Search FIC

Microaggressions - those subtle, often unintentional acts of discrimination - can have a significant negative impact on marginalized individuals. While it's important to address microaggressions when they occur, how we go about doing so matters just as much. One of the most effective approaches is to focus on addressing the problematic behavior rather than attacking or labeling the individual who has committed the microaggression. By targeting behaviors rather than the individual we are more likely to have productive conversations, increased understanding, and meaningful change. The Importance of Separating Behavior from Identity When someone commits a microaggression, it's easy to jump to labeling them as "racist," "sexist," "homophobic," or other term. However, this approach often backfires for several reasons: It puts people on the defensive. Most people don't want to see themselves as bigoted and will react defensively if labeled as such. This shuts down openness to learning. It suggests the problematic beliefs or behaviors are fixed and unchangeable, when in fact people can grow and evolve their views. It fails to acknowledge that we all have unconscious biases and can commit microaggressions, even with good intentions. Instead, by focusing on the specific words or actions that were problematic, we create space for the person to reflect on and change their behavior without feeling their entire identity is under attack. As diversity consultant Kevin Nadal explains in the New York Times article, " How to Respond to Microaggressions ," it's important to "target the comment itself by saying, 'That statement was hurtful, and I felt that it reflected some racial bias' or by asking a clarifying question, such as 'What do you mean by that?' or 'Are you aware of how that might be interpreted?'" This approach invites reflection rather than defensiveness. Strategies for Addressing the Behavior When you witness or experience a microaggression, consider using these strategies to address the behavior specifically: Use "I" statements to express impact . For example: "When you said X, I felt Y." This focuses on the effect of the words/actions rather than ascribing motivation. Ask clarifying questions.  "What did you mean when you said X?" or "Can you explain why you believe that?" This invites the person to examine their own assumptions. Explain why the behavior is problematic.  "That term is considered offensive because..." or "Making assumptions about X perpetuates harmful stereotypes." Suggest alternative language or actions . "Instead of X, you could say/do Y." Connect the behavior to larger systemic issues without personalizing.  "Comments like that contribute to an environment where [marginalized group] feels unwelcome." Acknowledge good intentions while still addressing impact.  "I know you didn't mean to cause harm, but that comment reinforces negative stereotypes about X group." By using these approaches, you keep the focus on the specific behavior that needs to change rather than making sweeping judgments about the person's character. The Power of "Calling In" vs. "Calling Out" The concept of "calling in" rather than "calling out" aligns closely with the strategy of addressing behaviors rather than individuals. Calling out tends to involve publicly naming and shaming someone for problematic behavior. While this can sometimes be necessary, especially for repeated or egregious acts, it often leads to defensiveness and doubles down on an "us vs. them" mentality. Calling in, on the other hand, involves addressing the issue privately and compassionately, with the goal of education rather than punishment. It recognizes that we're all on a journey of learning and unlearning biases. As Loretta J. Ross, a professor at Smith College who teaches about calling in, explains: "I think we actually sabotage our own happiness with this unrestrained anger. And I have to honestly ask: Why are you making choices to make the world crueler than it needs to be and calling that being a good activist?" By calling people in to examine their behavior, rather than calling them out as bad people, we create opportunities for genuine reflection, accountability, and change. Challenges and Considerations While focusing on behaviors rather than individuals is generally the most effective approach, it does come with some challenges to be aware of: It requires more nuance and often takes more time/effort than simply labeling someone. There's a risk of tone policing or placing undue burden on marginalized people to always respond "perfectly" to aggressions against them. For repeated offenses or when safety is at risk, a more direct confrontation of the individual may be necessary. It can feel unsatisfying in the moment for those who want to express anger at being discriminated against. Without proper follow-up, people may minimize their responsibility by saying "it was just that one comment" rather than examining broader patterns of behavior. Creating Systemic Change While interpersonal interventions are important, truly addressing microaggressions requires looking at the broader systems and cultures that allow them to persist. Some key strategies for creating wider change include: Implementing ongoing training and education about microaggressions, unconscious bias, and inclusive behaviors. Establishing clear policies and accountability measures for addressing discriminatory behavior in workplaces and institutions. Increasing representation of marginalized groups in leadership positions. Regularly assessing organizational culture and making necessary changes to foster true inclusion. Encouraging open dialogue about diversity, equity and inclusion issues. By combining individual interventions that address specific behaviors with efforts to transform systems, we can work towards truly inclusive environments where microaggressions become increasingly rare. Final Thoughts About Addressing Microaggressions Addressing microaggressions effectively requires skill, nuance and practice. By focusing on problematic behaviors rather than labeling individuals, we open the door for genuine learning and change. This approach recognizes our shared humanity and capacity for growth while still holding people accountable for harmful actions. As we work to create more equitable and inclusive spaces, let's remember the words of author and activist Audre Lorde: "It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences." By addressing microaggressions skillfully and compassionately, we move closer to a world where diversity is truly celebrated and everyone feels valued and respected.

In today's diverse workforce, understanding and addressing workplace discrimination requires a nuanced approach that considers the complex interplay of multiple identities. This article examines workplace discrimination through an intersectional lens, focusing on how LGBTQ+ identities interact with other marginalized identities to create unique challenges and experiences in the workplace. Intersectionality, a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, refers to the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation as they apply to a given individual or group. This framework allows us to understand how overlapping identities can create compounded systems of discrimination or disadvantage. For LGBTQ+ individuals who also belong to other marginalized groups, the experience of workplace discrimination can be particularly complex and challenging. By examining these intersections, we can better understand the multifaceted nature of discrimination and work towards creating more inclusive and equitable work environments. Understanding Intersectionality in the Workplace Intersectionality recognizes that individuals do not experience discrimination and marginalization solely based on a single aspect of their identity, but rather through the combination of multiple identities. In the workplace, this means that an LGBTQ+ person of color, for example, may face unique challenges that differ from those experienced by white LGBTQ+ individuals or heterosexual people of color. Key aspects of intersectionality in the workplace include: Compounded Discrimination : Individuals with multiple marginalized identities may face discrimination on multiple fronts, leading to more severe and frequent instances of bias. Unique Barriers : The intersection of identities can create specific obstacles that may not be experienced by those with single marginalized identities. Invisibility : Some individuals may find that certain aspects of their identity are overlooked or invalidated due to the focus on other parts of their identity. Complexity of Experience : The interplay of multiple identities creates a diverse range of experiences that cannot be fully understood by examining each identity in isolation. LGBTQ+ Identities and Racial/Ethnic Intersections The intersection of LGBTQ+ identities with race and ethnicity creates a complex landscape of workplace experiences. LGBTQ+ people of color often face unique challenges that stem from the combination of homophobia, transphobia, and racism. Challenges Faced Double Discrimination : LGBTQ+ people of color may experience discrimination based on both their sexual orientation or gender identity and their race or ethnicity. This can manifest in various ways, such as being passed over for promotions, facing hostile work environments, or being subjected to stereotypes and microaggressions. Cultural Conflicts : Some LGBTQ+ individuals from certain racial or ethnic backgrounds may face conflicts between their LGBTQ+ identity and cultural expectations or traditions. This can lead to additional stress in the workplace, especially if they feel pressure to hide aspects of their identity. Lack of Representation : LGBTQ+ people of color often find themselves underrepresented in leadership positions and may lack role models or mentors who share their intersectional experiences. Intersectional Invisibility : The unique experiences of LGBTQ+ people of color may be overlooked in diversity and inclusion initiatives that focus solely on either LGBTQ+ issues or racial/ethnic diversity without considering their intersection. Example: A Latina lesbian may face discrimination not only due to her sexual orientation but also because of her ethnicity. She might experience stereotypes related to both identities, such as assumptions about her work ethic based on her ethnicity or misconceptions about her gender expression based on her sexual orientation. Additionally, she may feel pressure to downplay either her ethnic identity or her sexual orientation to fit in with different groups at work. LGBTQ+ Identities and Gender The intersection of LGBTQ+ identities with gender creates another layer of complexity in workplace discrimination. This is particularly relevant for transgender and non-binary individuals, as well as for cisgender LGBQ+ people who may not conform to traditional gender expectations. Challenges Faced Gender Expression Discrimination : LGBTQ+ individuals who do not conform to traditional gender expressions may face discrimination or harassment, regardless of their actual gender identity or sexual orientation. Misgendering and Deadnaming : Transgender and non-binary employees often face the challenge of being misgendered or referred to by their deadname (birth name), which can be deeply distressing and create a hostile work environment. Bathroom and Facility Access : Transgender and non-binary employees may face difficulties accessing gender-appropriate facilities, leading to discomfort and potential safety concerns. Healthcare Disparities : LGBTQ+ individuals, especially transgender employees, may face challenges in accessing appropriate healthcare through employer-provided insurance, particularly for transition-related care. Stereotyping : LGBTQ+ individuals may face stereotypes related to their perceived gender expression, such as assumptions about their capabilities or interests based on gender stereotypes. Example: A non-binary employee who uses they/them pronouns may struggle with colleagues consistently using incorrect pronouns, face confusion or resistance when using gendered bathrooms in the absence of gender-neutral facilities, and encounter difficulty with HR systems that only allow for binary gender options. They may also face assumptions about their skills or interests based on their perceived gender, rather than their actual abilities and preferences. LGBTQ+ Identities and Disability The intersection of LGBTQ+ identities with disabilities presents unique challenges in the workplace, often leading to compounded discrimination and barriers to success. Challenges Faced Double Stigma : LGBTQ+ individuals with disabilities may face stigma and discrimination related to both aspects of their identity, leading to