This article appeared earlier this year in Harvard Business Review and looks at how rude and disrespectful behavior, often from the top, affects a company’s bottom line.  When employees are treated badly, this reflects negatively on the company’s performance and services to the clients.  Needless to say, there are more ways than one to treat people respectfully.  The Golden Rule of Inclusion states: “treat everyone the way you would like to be treated:”  However, the Platinum Rule of Inclusion trumps it by saying: “treat everyone the way they want to be treated.”  It does make a big difference.

When we talk about inclusion in the workplace, starting from a position of mutual respect is one of the most basic rules. Nobody likes working for a boss who constantly treats you disrespectfully, ignores your qualities in favor of your faults, however minor, and overlooks your achievements.  If employees are expected to give their best at work, the least they can expect is to be treated respectfully.  Being treated with respect bears more importance in certain cultures, such as Native American, or Asian.  The concept of “losing face” is also something that employers, managers and supervisors need to be aware of, as it can have serious repercussions for people outside the dominant culture.

“Rudeness at work is rampant, and it’s on the rise. Over the past 14 years we’ve polled thousands of workers about how they’re treated on the job, and 98% have reported experiencing uncivil behavior. In 2011 half said they were treated rudely at least once a week—up from a quarter in 1998.

The costs chip away at the bottom line. Nearly everybody who experiences workplace incivility responds in a negative way, in some cases overtly retaliating. Employees are less creative when they feel disrespected, and many get fed up and leave. About half deliberately decrease their effort or lower the quality of their work. And incivility damages customer relationships. Our research shows that people are less likely to buy from a company with an employee they perceive as rude, whether the rudeness is directed at them or at other employees. Witnessing just a single unpleasant interaction leads customers to generalize about other employees, the organization, and even the brand.

We’ve interviewed employees, managers, HR executives, presidents, and CEOs. We’ve administered questionnaires, run experiments, led workshops, and spoken with doctors, lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, architects, engineers, consultants, and coaches about how they’ve faced and handled incivility. And we’ve collected data from more than 14,000 people throughout the United States and Canada in order to track the prevalence, types, causes, costs, and cures of incivility at work. We know two things for certain: Incivility is expensive, and few organizations recognize or take action to curtail it.

In this article we’ll discuss our findings, detail the costs, and propose some interventions. But first, let’s look at the various shapes incivility can take.

Forms of Incivility

Matt’s stress level skyrocketed. He took a risk and reported Larry to HR. (He wasn’t the first to complain.) Called on the carpet, Larry failed to apologize, saying only that perhaps he “used an atomic bomb” when he “could have used a flyswatter.” Weeks later Larry was named district manager of the year. Three days after that, Matt had a heart attack.

The conclusion of Matt’s story is unusual, but unchecked rudeness is surprisingly common. We heard of one boss who was so routinely abusive that employees and suppliers had a code for alerting one another to his impending arrival (“The eagle has landed!”). The only positive aspect was that their shared dislike helped the employees forge close bonds. After the company died, in the late 1990s, its alums formed a network that thrives to this day.

In some cases an entire department is infected. Jennifer worked in an industry that attracted large numbers of educated young professionals willing to work for a pittance in order to be in a creative field. It was widely accepted that they had to pay their dues. The atmosphere included door slamming, side conversations, exclusion, and blatant disregard for people’s time. Years later Jennifer still cringes as she remembers her boss screaming, “You made a mistake!” when she’d overlooked a minor typo in an internal memo. There was lots of attrition among low-level employees, but those who did stay seemed to absorb the behaviors they’d been subjected to, and they put newcomers through the same kind of abuse.

Fran was a senior executive in a global consumer products company. After several quarters of outstanding growth despite a down economy, she found herself confronted by a newcomer in the C-suite, Joe. For six months Fran had to jump through hoops to defend the business, even though it had defied stagnation. She never got an explanation for why she was picked on, and eventually she left, not for another job but to escape what she called “a soul-destroying experience.”

Incivility can take much more subtle forms, and it is often prompted by thoughtlessness rather than actual malice. Think of the manager who sends e-mails during a presentation, or the boss who “teases” direct reports in ways that sting, or the team leader who takes credit for good news but points a finger at team members when something goes wrong. Such relatively minor acts can be even more insidious than overt bullying, because they are less obvious and easier to overlook—yet they add up, eroding engagement and morale..

