DiversityInc: Why did you wait so long to implement domestic-partner benefits?

Hackett: I have been in this job for over 14 years. I think probably [during] year two, I started to think about this. Early on, it was deemed a "moral dilemma" or there was a fear of a tremendous backlash. It was none of that in my mind. My original position was not to avoid the enablement of that benefit; it was rather that the Steelcase structure is such an egalitarian one that I was concerned we would have parallel arguments. So I had drawn the line, saying, "Listen, let's use the notion of marriage as the leveler here."

DiversityInc: And you haven't received any negative feedback? Hackett: No ... I got one e-mail--isn't that amazing--and I brought that in to show the board what the commentary was, and it was from a person who said that I was getting in over my head. DiversityInc: Did you respond to that e-mail?

Hackett: I wrote a long letter saying something to the effect of "I'm quite proud that I'm always open to changes." I took this even further and said that the nature of what's in one's heart is the nature of what I believe. Regardless of your religion, love your fellow man and do the right thing. I can stand with good conscience and a clear mind and know what's in my heart. If benefits take care of people, how can that be bad? If they're sick or they're ill or need nursing, they need it. I try to have them understand that they're allowed to have their own beliefs, and I can understand how they might argue that, but I don't believe that's what we are here for; we're here for the broader principle, not for the judgment of others. I never got a response back.

DiversityInc: Why do you think that offering domestic-partner benefits is an important step for Steelcase as a company?

Hackett: It's a ratification of the type of company that we are. a company that is very broadminded. We have customers all over the world; our employees are all shapes and sizes and are very diverse. To suggest that there is a segment that can't be included is so outrageous. _ e company, very early, in Michigan, found itself in the storm of labor reform when we instituted a profit-sharing program more than 50 years ago. the challenge has come as we've tried to build a global company. I had to reaffirm to everyone that [globalization] does not mean that you do not matter. This is a modern view of manufacturing and how things can be made, via trade or Internet, 24/7 in all of these countries--in assembling things all over the world in various places, we have to build a network. If I take these two things, the notion of profit-sharing and the more recent moment when we had to change the nature of the contract they believed they had, I drew on the fact that the company's fundamental principle is inherently about that. This idea of having a group not covered for benefits just didn't make sense. I realized that we lagged after other companies to get this thing going, but as I said to you, it is more a function of the company standing and taking care of other groups.

DiversityInc: Your personal commitment to diversity is very clear. Can you tell us why you became a diversity leader?

Hackett: My father's passed, but my mother and father were wonderful parents. My father was an All-American at Ohio State, and one of his roommates, Bill Willis, who passed away last year, was one of the first African-American NFL players. They played side by side and they played against each other as well; my dad used to say that [Willis] was the best opponent he ever had. Willis would come by the house often, and they would laugh and talk. My town [London, Ohio] was very diverse. It was a very small town, blue-collar, and my father was a veterinarian … this is personal for me because I got to learn the right way. I know a lot of people who learned the wrong way; they didn't mean to, but they did. I can help others understand.

DiversityInc: How crucial is the CEO's personal commitment to diversity?

Hackett: I can't imagine diversity working without it.

DiversityInc: We know that Steelcase has been involved in national issues, and your support of the University of Michigan in its case for affirmative action, settled by the Supreme Court in 2003, is a key example. We know there was a geographic reason, but it also took courage for Steelcase to be such a strong player in that case. Are you involved in any other kind of efforts to level the playing field on a national level?

Hackett: We have been following the anti-affirmative-action movement and Ward Connerly's efforts in California, Michigan and other states. I recently met Luke [Visconti, DiversityInc CEO] and have told [the pro-affirmative-action leaders in Michigan] he could have made the difference in defeating Connerly. The next level is urban education. We have expanded Bill Strickland's vision of the Pittsburgh Center for Arts and Technology nationally. We have created a National Center for Arts and Technology. The difference in this idea is about trying to build intellectual curiosity so kids want to go to school. We have to do something to try to stimulate that. Urban education is now a CEO mandate. In corporate performance, we have learned and practiced a phrase called "root cause" and know that when we find something that consistently doesn't perform, likely there's a systems problem or something that has a basic problem. If we look at what creates poverty and allow it to persist in the United States, then we are doomed to have cycles of poverty and those cycles translating to other kinds of problems. Because we're trained in the systems perspective and we're trained in dealing with "root cause," we naturally find a place to emanate the leadership to help take care of the problem. That doesn't mean that we should take them over, because we're not teachers or anything like that, but we should use our resources, the talent we have within the corporation, to help fix the problem. The circle closes when you realize we graduate more talent and make ourselves more competitive.

DiversityInc: What do you see as the next steps for diversity progress in corporate America?

Hackett: When it started--when corporations began to see it was their responsibility--they would treat diversity like a fringe effort. Later, it became more broadly adopted and ingrained in some companies and there was a sense of pride in knowing how we have evolved our company to be more diverse and really economically advantaged as well. When you look at why slavery persisted for over 200 years, the function of it was economic. So we turned to the converse of that and said, "Now, let's make diversity economic." It's economic because of the nature of the global markets we serve. Corporations had to develop the muscle to be able to reach and communicate and relate on a diverse basis, because it was a world market that they were now serving. If they couldn't even run their company with that ability, how could they ever possibly serve a market like that? In the evolution of being a corporation, what's going to drag you into being a global environment? Diversity became a way for you to build that muscle and be able to handle that; now it's an economic advantage when you are the very first company to do so.