increased isolation and barriers to advancement. Accessibility Issues : LGBTQ+ spaces and events may not always be accessible to individuals with disabilities, leading to exclusion from community support and networking opportunities. Healthcare Complexities : Navigating healthcare systems can be particularly challenging for LGBTQ+ individuals with disabilities, as they may face discrimination or lack of understanding related to both aspects of their identity. Disclosure Dilemmas : Individuals may struggle with decisions about disclosing both their LGBTQ+ identity and their disability status, fearing compounded discrimination. Example: A gay man with a hearing impairment may face challenges in social interactions at work, particularly in LGBTQ+ employee resource groups that may not have the resources to provide adequate accommodations for his disability. He may also encounter healthcare providers who are not knowledgeable about both his sexual orientation and his disability, leading to suboptimal care and increased stress. LGBTQ+ Identities and Socioeconomic Status The intersection of LGBTQ+ identities with socioeconomic status can significantly impact an individual's workplace experiences and opportunities. Challenges Faced Job Insecurity : LGBTQ+ individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may face greater job insecurity, making them more vulnerable to workplace discrimination and less likely to report incidents for fear of losing their job. Limited Access to Resources : Lower-income LGBTQ+ employees may have less access to legal resources or support networks to address workplace discrimination. Educational and Skill Gaps : Socioeconomic barriers may have limited educational and skill-building opportunities for some LGBTQ+ individuals, affecting their career advancement. Housing and Transportation Issues : Lower-income LGBTQ+ employees may face challenges related to housing stability and transportation, which can impact their job performance and opportunities. Example: A transgender woman from a low-income background may struggle to afford gender-affirming care or professional attire that aligns with her gender identity, potentially impacting her ability to present authentically at work. She may also lack the financial resources to seek legal recourse if faced with workplace discrimination, making her more vulnerable to ongoing mistreatment. Intersectionality and Workplace Policies To address the complex nature of intersectional discrimination, workplaces need to develop and implement comprehensive policies that recognize and address the unique challenges faced by individuals with multiple marginalized identities. Key Policy Considerations Inclusive Non-Discrimination Policies : Ensure that non-discrimination policies explicitly protect against discrimination based on multiple identity factors, including sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, disability status, and socioeconomic background. Intersectional Training : Provide diversity and inclusion training that incorporates intersectional perspectives, helping employees and managers understand the complex nature of identity and discrimination. Accessible Reporting Mechanisms : Create easily accessible and confidential channels for reporting discrimination that allow individuals to express the full complexity of their experiences. Diverse Representation : Actively work to increase representation of individuals with diverse intersectional identities in leadership positions and decision-making roles. Flexible Work Arrangements : Implement policies that allow for flexible work arrangements, which can be particularly beneficial for employees managing multiple marginalized identities and their associated challenges. Comprehensive Benefits : Offer inclusive benefits packages that address the needs of diverse employees, including coverage for gender-affirming care, mental health support, and family benefits that recognize diverse family structures. Affinity Groups and Mentorship : Support the creation of intersectional affinity groups and mentorship programs that allow employees to connect with others who share similar experiences. Conclusion Understanding workplace discrimination through an intersectional lens reveals the complex and multifaceted nature of the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals who also belong to other marginalized groups. By recognizing and addressing these intersections, employers can create more inclusive, equitable, and supportive work environments that value the full spectrum of employee identities and experiences. To truly combat workplace discrimination, it is essential to move beyond single-issue approaches and embrace a more nuanced understanding of how different aspects of identity interact and influence an individual's experiences. This intersectional approach not only benefits those with multiple marginalized identities but creates a more inclusive and understanding workplace culture for all employees. As we continue to strive for equality and inclusion in the workplace, it is crucial that we center the voices and experiences of those at the intersections of multiple marginalized identities. By doing so, we can work towards creating workplaces that are truly inclusive and equitable for all.

To illustrate the real-world implications of a poor safety culture, let's examine the widely reported issues at Amazon. Amazon's safety culture has been under scrutiny for years, with numerous reports highlighting concerns across various dimensions of safety culture. Although we have never deployed our safety culture survey and do not have any access to Amazon’s internal records, we can use media reporting to analyze their safety issues through the lens of FIC's Safety Culture Framework to demonstrate how our comprehensive safety culture framework could identify and address such problems. Organizational Commitment Issue:   Amazon has faced criticism for prioritizing productivity and efficiency over worker safety. This suggests a misalignment between the company's operational goals and its commitment to safety. Detailed Example:   In 2021, multiple investigations revealed the impact of Amazon's "Time off Task" (TOT) policy, which tracks employee productivity down to the second. According to a report by The New York Times , workers were expected to handle 300-400 items per hour in some facilities. This intense pressure reportedly led to numerous issues: Workers skipping bathroom breaks to avoid TOT penalties Employees working through injuries to meet quotas A culture of fear around taking time off for medical appointments In one stark example, an employee at a warehouse in Eastvale, California, reportedly urinated in a trash can to avoid logging TOT and risking disciplinary action. The report also found that the injury rate at this facility was over twice the industry average. These practices indicate a clear prioritization of productivity metrics over worker well-being, suggesting a fundamental issue with organizational commitment to safety. Management and Communication Issue:  There have been reports of inadequate safety training, poor communication of safety protocols, and inconsistent implementation of safety measures across Amazon's facilities. Detailed Example:  During the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon's communication and implementation of safety measures were reportedly inconsistent and often unclear. A study by the Strategic Organizing Center in 2022 found: Only 42% of surveyed workers reported receiving written materials about COVID safety protocols 33% of workers said they were not informed when coworkers tested positive for COVID-19 Implementation of safety measures varied widely between facilities, with some warehouses providing minimal protective equipment while others had more comprehensive measures In one specific case, workers at the JFK8 facility in Staten Island, New York, filed complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 2020. They alleged that Amazon failed to notify workers about COVID-19 cases in the facility and did not adequately clean workspaces after known exposures. These examples highlight significant gaps in Amazon's safety communication and management practices, potentially leaving workers vulnerable to health risks. Practices and Performance Issue:   Amazon's heavy reliance on automation and algorithmic management has been linked to increased injury rates and safety risks. The company's practices often prioritize speed and efficiency at the expense of worker safety. Detailed Example:   A 2020 investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed alarming statistics about injury rates in Amazon's robotic warehouses: Facilities with robotic systems had 50% higher injury rates than those without In 2019, the serious injury rate at Amazon warehouses was more than twice the national average for the warehousing industry At one facility in DuPont, Washington, the rate of serious injuries was nearly four times the industry average The investigation found that the robotic systems, while increasing efficiency, also ramped up the pace of work to unsustainable levels. Workers reported having to perform repetitive motions at high speeds for extended periods, leading to a range of musculoskeletal disorders. In another example, Amazon's use of handheld scanners to track worker movements has been linked to repetitive strain injuries. A worker at a facility in Robbinsville, New Jersey, reported developing carpal tunnel syndrome after scanning thousands of items per day, highlighting how Amazon's practices can directly impact worker health and safety. Individual Understanding and Adherence Issue: High turnover rates and the use of temporary workers in Amazon warehouses can lead to a workforce less familiar with safety protocols and less invested in long-term safety culture. Additionally, the pressure to meet quotas often leads workers to prioritize speed over safety procedures. Detailed Example: Amazon's workforce strategy, particularly during peak seasons, has raised concerns about safety knowledge and adherence: Documents showed that Amazon had 150% annual employee turnover at their warehouses . During the holiday season, Amazon hires tens of thousands of temporary workers, many of whom receive minimal training. The pressure to meet demanding productivity quotas can impact individual adherence to safety protocols. For instance, the investigation by The New York Times in 2021 revealed that workers felt compelled to prioritize speed over safety: Employees reported skipping bathroom breaks to avoid logging "Time off Task" (TOT) and risking disciplinary action. Some workers continued to work through injuries to meet quotas. In one case, an employee at a warehouse in Eastvale, California, reportedly urinated in a trash can to avoid logging TOT, highlighting the extreme measures some workers felt necessary to meet productivity expectations. In a tragic case , a temporary worker at an Amazon facility in Avenel, New Jersey, suffered fatal injuries after just a few weeks on the job.  