The Costs of Incivility

Many managers would say that incivility is wrong, but not all recognize that it has tangible costs. Targets of incivility often punish their offenders and the organization, although most hide or bury their feelings and don’t necessarily think of their actions as revenge. Through a poll of 800 managers and employees in 17 industries, we learned just how people’s reactions play out. Among workers who’ve been on the receiving end of incivility:

Experiments and other reports offer additional insights about the effects of incivility. Here are some examples of what can happen.

Creativity suffers. In an experiment we conducted with Amir Erez, a professor of management at the University of Florida, participants who were treated rudely by other subjects were 30% less creative than others in the study. They produced 25% fewer ideas, and the ones they did come up with were less original. For example, when asked what to do with a brick, participants who had been treated badly proposed logical but not particularly imaginative activities, such as “build a house,” “build a wall,” and “build a school.” We saw more sparks from participants who had been treated civilly; their suggestions included “sell the brick on eBay,” “use it as a goalpost for a street soccer game,” “hang it on a museum wall and call it abstract art,” and “decorate it like a pet and give it to a kid as a present.”

Performance and team spirit deteriorate. Survey results and interviews indicate that simply witnessing incivility has negative consequences. In one experiment we conducted, people who’d observed poor behavior performed 20% worse on word puzzles than other people did. We also found that witnesses to incivility were less likely than others to help out, even when the person they’d be helping had no apparent connection to the uncivil person: Only 25% of the subjects who’d witnessed incivility volunteered to help, whereas 51% of those who hadn’t witnessed it did.

Customers turn away. Public rudeness among employees is common, according to our survey of 244 consumers. Whether it’s waiters berating fellow waiters or store clerks criticizing colleagues, disrespectful behavior makes people uncomfortable, and they’re quick to walk out without making a purchase.

We studied this phenomenon with the USC marketing professors Debbie MacInnis and Valerie Folkes. In one experiment, half the participants witnessed a supposed bank representative publicly reprimanding another for incorrectly presenting credit card information. Only 20% of those who’d seen the encounter said that they would use the bank’s services in the future, compared with 80% of those who hadn’t. And nearly two-thirds of those who’d seen the exchange said that they would feel anxious dealing with any employee of the bank.”

The article by Christine Pearson and Christine Porath appeared in Harvard Business Review, and is an excerpt from their book “The Cost of Bad Behavior: How Incivility Is Damaging Your Business and What to Do About It”

Article by: Kazim Ladimeji

Hiring for culture fit is one of the key hiring mantra in the modern recruiting world. In fact, there are studies that show that one of the main reasons that new hires fail is due to a lack of culture or attitude fit in one form or another.

But, the more that I have looked at the hiring for culture fit paradigm the more uneasy I become with it. I think the term has been oversimplified and I think there are many situations when it is appropriate to hire someone who may be disruptive to your existing culture, and below I have set out several reasons why you might recruit people who really don’t fit your culture.

1.Your culture may be toxic

It could be that you current organizational culture or department subculture is toxic. For example:

Does your organization take too many risks or too few risks? Is there a lack of customer focus? Is your culture truly customer centered? Does your organization have an appropriate level of ethical conduct? And, more important, are these culture failings damaging employee engagement, customer satisfaction and shareholder satisfaction? If the answer is yes, then you may have a toxic culture and, along with other interventions, there is a strong argument to start hiring folks who don’t fit the current culture, but who are more in tune with a desired future cultural state.

2. More innovative organization

It is no coincidence that many of the world’s most innovative companies are also in the Fortune 500. It shows that innovative organizations can disrupt the market and gain competitive advantages, which ultimately drive success.

If you hire people from different industries, with different attitudes, with different view points and with an altogether different outlook, admittedly, you and some of your team members may clash with these disruptive elements; however, they can be a disruptive force for good, challenging yours and the team’s ideas and the status quo.

Yes, they will rock the boat (but most businesses are not on boats), but if this energy and disruption is managed and channeled effectively, you will generate new ideas, new ways of looking at things and perhaps open doors to new opportunities that you never knew existed. It could result in you opening a new office in a new country, launching a new product, or totally overhauling an existing product its mediocrity the organization has become accustomed to and accepting of.

3. Create a more customer-centric business

Your customers and clients will be diverse in terms of their individual personalities, outlooks, and attitudes. Organizations with a broader range of personalities, outlooks and viewpoints will be able to engage far more effectively and flexibly with a diverse client base. It can make you more customer centric.

