At headquarters, the company-wide review took shape around those principles. The operations team examined incentives for store managers, including bonuses tied too heavily to average transaction value. Customer service evaluated whether employees had a straightforward way to escalate a concern beyond a local manager. Security reviewed training materials to clarify that staff should rely on observed conduct rather than clothing, race, or assumptions about purchasing power when evaluating risk.
Diana insisted that the new procedures be tested by employees who would actually have to use them. She invited associates from small stores, flagship locations, repair counters, and customer-support centers to describe what made it difficult to challenge improper instructions. Their comments were frank. Some feared retaliation, some feared being considered weak at sales, and some said the complaint systems were so complicated that employees could not remember where to find the right form during a busy shift.
One store associate in Chicago explained that customers sometimes assumed she was a cleaner because she was a young Black woman, even while she wore the Luminous uniform. Another employee said managers occasionally praised him for handling "difficult" visitors when the visitors had simply spoken limited English. A repair specialist described a customer being treated dismissively until she mentioned that a well-known actor was her son. Diana listened to each account without asking the speaker to produce a perfect narrative or a dramatic conclusion.
"What I want is a system that works on a Tuesday morning," she told the operations team afterward. "A system an exhausted employee can use when a manager is impatient and three customers need help. If it works only when everyone is calm and a lawyer is present, it doesn't work."
The company introduced a simpler reporting channel that allowed employees to record concerns without first notifying the person involved. Reports went to a small independent review group, not solely to local leadership. Managers received clearer guidance about legitimate high-value merchandise controls, including the difference between verifying payment before a completed transaction and demanding proof of wealth as a condition of being treated like a customer. Training included realistic examples drawn from common situations, with private information removed.
Diana was cautious about making the program a performance. She disliked slogans promising that prejudice could be erased in an afternoon. People brought habits, fears, and assumptions into their workplaces, and those habits could be reinforced by sales incentives, management culture, and silence from people who should have intervened. What the company could do was set firm expectations, make violations reportable, and ensure the consequences did not depend on whether a victim possessed influence.
Not everyone welcomed the changes. A few managers complained that the new reporting process might encourage staff to question routine decisions or that employees would become nervous about enforcing legitimate security policies. Diana asked them to identify the actual operational problems they anticipated and helped the security director address those with clearer guidelines. She would not accept the premise that respecting customers and protecting valuable inventory were competing goals.
One manager argued that luxury retail depended on exclusivity. Diana agreed that rare pieces, expert consultation, and private appointments were part of the experience. But she rejected the idea that exclusivity required insulting people or making them prove their social rank. "We can have exceptional merchandise without treating ordinary dignity as an invitation-only benefit," she said. "Our work is supposed to be beautiful. The people doing it should not have to become ugly to sell it."