The worker was caught in between a conveyor system and crushed trying to clear a jam while performing sorting operations with demanding productivity quotas. These examples illustrate how high turnover rates, combined with intense productivity pressure and inadequate training, can create a workforce that may not fully understand or adhere to safety protocols, increasing the risk of accidents and injuries. How FIC's Safety Culture Survey Could Help Amazon FIC's Safety Culture Survey offers a comprehensive, data-driven approach to assessing and improving safety culture. Here's a detailed look at how this survey could address Amazon's specific challenges. Comprehensive Assessment Our survey would provide Amazon with a holistic view of its safety culture across all levels of the organization. Example: The survey could be administered to employees from various roles (warehouse workers, drivers, managers, executives) and locations (different types of facilities across regions). Benefit:   This would reveal whether safety perceptions differ between frontline workers and management, or between different facilities. Identify Disconnects By gathering data at organizational, facility, and department levels, our survey could uncover disconnects between corporate safety policies and on-the-ground realities. Example: The survey might reveal that while corporate policy mandates regular safety training, employees in certain facilities report inadequate or infrequent training sessions. Benefit:   Amazon could use this information to improve safety practices across all facilities, especially those with the lowest scores, and ensure that corporate policies are consistently and effectively implemented at all levels. Employee Voice The inclusion of open-ended questions would give Amazon workers a confidential channel to express safety concerns and improvement ideas. Example:  Workers might use this opportunity to suggest specific improvements to workstation ergonomics or to report safety hazards that have been overlooked. Benefit:  This could help Amazon identify potential safety issues before they lead to injuries, while fostering a sense of employee engagement in safety matters. Targeted Improvement Quantitative analysis aligned with our Safety Culture Framework would allow Amazon to identify specific areas for improvement. Example:   The survey might reveal that while employees understand safety procedures (high scores in Individual Understanding), they feel pressured to bypass these procedures to meet productivity targets (low scores in Organizational Commitment). Benefit:   Amazon could use this insight to realign its performance metrics to better balance productivity with safety considerations. Benchmark Progress Regular administration of the survey would enable Amazon to track its safety culture improvements over time and across different facilities. Example:   Amazon could conduct the survey annually and compare results year-over-year, as well as between different types of facilities (e.g., sorting centers vs. fulfillment centers). Benefit:  This would allow Amazon to measure the impact of safety initiatives, identify best practices in high-performing facilities, and focus resources where improvement is most needed. Data-Driven Decision-Making Insights from the survey would inform strategic decisions about safety initiatives, resource allocation, and policy changes. Example: If the survey reveals that employees in facilities with robotic systems report higher stress levels and more safety concerns, Amazon could use this data to reevaluate and potentially modify its automation strategies. Benefit:   This approach would allow Amazon to make evidence-based decisions about safety investments, potentially leading to more effective use of resources and better outcomes. Cultural Insights The survey could provide insights into the underlying cultural factors influencing safety behaviors. Example:   It might reveal that in some facilities, there's a culture of prioritizing speed over safety, even if it's not explicitly mandated by management. Benefit:   Understanding these cultural nuances would allow Amazon to address root causes of safety issues, rather than just symptoms. Communication Effectiveness The survey could assess the effectiveness of Amazon's safety communication strategies. Example:   It might show that while safety information is disseminated regularly, employees don’t take the time to review the information or find it difficult to understand or apply in their daily work. Benefit:   This could lead to improvements in how safety information is communicated, ensuring that important safety messages are not just delivered, but understood and acted upon. Leadership Impact Assessment The survey could evaluate how leadership behaviors at various levels impact the overall safety culture. Example:   It might reveal that mid-level managers, under pressure to meet productivity targets, are not consistently reinforcing safety messages from top leadership. Benefit: This insight could lead to targeted leadership development programs focused on balancing productivity and safety priorities. Incident Reporting Culture The survey could clarify employees' comfort level with reporting safety incidents or near-misses. Example:   It might uncover that employees fear retribution or negative performance evaluations if they report safety concerns. Benefit:   Amazon could use this information to implement changes that encourage open reporting, such as anonymous reporting systems or positive reinforcement for identifying safety issues. By deploying FIC's Safety Culture Survey, Amazon could gain deep, actionable insights into its safety culture. This data-driven approach would enable the company to make targeted improvements, potentially transforming its safety culture from a point of criticism to a competitive advantage. Moreover, the regular application of such a survey would demonstrate Amazon's commitment to continuous improvement in worker safety, which could positively impact employee morale, public perception, and ultimately, the company's bottom line. Contact us today to get a clear picture of your Safety Culture.

What’s in a name? In truth? For many of us, everything. Our parents gift us with our names at birth, but as we journey through life many of us adopt nicknames or choose to use shortened versions of our names. Richard, for example, becomes Rich or Rick, or maybe they go by something like “Dozer” because of their size or occupation. The name someone introduces themselves as is their preferred name. It’s the one that they identify with and feel best represents who they are as a person. There are any number of reasons someone may prefer a name other than the one gifted to them at birth and they are under no obligation to share those reasons with you or anyone else. That’s Not His Name I’d like to share a story that illustrates the importance of using someone’s preferred name. *The names of the two employees have been changed to protect their identities. Michael Thomas Foster was a Service Technician with a regular route and many long-term customers. He did not use his first name and always introduced himself as Tom. All of his friends, customers, and co-workers knew him as Tom and most had no idea that it was middle name and not his first. Even his family called him Tom. His office hired Amy Souder as their new Administrative Support Specialist. It was her responsibility to schedule customer call in services and process service tickets for disbursement of production pay. Amy’s responsibilities gave her access to Tom’s full name and she decided that, even though he had introduced himself to her as Tom and no one else called him Michael, she would refer to him as Michael rather than Tom. Tom tried to explain to Amy that there were personal reasons he did not use his first name, but because he wouldn’t share the reason why, she refused to call him Tom. Her refusal had several consequences. The first should have been obvious to her. Amy’s insistence on referring to Tom as Michael caused confusion with his customers. They only knew him as Tom. As a result, many of his customers became concerned that he might have left the company. This led to conversations where Tom had to reassure his customers that he was still going to be their Service Technician. But, beyond the need to constantly reassure his customers, these conversations were very uncomfortable for him because the use of his first name triggered negative emotional reactions. Those negative emotional reactions were the second, and the most damaging, consequence of Amy’s refusal to use Tom’s preferred name. Tom did his best to keep his emotional distress from showing. But the strain was having an increasingly negative impact on him. He began drinking excessively after getting off from work and the hangovers negatively impacted his job performance. His mood and attitude at work deteriorated until he could no longer control his emotions. The confrontation between Tom and Amy was inevitable. It was also loud and ugly. It was this incident that finally got the management team involved. Both of them ended up being reprimanded. While Amy did begin using Tom’s preferred name after the confrontation and management intervention, the damage was done. Tom would leave for a new job a few months later. As a result of his departure, a financially significant number of his long-term customers would choose not to renew their service contracts with the company. Things probably wouldn’t have escalated to the point of confrontation and loss of a valued employee if there had been a Preferred Name Policy in place. Preferred Name Policies Are About All of Your Employees I’m sure many of you were expecting this story to be about a transgender employee because transgender issues are very visible these days, and I could very easily have shared a story that illustrated the importance using a transgender person’s preferred name and the negative impact of not doing so, but having a preferred name policy in place isn’t just about transgender employees. It’s about all of your employees. Unless an employee legally changes their name, there will be legal and financial documents that will require the use of their birth name, but policy can, and should, be written to allow for email accounts, name tags, badges, business cards, and other name specific needs to reflect a person’s preferred name. A good preferred name policy will not only reduce conversational confusion between co-workers and customers, it can result in improved job performance for those who have negative emotional responses to names that they do not, for whatever reason, use. If your company does not currently have a preferred name policy in place, our Nuance Culture Consulting™ team can assist your organization in creating one specific to your company’s needs based on its unique structure, organization, information systems, and focus. Signup for the Newsletter

In the realm of occupational safety, organizations are constantly seeking effective ways to assess and improve their safety culture. This article will explore how the FIC Safety Culture Framework and its associated survey can be used to identify the maturity of an organization's safety culture as represented on the Bradley Curve. Understanding the Models The FIC Safety Culture Framework Developed by FIC Human Resource Partners, the FIC Safety Culture Framework is a comprehensive model that outlines four key dimensions shaping an organization's safety culture: Organizational Level Commitment and Priorities Facility Level Management and Communication Department Level Practices and Performance Individual Understanding and Adherence to Safety Policies and Procedures This framework provides a structured approach for assessing and improving the cultural factors that influence safety performance and outcomes. The Bradley Curve The Bradley Curve , developed by DuPont in 1995, illustrates the relationship between accidents and corporate culture. It depicts four stages of safety culture maturity: Reactive: Safety is based on natural instincts Dependent: Safety is based on supervision Independent: Safety is based on self Interdependent: Safety is based on team As an organization progresses through these stages, accident rates decrease, and overall productivity and quality improve. Mapping the FIC Framework to the Bradley Curve To effectively use the FIC Safety Culture Framework and Survey to identify an organization's position on the Bradley Curve, we need to understand how the dimensions of the FIC Safety Culture Framework align with the stages of the Bradley Curve. Each dimension in the FIC Safety Culture Survey is scored on a scale from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater maturity in that aspect of safety culture. 1. Reactive Stage In the Reactive stage, safety is primarily based on natural instincts, and accidents are seen as unavoidable. Organizations at this stage typically show low scores across all FIC framework dimensions, falling in the 0-10 range for each. The Organizational Commitment dimension would be particularly low, reflecting minimal investment in safety initiatives. Facility Level Management and Communication scores would indicate a lack of structured safety protocols and inconsistent messaging. Department Level Practices and Performance would show significant variability and a lack of standardized safety practices. Individual Understanding and Adherence scores would be low, suggesting a workforce that is largely unaware of or indifferent to safety policies. 2. Dependent Stage In the Dependent stage, safety is based on supervision, with management assuming responsibility for safety. Organizations at this stage often exhibit improved scores in the Facility Level Management and Communication dimension, reaching the 15-20 range. This reflects the implementation of clear safety rules and supervisory practices. Organizational Commitment scores might show some improvement, residing in the 10-15 range, as the organization begins to invest in basic safety compliance measures. Department Level Practices would still be inconsistent, with scores likely in the 10-15 range. Individual Understanding and Adherence scores would show moderate improvement, moving into the 15-20 range, indicating that employees are becoming more aware of safety policies, even if they're not yet taking proactive responsibility. 