4. Greater access to talent

If your organization can accept and channel a broad and diverse range of personalities and opinions, it will undoubtedly have a much larger candidate resource pool at its disposal, meaning it may be able to hire quality people faster.

5. More flexible

Having a broad range of attitudes, outlooks, and preferences can mean that your organization is able to respond in a more flexible way to a changing and dynamic marketplace. For example, as changes in the marketplace create a greater need for risk taking, the naturally innovative can step up to the mantle. But, if a period of consolidation is required, then perhaps the more conservative stalwarts then come in to their own. A diverse culture can make you more flexible and adaptable making it easier to exploit opportunities and combat threats.

Retrieved from: http://www.recruiter.com/i/5-reasons-to-hire-people-who-dont-fit-the-culture/?goback=%2Egde_61998_member_239646283

Many of the facts below have been confirmed by the 2007 WBI-Zogby Survey.

Bullying is Legal

Most workplace harassment and mistreatment (80%) is completely legal. Remarkably, a hostile work environment is actionable (illegal) only in very few situations.

America’s individualistic society feeds aggression and competition in the workplace. These traits block an empathic concern for the well-being of others, make bullying look tame when compared to other forms of physical violence, and justify inequality of status across ranks within organizations — dubbing a few as winners and the rest losers. Bullying is not only tolerated in business, it is often seen as necessary. Lawmakers are reluctant to pass laws that reign in unfettered workplace violence resulting in psychological injury.

Poor Leadership, Inept Managers

The majority of bullies (72%) are bosses…

• Bullies derive most of their support from…HR. It’s a club, a clique, that circles the wagons in defense when one of their own is accused.
• Some executives command bullies to target particular employees. Bullies are simply good soldiers following orders in a blind fashion.
• Supervisory training is nearly nonexistent. No budget. No time. Few good skills taught. OJT transmits bad habits.
• Executives blame the problem on a “few bad apples,” deflecting blame for systemic causes and denying responsibility for systemic cures.

 Employers Don’t Know How to Stop Bullies

Everyone walks on eggshells and is afraid to confront “the golden” bully, the boss’s favorite. HR misapplies the tools of traditional conflict resolution, for example, mediation. Wrong solution for the actual problem. The workplace culture holds no one accountable. Confronting bullies is unthinkable. Executives and senior managers have been badgered by the bully, too. They are afraid of an emotional confrontation. They loathe conflict and remain paralyzed. By not acting, they tacitly endorse the bully. They fear lawsuits brought by the bully if they dare investigate or punish the bully. There is rarely a basis for such suits. The fear is irrational.

Bullying Is Underreported

• Forty percent (40%) of targets never tell their employers…
• Bullying is erroneously branded as “conflict” or a mere “difference in personality styles.”
• Both are true, but bullying is also a form of violence. Simple labels minimize its impact on both people and the organization.
• Historically, complaints lead to retaliation (revengeful hurting) or reprisal (taking away of rights or status).

Knowing this, targets are reluctant to use internal employer processes.

From: Workplace Bullying Institute: www.workplacebullying.org

Here is a very short video (3 minutes or so) by the firm Ernst & Young (http://www.ey.com/US/en/Home) on the importance of Diversity and Inclusion for their business.

One does not need to be a global giant like Ernst & Young to understand the benefits of diversity to business success in competitive markets.

 Here is the link to the video.  Hope you enjoy it!

 Here are some main points in the video:

•  Diversity and inclusion are two different things.  Diversity is the mix of people.  Inclusion is how you maximize that diversity on each team and in the work environment.
•  Failure occurs when you have diversity but not inclusiveness, when people don’t feel appreciated for their differences, and the value they bring to the team.  There is POWER in diverse teams: diverse people bring different view points to problems, thus leading to creative solutions.

ARE YOU AN INCLUSIVE LEADER?

•  Inclusive leaders value team members’ differences.
•  Inclusive leaders actively seek out different perspectives.
•  Inclusive leaders understand that diversity matters to our firm, and to our clients, and strengthens our global business.

When we bring together our unique backgrounds, perspectives and experiences and abilities together, we achieve so much more!

Work: The value of intercultural skills in the workplace
—A survey conducted by the British Council, Booz Allen Hamilton and Ipsos Public Affairs, of HR managers at 367 large employers in nine countries: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Jordan, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US)
Culture at 

The Report’s Conclusions

“Our ability to engage successfully with other countries, organisations and people will depend to a large extent on whether we possess the necessary intercultural and foreign language skills to make fruitful connections, whether in trade and investment, charity/NGO programmes or as government and international organisations. This is fundamentally changing the way in which employers value and seek to develop intercultural skills in the workplace.”

