accommodations? Lucas: Yes — about a quarter opted out of the alternative presentation format and wanted to do live pitches anyway. The company's policy was that accommodations were available, not mandatory. Some people felt that giving a live presentation was part of building their own confidence. Luna: So the structure was flexible enough to let people choose their own path. Lucas: Exactly. And that flexibility extended to the mentorship pairs — they could decide whether to meet weekly or biweekly, in person or remote. The company just provided the framework and let the relationships develop naturally. Luna: What about employees who didn't stutter? Any resentment or questions about fairness? Lucas: The company did a pulse survey six months in. About 85 percent of respondents across the whole division said they supported the program. The main critique was that they wished similar accommodations were available for other communication-related challenges, like social anxiety or language barriers. Luna: That's a good critique, actually. It points to a broader need. Lucas: It does. And the company took that feedback and started a pilot for general communication accommodations — things like allowing employees with anxiety to submit written updates instead of stand-up presentations. The stuttering program became a template. Luna: So in a way, building a ladder for one group built a ramp for others. Lucas: That's exactly the phrase the head of DEI used. She said the stuttering program was 'the narrow door that opened a wide hallway.' Now they're exploring similar ladders for employees with speech apraxia and selective mutism. Luna: That's a great line. And it shows that the investment in a specific, niche program can have ripple effects across the whole organization. Lucas: Right. And I think that's the lesson for any company listening: you don't need to solve every inclusion problem at once. Pick one group, listen to what they actually need, build a real career path, and learn from what works. Luna: And measure it. That's key — they measured retention, promotion rates, innovation scores, manager satisfaction. That data makes the case for the next program. Lucas: Absolutely. The stuttering community has been overlooked for too long. This company proved that treating vocal diversity as a strength isn't just fair — it's a competitive advantage.