3. Independent Stage In the Independent stage, individuals take responsibility for their own safety. Organizations at this stage typically show high scores in the Individual Understanding and Adherence dimension, reaching into the 25-30 range. This reflects a workforce that is well-informed about safety policies and committed to following them. Organizational Commitment scores would also improve, reaching the 20-25 range, as safety becomes more integrated into business strategies. Facility Level Management and Communication scores would be strong, also in the 20-25 range, indicating effective safety leadership and communication channels. Department Level Practices and Performance would become more consistent, with scores improving to the 20-25 range as safety becomes more ingrained in daily operations. 4. Interdependent Stage In the Interdependent stage, teams feel responsible for each other's safety, and a culture of shared responsibility prevails. Organizations at this stage often demonstrate high scores across all FIC framework dimensions, consistently in the 25-30 range. Organizational Commitment scores would reflect a strong, strategic focus on safety at the highest levels of the organization. Facility Level Management and Communication would show excellence in safety leadership and open, effective communication. Department Level Practices and Performance scores would indicate consistent, proactive safety practices across all areas of the organization. Individual Understanding and Adherence scores would remain high, but would now be complemented by evidence of team-oriented safety behaviors and a shared sense of responsibility for safety among all employees. Case Study: Applying the FIC Survey to Determine Bradley Curve Stage Let's consider a hypothetical case study to illustrate how the FIC Safety Culture Survey results can be used to identify an organization's position on the Bradley Curve, and how these results might correlate with actual safety performance metrics. Company X, a manufacturing firm with 1,000 employees, conducted the FIC Safety Culture Survey. Here are the key findings, along with relevant safety statistics: Organizational Commitment:  Moderate scores (average 19.2/30) Executive leadership considers safety important, but resource allocation is inconsistent. Safety is included in business metrics, but not consistently prioritized in decision-making. Facility Management and Communication:   High scores (average 24.6/30) Clear safety goals and expectations are communicated throughout the organization. Regular safety walkthroughs are conducted, and there's prompt addressing of safety concerns. Department Practices and Performance:   Moderate to high scores (average 22.8/30) There's consistent enforcement of safety policies across departments. Some employee involvement in developing safety procedures is evident, but it's not yet universal. Individual Understanding and Adherence: High scores (average 25.8/30) Employees demonstrate a strong understanding of safety policies and procedures. There's high reported compliance with safety rules and evidence of proactive safety behaviors and reporting. Open-ended responses indicated a strong sense of personal responsibility for safety, with some mentions of team-oriented safety practices. Safety Performance Metrics Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR):   2.1 incidents per 200,000 work hours This rate is below the industry average of 3.0, indicating better-than-average safety performance. However, there's still room for improvement to reach world-class safety levels (typically below 1.0). Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR):   0.5 per 200,000 work hours This rate suggests that serious injuries are relatively infrequent, aligning with the high scores in Individual Understanding and Adherence. Near Miss Reporting:  150 reports per month This high number of near-miss reports indicates a positive safety culture where employees feel comfortable reporting potential hazards, reflecting the strong Facility Management and Communication scores. Safety Training Completion Rate:   95% This high completion rate aligns with the strong Individual Understanding and Adherence scores. Safety Observation Rate:  3.5 observations per employee per month This moderate rate of safety observations suggests that while employees are engaged in safety, there's potential for more proactive involvement, particularly at the department level. Time to Close Safety Actions:   Average 14 days This moderate closure time for safety actions reflects the strong Facility Management and Communication scores, but also indicates room for improvement in Organizational Commitment to promptly address all safety concerns. Analysis Based on these results, Company X appears to be transitioning from the Independent stage to the Interdependent stage on the Bradley Curve. The high scores in Individual Understanding and Adherence (25.8/30), coupled with strong Facility Management and Communication (24.6/30), suggest a mature Independent stage. This is reflected in the better-than-average TRIR and LTIFR, as well as the high near-miss reporting and safety training completion rates. The emerging themes of team-oriented safety in open-ended responses and the involvement of employees in safety procedures indicate movement towards the Interdependent stage. However, the moderate scores in Organizational Commitment (19.2/30) suggest there's still room for improvement in fully integrating safety into the organizational culture and strategy, which is characteristic of the Interdependent stage. This is evident in the average time to close safety actions and the safety observation rate, which, while good, could be improved. The Department Practices and Performance score (22.8/30), while good, also indicates an area for potential improvement. To fully reach the Interdependent stage, Company X would need to see more consistent, proactive safety practices across all departments and greater employee involvement in safety initiatives. This could help drive the TRIR and LTIFR even lower, potentially to world-class levels. To progress further into the Interdependent stage, Company X should focus on: Strengthening Organizational Commitment by more consistently prioritizing safety in strategic decision-making and resource allocation. This could help reduce the time to close safety actions. Enhancing Department Practices by encouraging more universal employee involvement in developing and improving safety procedures. This could increase the safety observation rate and potentially further reduce incident rates. Building upon the strong Individual Understanding and Adherence by fostering more team-oriented safety behaviors and a shared sense of responsibility for safety among all employees. This could help push the TRIR and LTIFR towards world-class levels. By addressing these areas, Company X can continue its journey toward a fully mature safety culture as represented by the Interdependent stage of the Bradley Curve, which should be reflected in further improvements in their safety performance metrics.  Contact us today to determine the maturity of your safety culture.

In our diverse and globalized work environment, the issue of unconscious bias has become an increasingly important topic. Unconscious bias is a pervasive challenge in the workplace, but with awareness, education, and concerted effort, its impacts can be significantly reduced. By acknowledging our biases and actively working to overcome them, we can create workplaces that truly value and leverage the diverse talents and perspectives of all employees. Understanding Unconscious Bias Unconscious biases, also known as implicit biases, are suppositions and prejudices based on beliefs or assumptions that we are not aware of. These biases operate beneath our conscious awareness, influencing our perceptions, decisions, and behaviors without our explicit knowledge. They are shaped by our personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and societal norms, often leading to quick judgments and decisions that may not align with our consciously held beliefs. In the workplace, unconscious biases can manifest in various ways, affecting hiring practices, performance evaluations, promotions, and day-to-day interactions among colleagues. Recognizing and addressing these biases is crucial for creating a fair, inclusive, and productive work environment. Common Types of Unconscious Bias in the Workplace Gender Bias : This involves favoring one gender over another based on stereotypes or sexism. For example, assuming leadership roles are better suited for men or that women are naturally more nurturing and therefore better at supportive roles. Ageism : Discriminating against individuals based on their age, often affecting older workers. This can manifest as assumptions about an older employee's ability to learn new technologies or adapt to change. Name Bias : Preferring candidates with names that sound more familiar or "white." This bias can lead to decreased chances of interview callbacks for individuals with non-Western names, despite having equal qualifications. Beauty Bias : Judging people by their physical attractiveness, which can influence hiring decisions and perceptions of competence. Attractive individuals may be viewed more favorably, regardless of their actual abilities. Halo Effect : Forming an overall positive impression of someone based on one positive trait or characteristic. This can lead to overestimating a person's abilities in unrelated areas. Horns Effect : The opposite of the halo effect, where a negative trait leads to an overall negative impression of an individual, potentially overshadowing their positive qualities or skills. Confirmation Bias : The tendency to seek out or interpret information in a way that confirms our existing beliefs or preconceptions. This can lead to overlooking important contrary evidence in decision-making processes. Conformity Bias : Aligning our opinions or behaviors with those of a group, even if it goes against our personal judgment. This can stifle creativity and diverse thinking in team settings. Status Quo Bias : Resisting change or preferring the current situation, even when alternatives might be beneficial. This can hinder innovation and adaptation in the workplace. Authority Bias : Being unduly influenced by the opinions or directives of someone in a position of authority, potentially leading to poor decision-making or a lack of diverse input. The Impact of Unconscious Bias in the Workplace Unconscious biases can have far-reaching consequences in the professional environment: Hiring and Recruitment : Biases can lead to a less diverse workforce, as hiring managers may unconsciously favor candidates who are similar to themselves or fit certain stereotypes. Performance Evaluations : Biases can affect how managers perceive and evaluate employee performance, potentially leading to unfair assessments and career progression. Team Dynamics : Biases can influence how team members interact with each other, potentially creating exclusionary behaviors or communication barriers. Decision-Making : Important business decisions can be skewed by unconscious biases, leading to less desirable outcomes or missed opportunities. Organizational Culture : Pervasive biases can shape the overall culture of an organization, potentially fostering an environment that is neither truly inclusive nor diverse. Strategies to Recognize and Mitigate Unconscious Bias Awareness and Education : The first step in addressing unconscious bias is acknowledging its existence. Provide training and resources to help employees understand and recognize their own biases. Implement Structured Processes : Use standardized criteria for hiring, evaluations, and promotions to reduce the influence of individual biases. Diverse Interview Panels : Ensure that hiring and promotion committees are diverse, representing various perspectives and backgrounds. Blind Resume Reviews : Remove identifying information from resumes during initial screenings to focus solely on qualifications and experience. Regular Bias Checks : Encourage employees to regularly reflect on their decision-making processes and question their assumptions. Promote Inclusive Leadership : Train leaders to recognize and mitigate bias in their teams and to model inclusive behaviors. Data-Driven Decision Making : Use objective data and metrics to inform decisions rather than relying solely on subjective impressions. Encourage Diverse Perspectives : Create an environment where diverse viewpoints are actively sought out and valued in discussions and decision-making processes. Mentorship and Sponsorship Programs : Implement programs that support the growth and advancement of underrepresented groups within the organization. Regular Review of Policies and Practices : Continuously assess organizational policies and practices to identify and address potential areas where bias may be influencing outcomes.