“More and more business leaders are identifying real business value in employing staff with intercultural skills. These skills are vital, not just in smoothing international business transactions, but also in developing long term relationships with customers and suppliers. Increasingly they also play a key role within the workplace, enhancing team working, fostering creativity, improving communication and reducing conflict. All this translates into greater efficiency, stronger brand identity, enhanced reputation and ultimately impact on the bottom line.”

“Employers believe that intercultural skills are integral to the workplace.”

“A common challenge shared by employers around the world is finding employees with adequate intercultural skills. Given that the operating environments of all organisations is increasingly global, it comes as no surprise that employers need employees who can understand and adapt to different cultural contexts.”

What is the international reality in the workplace?

The research shows that employees in most large companies surveyed engage in extensive interaction across international borders.

More than two thirds of employers report that their employees engage frequently with colleagues outside of their country, and over half say that their employees engage frequently with partners and clients outside of their country.

 

British Council study finds intercultural skills integral to the workplace

►

THE BUSINESS VALUE OF INTERCULTURAL SKILLS
Intercultural skills provide business value and help mitigate risk.The research shows that HR managers associate intercultural skills with significant business benefits. Overall, the organisations surveyed are most interested in intercultural skills for the benefits they bring—benefits that carry significant monetary value to employers:

• Keeping teams running efficiently
• Good for reputation
• Bringing in new clients
• Building trust with clients
• Communicating with overseas partners
• Able to work with diverse colleagues
• Increased productivity
• Increased sales

Employers also see significant risk to their organisations when employees lack intercultural skills. Top risks that organisations surveyed are concerned about are:

• Miscommunication and conflict within teams
• Global reputational damage
• Los of clients
• Cultural insensitivity to clients/partners overseas
• Project mistakes

How do the organisations surveyed define “intercultural skills”?

The graphic below shows the words employers used, with size of the block equating to frequency of use.

The terms employers use to define intercultural skills
Source: Telephone/face-to-face surveys of public sector, private sector and NGO employers responsible for employment decisions. Base: Ipsos Public Affairs, 2012: Global (n=367).

In particular, employers highlight the following as important intercultural skills that they look for in job candidates:

• the ability to understand different cultural contexts and viewpoints
• demonstrating respect for others
• accepting different cultural contexts and viewpoints
• openness to new ideas and ways of thinking
• knowledge of a foreign language.

How employers rank different skills in terms of importance

Graphic © the original report, with yellow highlights added by Cultural Detective.

How does the research indicate these skills are developed?

Most employers report encouraging their staff to develop intercultural skills through in-house training, meetings and events. However, employers also say that educational institutions could do more to equip students with intercultural skills.

The findings suggest that policy makers and education providers could do more to contribute to the development of a workforce with the necessary intercultural skills through interventions, such as prioritising:

• teaching communication skills
• offering foreign language classes
• availability of opportunities for students to gain international experience
• development of international research partnerships.

This research suggests that there is significant opportunity for employers, policy makers and education providers to work together to strengthen the development of intercultural skills to meet the needs of an increasingly global workforce.

Original article here: http://blog.culturaldetective.com/2013/03/20/research-findings-the-value-of-intercultural-skills-in-the-workplace/

Like this:

Our October 2012 Lunch and Learn seminar on Mental Health in the Workplace, has attracted a widespread audience, as well as a multitude of comments and debates on what employers can and cannot do when dealing with an employee who has a mental health disability.  The general opinion seems to be that if an employee with a mental health issues has problems in the workplace, the best thing to do is “pick on his/her work performance” and not on his/her “issue”.  However, ADA considers mental illness a disability, just like any other physical disability, which can affect a worker’s performance.  Disability specialist, Marc Brenman looks at a seminal Supreme Court case which favored the dismissed employee, and concluded: “Conduct resulting from the disability…is part of the disability and not a separate basis for termination.”

With the new ADAA , employers will be forced to place less emphasis on determining whether an employee is truly disabled and more emphasis on how it can accommodate the employee’s needs and concerns. The landscape of disability discrimination law has been drastically altered and employers will need to adapt or face additional time-consuming and expensive litigation.

Please contact Marc Brenman directly with any questions.