Organizations are increasingly recognizing the critical importance of fostering a robust safety culture. FIC Human Resource Partners has developed two powerful tools to help organizations achieve this goal: the comprehensive FIC Safety Culture Framework and the actionable FIC process - Focus, Integrate, Cultivate. The FIC Safety Culture Framework: A Comprehensive Approach The FIC Safety Culture Framework, developed by FIC Human Resource Partners, is a comprehensive model that provides a structured approach for assessing and improving the cultural factors that influence safety performance and outcomes. This framework outlines four key dimensions shaping an organization's safety culture: Organizational Level Commitment and Priorities Facility Level Management and Communication Department Level Practices and Performance Individual Understanding and Adherence to Safety Policies and Procedures By examining these four dimensions, organizations can gain a holistic view of their current safety culture and identify specific areas for improvement. Focus, Integrate, Cultivate: A Process for Improvement To complement the FIC Safety Culture Framework, FIC Human Resource Partners has developed a straightforward process for improving safety culture, encapsulated in the acronym FIC: Focus, Integrate, Cultivate. This process provides a practical roadmap for organizations to enhance their safety culture using insights gained from the FIC Safety Culture Framework. Focus on Safety Priorities The first step in the FIC process emphasizes the need for organizations to sharply focus on their safety priorities. By leveraging the Organizational Level Commitment and Priorities dimension of the FIC Safety Culture Framework, companies can: Clearly define safety goals and objectives at all levels of the organization Allocate adequate resources to support safety initiatives Regularly assess and prioritize safety risks Ensure that safety is a key consideration in all decision-making processes Integrate Safety into All Processes The second step recognizes that safety cannot exist in isolation. Drawing on insights from the Facility Level Management and Communication and Department Level Practices and Performance dimensions of the framework, organizations can: Incorporate safety considerations into job designs and work procedures Embed safety metrics into performance evaluations at all levels Integrate safety training into onboarding and ongoing professional development programs Ensure that safety is a key factor in procurement and vendor selection processes Cultivate Commitment to Safety The final step emphasizes the importance of cultivating a deep-rooted commitment to safety throughout the organization. Utilizing the Individual Understanding and Adherence to Safety Policies and Procedures dimension of the framework, companies can: Develop strong safety leadership at all levels of the organization Foster employee engagement and ownership of safety Create a learning culture that values continuous improvement in safety practices Recognize and reward safe behaviors and safety innovations The Power of Combining Framework and Process What sets the FIC approach apart is the combination of a comprehensive assessment framework with a practical improvement process. The FIC Safety Culture Framework provides the diagnostic tool, offering a 360-degree view of an organization's safety culture. The Focus, Integrate, Cultivate process then offers a clear path forward, helping organizations turn insights into action. Key benefits of this combined approach include: Comprehensive Assessment: The framework allows organizations to thoroughly evaluate their current safety culture across all levels. Targeted Interventions: Insights from the framework help identify specific areas for improvement, which can be addressed through the FIC process. Measurable Progress: By establishing a baseline with the framework and using the FIC process to drive improvements, organizations can track progress over time. Employee Engagement: Both the framework's assessment and the FIC process emphasize employee involvement, fostering greater buy-in and engagement. Conclusion In an era where safety is paramount, the combination of the FIC Safety Culture Framework and the Focus, Integrate, Cultivate process offers a powerful approach for organizations seeking to elevate their safety performance. By providing both a comprehensive assessment tool and a clear process for improvement, FIC Human Resource Partners equips organizations with the insights and guidance needed to create a resilient safety culture that not only protects employees but also drives operational excellence and business success. Whether you're just beginning your safety culture journey or looking to take your existing safety programs to the next level, the FIC approach provides a robust foundation for achieving lasting improvements in safety performance. Contact us today to deploy our Safety Culture Survey .

In today's interconnected world, social media and community surveys have become essential tools for businesses and organizations to engage with their stakeholders. However, these platforms also present unique challenges, particularly for organizations serving diverse communities and addressing sensitive topics. This article explores the importance of social media presence and community surveys, while also addressing the critical issue of managing online threats and harassment. The Power of Social Media and Community Surveys Social media platforms and community surveys offer unprecedented opportunities for organizations to: Connect directly with their audience. Gather valuable feedback and insights. Build brand awareness and loyalty. Address concerns and issues in real-time. Foster a sense of community among stakeholders. For organization serving a diverse clientele including LGBTQ+ organizations, these tools are invaluable for understanding and meeting the needs of various communities. Case Study: LGBTQ+ Community Needs Assessment in Lancaster County The launch of the LGBTQ+ Community Needs Assessment in Lancaster County serves as a compelling example of the power and challenges inherent in community surveys, particularly those addressing sensitive topics in the digital age. As the Lancaster LGBTQ+ Community prepared to celebrate Pride in June 2024, FIC Human Resource Partners, in collaboration with four local LGBTQ+ organizations, embarked on an ambitious project. Their goal was to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment that would give voice to the LGBTQ+ community and inform future service, event, and program decisions. The resilience of Lancaster's LGBTQ+ community was being tested on multiple fronts. The Lancaster LGBTQ+ Community had recently been rocked by a rather vocal and nasty response to a planned Drag Queen Story Hour at the Lancaster Public Library.   After efforts were made to increase security and create a wall of love to protect attendees from an angry protest, the Story Hour was ultimately cancelled due to a bomb threat. The level of anger, acrimony and the very real threats had left the community shaken. But that would not deter the local LGBTQ+ Organizations or community members from planning and attending a month of LGBTQ+ celebrations and events. It was against this backdrop of celebration, challenge, and resilience that the needs assessment survey was launched. The survey, carefully crafted to safeguard data integrity and protect respondents, went live on June 1st, coinciding with the start of Pride Month celebrations. FIC's team intentionally designed the survey to minimize the potential for trolling and harassment, a reflection of their commitment to creating a safe space for honest feedback. Each partner organization received a unique set of survey links, QR codes, and embed codes – a strategic move that allowed FIC to monitor responses closely and quickly identify any links being circulated by potential trolls or anti-LGBTQ+ groups. As the organizations shared these links across their social media channels, the survey began to gain traction within the community. However, the digital landscape proved to be as toxic as ever. One of the partner organizations found itself besieged by online trolls shortly after sharing the survey. Despite this digital onslaught, the survey team’s vigilant monitoring revealed a pleasant outcome – only a single trolling or harassing comment had made its way into the actual survey responses. As the survey entered its second week, the local LGBTQ+ community was rocked by unexpected news. An unaffiliated LGBTQ+ organization announced its imminent closure, thrusting the community's needs into the media spotlight. The four partner organizations rose to the occasion, fielding interviews with television and print media. They released individual statements and a joint press release, reaffirming their commitment to the community and encouraging participation in the ongoing needs assessment survey. Just days before the local pride festival, while largely successful, had been temporarily disrupted by a security scare involving a suspicious package. This surge in attention brought both opportunities and challenges. Anticipating a potential increase in trolling and harassment, FIC’s survey team swiftly implemented additional safeguards to fortify the survey's integrity. Their foresight paid off – in the wake of these changes, only one more instance of trolling was identified in the survey responses. As June progressed, the survey became more than just a data collection tool – it evolved into a symbol of the community's determination to be heard and to thrive in the face of adversity. With the survey scheduled to run until the end of the month, FIC and the partner organizations remained committed to their goal. They continued to navigate the complex interplay of social media engagement, community outreach, and data security, all while striving to create a comprehensive picture of the LGBTQ+ community's needs in Lancaster County. Challenges of Public Engagement While social media and surveys offer numerous benefits, they also come with significant challenges, particularly for organizations dealing with sensitive topics or serving historically excluded, underrepresented, and marginalized communities. Some of these challenges include: Trolling and harassment Spread of misinformation Privacy concerns Managing diverse and sometimes conflicting viewpoints Potential security threats   Understanding Threat Actors and Their Impact In managing social media presence and conducting surveys, particularly on sensitive topics, it's crucial to understand the various types of individuals who might pose a threat to the integrity of the process or the safety of participants. Here, we categorize these threat actors, describe their behaviors, and outline the potential harm and chaos they can cause: Disruptive Trolls (Low-level threat) Behavior Individuals whose primary intent is to disrupt the survey or conversation without necessarily being hostile. Identification Responses are off-topic or irrelevant to the survey questions. Lack of serious or coherent answers. May use mild insults or mockery, but not targeted harassment. Potential Harm Decreased quality of survey data. Wasted time and resources in managing responses. Minor frustration for genuine participants. Example "This survey is stupid. I'm just here for the lolz." Hostile Trolls (Low-level threat) Behavior Individuals who intend to harass, demean, or provoke others. Identification Responses contain slurs, insults, or other hate speech. Language is aggressive and inflammatory, but not threatening violence. Targets specific individuals, groups, or the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. Potential Harm Emotional distress for targets and other participants. Creation of a hostile online environment. Discouragement of genuine participation. Potential escalation of conflicts. Example "All you [slur] are going to hell. Stop shoving your agenda in our faces." Threatening Trolls (Medium-level threat) Behavior Individuals whose intent is to cause emotional harm or fear through threats. Identification Responses contain threats or allusions to violence. Language is intended to scare, intimidate or cause emotional distress. Threats are vague or implied rather than specific. No indication that steps have been taken to carry out the threat. Potential Harm Significant emotional and psychological distress. Chilling effect on free expression and participation. Potential for escalation to real-world harassment. Need for increased security measures. Example "You better watch your back. People like you get what's coming to them." Potential Threat Actors (Medium-level threat) Behavior Individuals who make specific threats indicating potential for real-world action. Identification Threats are specific and targeted. Some details are provided about a potential attack. Still in the "planning" stage, no actions taken yet. Potential Harm Severe emotional and psychological trauma. Disruption of daily activities and operations. Necessity for involvement of law enforcement. Potential for property damage or physical harm. Example "I'm going to come to your office and teach you a lesson you'll never forget." Probable Threat Actors (High-level threat) Behavior Individuals who make direct, specific, and plausible threats and indicate steps have been taken toward carrying them out. Identification Threats are explicit, targeted, and actionable. Specific claims of weapons access, stalking behaviors, or attack plans. Language indicates attack is imminent and in progress. Potential Harm Immediate danger to life and safety. Widespread panic and chaos. Long-lasting trauma for targeted individuals and communities. Severe disruption of operations and community activities. Extensive involvement of law enforcement and security personnel. Example "I have a gun and I've been watching your office. If you don't close down, I'll do it myself." The presence of these threat actors in online spaces can create a cascade of negative effects. Beyond the immediate harm to targeted individuals or groups, they can: Erode trust within communities. Discourage participation in important discussions and surveys. Force organizations to divert significant resources to security and moderation. Create a climate of fear that stifles open dialogue and expression. Potentially escalate online conflicts into real-world violence. Identifying and managing these threats requires a multi-faceted approach Vigilant monitoring of online spaces and survey responses. Well-trained staff capable of recognizing and appropriately responding to different threat levels. Robust security protocols and emergency response plans. Collaboration with law enforcement when necessary. Creation of supportive networks for affected individuals and communities. By understanding the nature of these potential threat actors and their impacts, organizations can better prepare to maintain the integrity of their online presence and protect the well-being of their communities. Understanding the Use of "Troll" in Threat Designations In FIC's threat classification system, the term "troll" is used deliberately, drawing on two distinct but related definitions. This dual meaning enhances the descriptive power of the threat designations, capturing both the nature of the individuals involved and their actions. Let's explore these definitions and their relevance to online threat assessment: 1. Troll as a Noun: The Individual In internet culture, a "troll" refers to a person who intentionally initiates conflicts, provokes emotional responses, or disrupts normal discussions in online communities. This usage originated in the 1990s and has become widely recognized in the context of online behavior. Relevance to Threat Designation:  By using "troll" in this sense, the threat designation immediately evokes the image of an individual who is not participating in good faith. It suggests someone whose primary goal is to cause disruption or distress, rather than to engage in meaningful dialogue or provide genuine feedback. 2. Troll as a Verb: The Action "To troll" is a verb meaning to fish by trailing a baited line behind a boat. In the context of online behavior, it metaphorically refers to the act of posting inflammatory, insincere, digressive, or off-topic messages to provoke an emotional response or disrupt normal discussions. Relevance to Threat Designation:  This definition emphasizes the active nature of the behavior. It's not just about who these individuals are, but what they do. The use of "troll" in this sense captures the deliberate, ongoing nature of their disruptive actions. 3. Combining Noun and Verb: A Comprehensive Descriptor By using "troll" in the threat designations (e.g., "Disruptive Troll," "Hostile Troll"), FIC's classification system achieves several important goals: Conciseness:  It encapsulates both the identity of the threat actor and the nature of their actions in a single, widely understood term. Accuracy:  It accurately describes both who these individuals are in the online ecosystem and what they're doing to cause disruption. Flexibility:  The term can be easily modified (e.g., "disruptive," "hostile") to denote different levels or types of trolling behavior. Cultural Relevance:  It uses terminology that is widely recognized and understood in the context of online interactions, making the threat designations immediately comprehensible to those familiar with internet culture. Action-Oriented:  By invoking both the noun and verb forms, it implies that these are not just static labels, but descriptions of ongoing, active behavior that needs to be addressed. This dual-meaning approach in the threat designation system helps FIC and its partners quickly understand and communicate about the nature of potential threats in their online surveys and social media interactions. It provides a nuanced yet accessible framework for classifying and responding to disruptive online behaviors, from mild annoyances to serious security concerns. FIC's Comprehensive Approach to Survey Security and Integrity In conducting the LGBTQ+ Community Needs Assessment, FIC Human Resource Partners implemented a robust set of measures to ensure the security, integrity, and validity of the survey data. These measures not only protected the survey from potential threats but also safeguarded the privacy and safety of participants. Technical Security Measures Response Identification : Each survey response was assigned a unique identifier, allowing for precise tracking and analysis without compromising participant anonymity. IP Address and Geolocation Collection : To detect potential multiple submissions or coordinated attacks, FIC collected IP addresses and geolocation data. This information was encrypted and accessible only to the data analysis team. Multiple Links with Unique Identifiers : FIC provided each partner organization with a set of unique survey links, QR codes, and embed codes. This strategy allowed for tracking the source of responses and quickly identifying any links being circulated by potential bad actors. Data Encryption : All collected data was encrypted both in transit and at rest, ensuring that sensitive information remained protected from unauthorized access. Survey Logic and Piping : Advanced survey logic was implemented to adapt questions based on previous responses, making it more difficult for trolls to provide nonsensical or contradictory answers. Policy and Procedural Measures Clear Public-Facing Data and Privacy Policies : FIC developed and prominently displayed comprehensive data usage and privacy policies, ensuring transparency and building trust with participants. Qualifying Questions : The survey included qualifying questions to ensure that respondents met the criteria for participation and to filter out potential bad actors. Raw Data Access Restrictions : Access to raw survey data was strictly limited to the data analysis team, with stringent protocols in place for data handling and storage. Daily Response Monitoring : FIC implemented a system of daily monitoring of survey responses to quickly identify and address any emerging issues or threats. Response Evaluation Process : Suspect responses were quarantined and evaluated by trained staff. Responses identified as trolling, harassing, or threatening were disqualified from the dataset.   Threat Management Threat Classification System : FIC developed a comprehensive system for classifying different levels of threats, from low-level trolling to credible threats of violence. Staff Training : All team members involved in monitoring and analyzing survey responses received training on identifying and classifying potential threats. Threat Documentation : A secure list was maintained documenting all trolling, harassing, and threatening responses, including threat designations and all relevant identifying data. Law Enforcement Liaison Protocol : FIC established clear protocols for reporting credible threats to law enforcement, including procedures for disclosing relevant information in the event of an act of violence. Continuous Improvement Throughout the survey period, FIC continuously evaluated the effectiveness of these measures and made adjustments as necessary. This adaptive approach allowed them to respond quickly to emerging challenges and maintain the highest standards of data integrity and participant safety. By implementing this comprehensive set of security measures, FIC demonstrated its commitment to conducting ethical, secure, and valuable research, even in the face of potential online threats and challenges. This approach not only protected the integrity of the LGBTQ+ Community Needs Assessment but also set a high standard for future survey projects dealing with sensitive topics or vulnerable populations. Case Study: Evaluating and Classifying Threat Levels in Survey Responses To illustrate how FIC's threat evaluation and classification system works in practice, let's examine actual responses received during the LGBTQ+ Community Needs Assessment survey. These examples demonstrate the nuanced approach required when assessing potential threats in survey responses. Example 1: Hostile Troll Response ID:  194 Session ID:  1717771491_66631ce37682c3.16490044 Response Content: "mental health assistance for f****d up people” “how many f****d lqtb idiots there are” “stop pushing this s**t” “Mental Disability"   Evaluation Process: Content Analysis:   The response contains offensive language and derogatory terms directed at the LGBTQ+ community. It expresses hostility towards the survey's purpose and the community it serves. Intent Assessment:   The language used suggests an intent to provoke and demean, rather than to contribute meaningfully to the survey. Threat Level Determination:   While highly offensive, the response does not contain specific threats of violence or indicate potential for real-world action. Classification:   Hostile Troll (Low-level Threat) Rationale: This response meets the criteria for a Hostile Troll as it: Uses inflammatory and derogatory language. Targets the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. Intends to harass and provoke. Does not include specific threats or indications of potential real-world action. Action Taken: The response was disqualified from the survey dataset and added to the list of documented hostile responses for future reference and pattern analysis. Example 2: Disruptive Troll Response ID:  262 Session ID:  1718792918_6672b2d6d67c56.47401066 Response Content: "We are a conservative community. These organizations are sin and pride destruction.” “Leave our children out of your plans. God's plan is true love. And the only way to Heaven. Your group is misleading whole generations of people and they will be lost for Eternity." Evaluation Process: Content Analysis:  The response expresses opposition to LGBTQ+ organizations based on religious beliefs. It includes accusatory language but does not use explicit slurs or directly abusive terms. Intent Assessment:   While the intent appears to be expressing disagreement and religious viewpoints, it also serves to disrupt the survey's purpose by introducing off-topic arguments unrelated to identifying the needs and experiences of the LGBTQ+ population in Lancaster County. In fact, the presence of this response supported the level of fear and lack of safety LGBTQ+ respondents expressed in relation to religious attacks and harassment. Threat Level Determination:   The language is oppositional and mildly insulting but does not contain threats of violence or indicate potential for immediate real-world action. Classification:   Disruptive Troll (Low-level Threat) Rationale: This response meets the criteria for a Disruptive Troll as it: Introduces off-topic arguments into an LGBTQ+ community needs assessment survey. Uses mildly insulting language. Serves to disrupt the quality of the survey data by providing irrelevant information. Does not contribute meaningfully to the survey's intended purpose. While expressing opposition, it doesn't rise to the level of a Hostile Troll due to the absence of explicit slurs or directly abusive language. Note:   Had this been a different type of community survey with a different focus this response may not have been classified as a Disruptive Troll. The context of the survey, its intended audience, and its purpose all factor into whether this particular response met the definition of Disruptive Troll. Action Taken: The response was disqualified from the survey dataset to maintain data quality. It was added to the list of documented disruptive responses for future reference and pattern analysis. This type of response also informed potential adjustments to survey questions or instructions to minimize off-topic submissions in future surveys. Example 3: Disruptive Troll Response ID:  333 Session ID:  1719070766_6676f02e281879.13536444 Response Content: Respondent provided answers that were strings of letter numbers and symbols with no apparent meaning. Respondent indicated participation in groups meant for both LGBTQ+ Youth and LGBTQ+ Elders. Respondent provided first and last names that were both multi-word responses. Evaluation Process: Content Analysis:   The response contains a mix of nonsensical phrases, repetitive patterns, and unconventional use of symbols and characters. While some answers are within expected parameters (e.g., "Pangender" for gender), others are clearly nonsense, off-topic, or invented terms. Intent Assessment:   The respondent appeared to be deliberately providing nonsensical or exaggerated responses rather than genuinely engaging with the survey questions. Additional Investigation:   A web search was conducted using the name provided by the respondent. Threat Level Determination:   While the responses are disruptive to the survey's purpose, they do not contain any hostile language, threats, or indications of potential harm. Classification:  Disruptive Troll (Low-level Threat) Rationale: This response meets the criteria for a Disruptive Troll as it: Provides off-topic and irrelevant answers to many questions Uses nonsensical phrases and symbol patterns repeatedly Appears to be intentionally disrupting the survey rather than providing genuine feedback Does not contain hostile language or threats Action Taken: Standard Action Taken The response was disqualified from the survey dataset to maintain data quality. It was added to the list of documented disruptive responses for future reference and pattern analysis. This type of response also informed potential adjustments to survey questions or instructions to minimize off-topic submissions in future surveys. Additional Action Taken In addition to the actions that are taken for responses classified as Disruptive Troll, the survey team conducted a web search of the provided name and identified that it was used across several social platforms to engage in similarly disruptive behavior. Implications of the Additional Action taken Cross-platform Behavior Pattern:   The discovery of similar disruptive behavior across multiple platforms suggests a consistent pattern of trolling, rather than a one-time occurrence. Enhanced Threat Assessment:  While the initial classification remains "Disruptive Troll (Low-level Threat)," the cross-platform nature of the behavior provides valuable context for future interactions or responses from this individual. Improved Screening Measures:   This information can be used to develop more robust screening measures for future surveys, potentially including checks against known troll accounts or patterns. Data Integrity Confirmation:  The external validation of the troll-like behavior confirms the decision to disqualify the response, ensuring the integrity of the survey data. This additional step in the evaluation process demonstrates the importance of thorough investigation and the value of cross-referencing information when assessing potential threats or disruptive behavior in survey responses. Key Takeaways from These Examples Nuanced Evaluation and Spectrum of Responses:  Surveys on sensitive topics may receive a wide range of responses, from supportive to oppositional, subtly disruptive to outright hostile. The spectrum of disruption can range from subtle opposition to nonsensical submissions, and each type requires a tailored approach. Each response, regardless of its apparent threat level, requires careful evaluation within its context. Intent vs. Content vs. Impact:  While offensive language is a clear indicator of hostility, more subtle forms of disruption, such as introducing irrelevant arguments or providing nonsensical answers, can also compromise survey integrity. The intent of respondents may vary, but the primary concern for survey administrators is the impact on data quality and the overall integrity of the research. Balancing Inclusivity and Data Integrity:   Survey designers face the challenge of being inclusive of diverse identities and experiences while maintaining the integrity and usefulness of the data collected. This balance is crucial for ensuring that the survey accurately represents the community while filtering out disruptive or misleading responses. Data Quality and Security Considerations:   Threat assessment in surveys isn't just about identifying potential security risks; it's also about maintaining the quality and relevance of the data collected. Each response must be evaluated not only for its potential threat level but also for its contribution to or detraction from the survey's objectives. Context Matters:   Understanding the broader context of the survey – its purpose, target audience, and the current social climate – is crucial in evaluating and responding to potentially disruptive submissions. This contextual awareness helps in distinguishing between genuine responses that may seem unusual and intentionally disruptive ones. Continuous Improvement and Adaptive Strategies:   These examples demonstrate the need for ongoing refinement of threat classification systems, survey methodologies, and response strategies. Each disruptive response provides an opportunity to refine survey questions, add validation checks, or improve instructions for future surveys. This adaptive approach ensures that the survey process becomes more robust and effective over time. Consistent Classification and Evaluation System:  By carefully evaluating each response and applying a consistent classification system, organizations can ensure the integrity of their survey data while also maintaining awareness of potential threats or areas of concern within the community. This systematic approach aids in both data analysis and security management. By keeping these takeaways in mind, organizations conducting sensitive surveys can better navigate the challenges of data collection, ensure the safety of participants and staff, and maintain the integrity of their research. This approach not only improves the quality of the data collected but also helps in building trust within the community being surveyed. Best Practices for Managing Online Presence and Surveys To navigate these challenges effectively, organizations should consider implementing the following best practices: Develop a comprehensive social media policy. Train staff on identifying and responding to different types of online threats. Implement robust security measures for social media accounts and survey platforms. Use moderation tools and techniques to manage comments and responses. Establish clear guidelines for survey participants. Partner with local law enforcement and security experts for high-level threats. Prioritize the safety and well-being of staff and community members. Regularly review and update security protocols. For organizations that may be targeted for trolling, harassment, and threats it's crucial to develop policies that: Protect employees and clients from discrimination and harassment. Promote a diverse and welcoming online environment. Address the unique challenges faced by historically excluded, underrepresented, and marginalized groups. Demonstrate a commitment to equality and social justice. Ensure the physical safety and security of employees and clients. Detail procedures for identifying and responding to threats and dangers. Conclusion Navigating the complex landscape of social media and community surveys requires a delicate balance between openness and security. By understanding the potential threats, implementing best practices, and fostering an inclusive environment, organizations can harness the power of these tools while mitigating risks. As we continue to rely on digital platforms for engagement and research, it's crucial to remain vigilant, adaptive, and committed to creating safe spaces for all community members. If your organization is looking for a secure, thorough, well managed survey or assessment partner, our Nuance Culture Consulting team is here to help!   Contact us today to learn how we can help.