­­Guidance about the Decision in 
Gambini v. Total Renal Care:

 Emotional Illness in the Workplace

by Marc Brenman

Social Justice Consultancy

*protected email*

240-676-2436

Copyright 2012

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 486 F.3d 1087 (2007), has found that an employer may not be able to terminate the employment of an employee for misconduct, if the misconduct is related to the employee’s disability.  The following information is to assist employers and employees in understanding this complicated and controversial decision.  This information does not substitute for the advice of an attorney.  If you have further questions, or have a particular workplace situation that is of concern, you are urged to contact an attorney.

Case Facts

Gambini was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.  She informed her employer of the disability and that she was seeking treatment.  She further informed her employer that she was struggling with medication issues, and told her co-workers that these issues may influence her moods.  As Gambini continued to have medical issues, her supervisors discussed her attitude and job performance.  They decided to issue her a written performance improvement plan.  They called her to a meeting without telling her the reason.  The first sentence of the performance improvement plan stated, “[Gambini’s] attitude and general disposition are no longer acceptable…”  Gambini began to cry, threw the plan across the desk, swore at her supervisor, and slammed the door.  Back at her cubicle, Gambini kicked and threw things.  The next day, Gambini checked into a hospital.  The employer approved her request for Family and Medical Leave, and began an investigation into her behavior at the meeting.  The employer decided to terminate Gambini due to her behavior at the meeting.  Gambini sent a letter asking her employer to reconsider the termination because her behavior was due to her bipolar disorder.  The employer refused, and Gambini sued under a theory of disability discrimination.

The trial court jury returned a verdict in favor of the employer.  Gambini appealed the decision, stating that the trial court erred when it failed to give the following instruction to the jury:  “Conduct resulting from a disability is part of the disability and not a separate basis for termination.”  The appeals court decided, “Where the employee demonstrates a causal link between the disability-produced conduct and the termination, a jury must be instructed that it may find that the employee was terminated on the impermissible basis of her disability.”  The court cited Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, (Wash. 2004) in which the Washington State Supreme Court stated, “Conduct resulting from the disability…is part of the disability and not a separate basis for termination.”  The court went on to say that this decision does not provide employees with absolute protection from adverse employment actions.  The employee must still be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation, and the employer can raise undue burden and direct threat defenses.

Other Decisions

Most other courts have held that an employer does not need to tolerate misconduct by an employee in the workplace, even if that misconduct is caused by the employee’s disability.  In Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a company’s policy against rehiring persons who previously violated a work rule, even when the violation occurred due to a disability, was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire an individual. Other courts have found that employers do not need to waive or rescind discipline if the employer finds out after the fact that the employee has a disability and the disability may have caused the behavior.  In addition, courts have held that an employee cannot avoid discipline for misconduct by requesting a reasonable accommodation during the discipline meeting (although once the reasonable accommodation request is made, the employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee).  Also, courts have found that an employer does not need to rehire a legitimately terminated employee who requests a reasonable accommodation after the termination.  A Ninth Circuit case, Sena v. Weyerhaeuser, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 499 (9th Cir. 1999), stated that the ADA does not immunize employees from terminations based on workplace misconduct.

The EEOC has taken the position that employers can hold all employees, even those with disabilities, to the same work-related conduct and performance standards.  See 56 Fed. Reg. 35, 733 (1990).

On the other hand, there are cases that support the Gambini decision.  In Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association, 239 F. 3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001), and Dark v. Curry County, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 16838 (9th Cir. 2006), the courts stated that with few exceptions (like alcohol and drug violations), conduct resulting from a disability should be considered to be part of the disability, and not a separate basis for termination.  Recent guidance from the EEOC has cautioned that if the misconduct resulted from a disability, the employer must be able to demonstrate that the conduct rule is job related and consistent with business necessity.  (An example of this would be that an employer is prohibited from terminating an employee who attempted suicide due to depression.  On the other hand, an employer can discipline an employee who violates safety rules at a construction site, even if the violation is due to a disability.)

Analysis

On the one hand, the Gambini decision can be seen as an odd ruling by one Court in one Circuit.  However, employers should be aware that decisions of this nature could be a trend in the Ninth Circuit and in Washington.  Employers should take care to exercise caution when making disciplinary decisions regarding employees whose conduct may be due to disability.  If the misconduct resulted from a disability, the employer must be able to demonstrate that the conduct rule is job related and consistent with business necessity.

Some legal professionals, particularly plaintiffs’ attorneys, do not believe that the Gambini decision is dramatic or controversial.  They see it as an extension of previous court rulings, and believe that employers are required to tolerate and accommodate unusual and disruptive conduct if the conduct is caused by a disability.

Guidelines for Employers

-           Remember that unlike other areas of discrimination law, which require the same treatment for everyone, disability discrimination law does provide more protection for individuals with disabilities, and requires specific actions on the part of employers.

-           An employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the position with or without accommodation.

-           Have clear, written rules of conduct and a step disciplinary process.  Make sure that these rules are job related and consistent with business necessity.

-           Make sure to apply these conduct rules consistently to all employees; avoid inconsistent application of the rules and avoid applying them only to certain employees or certain classes of employees.

-           Have written detailed job descriptions that incorporate good conduct as part of the job requirements.  For example, if it is relevant to the particular job, you may include in the job description:  regular attendance, the ability to maintain a calm demeanor in a stressful environment, the ability to interact with co-workers in a variety of situations, the ability to clearly communicate verbally and in writing, and the ability to provide calm and polite customer service.

-           When an employee requests reasonable accommodation, enter into the interactive process and agree on a reasonable accommodation that will to assist the employee to abide by conduct rules.  An example would be working out a schedule change so that the employee does not violate attendance rules.

-           If a conduct rule is violated and the employee argues that a disability caused the conduct, consider halting the disciplinary process to determine if a reasonable accommodation is necessary.  If a reasonable accommodation is in place, before you impose discipline determine if there is more you can do to reasonably accommodate the employee so violations do not occur.

-          Rules regarding the use of drugs and alcohol can be enforced.

-          Think about how closely your fact situation is to the facts in Gambini.  Were you aware of the disability?  Is the employee seeking treatment for the disability?  Is your employee attempting to adjust medication?  Does the employee have a disability that manifests itself through poor behavior?  How serious was the behavior, i.e. was there verbal behavior, physical behavior, or physical contact?  Does your discipline cite attitude and demeanor as a reason for discipline?  The closer your facts are to the facts are in the Gambini case, the more careful you should be about imposing discipline.

-           Employers have the ability to argue business necessity, undue hardship, and direct threat defenses.

“David Epstein, Division Head of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, spoke with DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti aartis corporate headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, about how diversity impacts innovation, R&D and marketing. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation is No. 13 on the DiversityInc Top 50.”

Here are some excerpts from the interview, as it appeared in DiversityInc.:

article by: Adis M. Vila

“The mission of the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), the youngest of the four service academies, is to educate, train, and inspire men and women to become officers of character motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our nation.

Nearly four thousand officers, enlisted personnel,and civilian employees work with more than four thousand cadets, a population almost 80 percent male. Together, we are Team USAFA.

In November 2010, I began working in a newly formed position as the chief diversity officer (CDO) for the USAFA in Colorado Springs. I was asked to serve as the principal advisor to USAFA leadership to ensure that diversity programs and projects are developed in accordance with federal, Department of Defense, Air Force, and USAFA guidance and policy.

Additionally, I serve as the strategic leader, diversity advocate, and principal advisor to academy
leaders on diversity programs and issues and the primary voice on matters of equity, diversity, and inclusion.

In this article, I share my experiences to date and articulate the steps we are taking to build an inclusive organizational culture at USAFA. As a practitioner with thirty years of experience managing organizations, studying and implementing change, I have relied on the research and theory of some of the best scholars in the field, particularly Frederick A. Miller, John P. Kotter, and Jerry Porras. For our diversity and inclusion (D&I) work, publications by Roosevelt Thomas Jr. and David Thomas and Robin Ely provide frameworks and road maps that have proven useful.”

Full article here

The themes for the documentaries for this year’s UW-La Crosse festival are “Human Dignity” and “Education is a Human Right”. Ranging in length from five to 73 minutes, these documentaries are set in dozens of different locations around the world. They address issues we cannot afford to ignore in our ever more tightly interwoven world. These films raise questions to which we all at times must provide an answer: What is human dignity? What if it is taken away? What kind of education can be empowering to all? How are others affected by our choices? And what is happiness around the world?

Full details about the event here

Date: February 8th
Time: 9-11:30am
Place: Hogan gymnasium

Topic: The first 90 minutes will be a presentation about micro-aggression. How do we recognize it? How do we stop it?

The focus will shift to a panel conversation with several multicultural leaders in the La Crosse community. A period of Q&A will be shared.