Originally published 20 May 2019 Two weeks ago I didn’t publish an article.  Yes I was very busy. Yes, I spent that Monday at the Pennsylvania State House and spoke at a Press Conference in support of House Bill 1404, which would offer legal protections to all LGBTQIA+ Pennsylvanians.  But I don’t write my articles on the day I publish them, I write them in advance. Often on the Friday and Saturday before publishing, because, as I said, I’m very busy.  But that weekend I was in Cumberland Maryland for my Aunt’s memorial service. And I spent much of Friday struggling to manage my emotions and plan for my departure. So, today, I’m going to address grief in the workplace. Does your company offer Bereavement Leave? Is it 3 days?  Does it apply to immediate family only? Death is an inescapable fact of life.  We will all experience loss at some point.  And, so, for businesses death and grief are also inescapable facts of life.  Grief is a deeply personal journey. And yes it’s a journey. One that takes much longer than 3 to 5 days.  Employees will be working through their grief, even if the are given a few days off to attend a funeral or memorial service.    In fact, most people won’t have time to truly begin grieving in the first days after a loss.  They are often busy planning the services, planning travel, calling family and friends. And so there’s no time for them to begin processing their feelings. Grief-related losses in productivity may cost US companies as much as $75 billion annually . “Paradoxically, offering employees more time to deal with their grief—through longer bereavement leave, reduced hours and flexible schedules—could wind up costing organizations less.” – Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg If your company has policies and procedures in place to ensure that the work gets done while also providing employees with the time and compassion they need to grieve, you can maintain productivity and retain your valuable employees. Do  you know how to recognize grief in the workplace? Fatigue Low morale Inability to Concentrate Expressing Anger Lack of Motivation Depression All of these things can impact an employee’s performance and productivity. Not to mention the potential to have a negative impact on a team as a whole.  It can be difficult to navigate this period. Your company has rules and policies that need to followed after all. When you have a grieving employee you need to keep in mind that everyone will experience grief differently. Telling someone they need to “move on” or “snap out of it” is never helpful.  Consider, instead, how you can support your employee and their family. Find out what they need and figure out how to help them with that. Maybe they need a little extra time to manage an estate or seek counseling.  Maybe they need a little financial support. Perhaps they need some space or time throughout the day to to have some quiet time to regather themselves.  Don’t just assume that a grieving employee needs or wants to lighten their workload. Some people need daily routine to keep them from allowing grief to completely consume them. Grief can be a very private thing. It’s okay to ask how a grieving employee is doing, but don’t assume they are willing to open up to you or share certain details.  While it can be comforting for some to know that you can relate to their grief, they may not want you to share your own stories of loss. Be there and listen without trying to cure their grief. Recommend they speak with an employee assistance program that can provide grief counseling or connect them to additional resources in the community if you sense they need to speak with someone or share with others how they are experiencing their grief. What I’m really telling you is that 3 days isn’t long enough.  And, also, that you need to be aware of your employee’s well being in the weeks and months after a loss.  Ask them what you can do to support them. Talk with them privately about struggles and potential issues you observe in a compassionate way. Direct them to resources that can help them navigate their grief. Seek advice from a mental health professional, yourself, about how best to address behaviors in the workplace so that you can help your employee move forward at work in a healthy manner. Signup for the Newsletter

Work can be stressful On top of work related stress, we also all have other stressors that we carry with us from our personal lives, leaving us with less emotional bandwidth deal with work related stress. So why do we have such a hard time being honest about asking for and giving the emotional support and space we need in the workplace? Well, for one, most of us worry about the negative impact of this kind of honesty might have on our careers.  We worry about this because of the stigma that surrounds even momentary occurrences of poor emotional and mental health.  Phrases such as, “Man/toughen up,” “You just have to power through it,” or even, “You shouldn’t let that bother you,” all push a narrative that we should never feel stressed, emotional, or overwhelmed.  We’ve learned that if we are honest, there will be those who believe that we are not not capable of handling the pressure of our jobs and won’t be able to take on new responsibilities or positions.  This belief can damage or kill our careers. Comprehensive Wellbeing programs that include a range of programs that aim to improve physical emotional, mental, and financial health by encouraging  healthy diets, exercise, mindfulness, sleep, and stress management can boost performance as well as social and emotional well-being. A comprehensive wellbeing program is not going to make all your problems go away,  but it can be an essential component in creating a workplace culture of health. A good wellbeing program can improve employee health as well as  boost and maintain employee morale. All of which, in turn, will improve your organization’s bottom line. With an effective wellbeing program you will improve the lives of your employees and that will help drive the success of your organization.  But in order for any wellbeing program to be effective, there must also be changes to culture and leadership behaviors that support these efforts. I created the following Personal And Emotional Space statement to be included in a client’s employee handbook. “ Our organization understands that at times we all need a little space and time to care for ourselves. There are many reasons we may need to do so, physical wellbeing, mental wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, stress reduction, or religious/spiritual observations.  We fully support the idea of taking the space we need for our wellbeing as it promotes healthier working relationships and increased productivity in the long term.   We ask each of our employees to be honest about the space they need and to respect the space requested by others.  All efforts will be made by our management team to reasonably allow for these times when doing so will not severely impact essential productivity or when delay of allowing such time will negatively impact one’s physical or emotional health to an unsafe degree. Should you find that certain activities or interactions frequently require you to need additional space or time to care for yourself, please open a dialog with Human Resources to  address the issues triggering this need or to build in a structured time to accommodate this need.” By including this statement in their employee handbook, they are destigmatizing poor emotional and mental health, creating a culture where employees who may struggle with occasional, recurring, or ongoing emotional, mental, or other health concerns feel supported, and allows their employees to work with them to find a way of balancing their emotional and mental health needs with their responsibilities so that both they and the company can find success.  Their employees know from the moment they read this statement that they can do what is necessary to care for themselves, and the company knows that their employees will be more focused and more effective when they are working. FIC Human Resource Partners can help your organization make space for the emotional wellbeing of your employees.   Signup for the Newsletter

Let me ask you a question.  What do you do when an employee is having one of those days where they just can’t get motivated? What if that employee is you? Was your answer the same? It happens to the best of us, we get to work and just can’t get focused.  We feel like we are just spinning our wheels, or moving in slow motion. It’s frustrating. And, of course, we worry that people are going to notice, or that it might impact our next performance evaluation, which can makes it all the harder to get ourselves back on track. Most of us will simply try to power through and hope our bosses and coworkers don’t notice that we are unfocused or off our game.  But what if there was a better way? What if we could be honest about struggling to focus? What if your boss noticed and asked if you were OK or if you needed something?  What if they recommended a quick break or a offered to bring you a coffee? Sometimes, we just need a moment to collect ourselves or find enough silence to figure out why we aren’t focused so that we can address it.  Our office environments should allow for us to be honest about needing to take that moment to clear the cobwebs, or recharge, or sit in silence.   Our management teams should also be able to recognize when we might need to take advantage of a little time or space so that we can refocus and recharge. They should be open to reminding us that it’s OK to take a break and encourage us to take time to care for ourselves so that when we return to work we can be more productive.  Maybe, they should even be willing to lend a hand, an ear, or offer to bring something back from the break room if you just can’t get away. So what are some really good ways to get your focus back. If you are used to fast-paced multi-tasking; slow down and focus on one task at a time.  Seems like odd advice doesn’t it? But, if you are trying to work on two or three things at once and you aren’t making progress on any of them, focusing on just one thing makes perfect sense.  It will allow you to make progress on one to-do-list item. And if your manager needs you to change from one task to another, say “Yes.” But, let them know that you will need to shelve your current task so that you can fully focus on the new one.  Let them decide which is of greater importance in that moment. Get up, stretch your arms and back, take a walk around the building, get that blood flowing and breathe. Physical activity, even if it’s mild, gets the blood flowing and increases oxygen to brain. It really doesn’t take much to reinvigorate yourself if you’ve been sitting at your desk all day. Go look out the window or take a moment to get outside.  Let your mind wander. Practice mindfulness techniques or meditate for a few minutes. Sometimes the brain needs a break from thinking so that it can actually think. Drink water! It’ll energize you more than you realize.  Eat a healthy snack. If there’s something bothering you that you just can’t stop thinking or worrying about, write it down.  You can always take it straight to the shredder. But, take a few minutes and force it out of our mind and onto the paper.  You’d be surprised at how the act of writing your problems and worries down can make them easier to manage. OK, coffee.  A lot of us rely on coffee.  Probably way more than is healthy. It can certainly jump start us. Most of the time.  But it’s not always the most effective way of getting re-energized.  That’s why it’s here at the end of the list. You really should try to do something from the list above before, or while you enjoy your coffee. Now, if you are a manager and notice that one of your employees is having an off day, what can you do? When it can be done without calling unwanted negative attention to the employee, ask if they are doing OK.  Ask if they need anything; a moment to chat, help with a task, a short break, or something to eat or drink from the break room, and encourage them to take a few minutes to recharge and refocus.   The goal is to encourage your employees to take a few minutes to refocus and re-energize. Be careful and make sure that the way you approach your employee is helpful and affirming. If they look tired and sluggish, asking them if it was a “late or a rough night” will probably come across as judgmental and demotivate them further.  Try saying something like, “You know, when I don’t sleep well, I find that getting up from my desk and being a bit more active can help keep me fresh. Maybe, you might want to take a few minutes to get away from your desk. You’ll probably feel more energized afterward.” Reminding our employees to take breaks and engage in stress reduction techniques may seem like loss of productivity on its face, but in actuality, 15 minutes away from the desk can significantly improve overall performance. Signup for the Newsletter

What percentage of your employees are women? How many are in skilled or technical positions? How many women are in positions of authority? When was the last time your company asked those questions and made an effort to understand not only the numbers, but also the reasons behind them? Were the numbers equal throughout the entire workforce, or were the majority of the women in administrative, housekeeping, or other support positions? The truth is that women are frequently not represented at higher level, skilled, or technical positions at the same rate as men.  Women are disadvantaged from the very beginning of the hiring process. They are less likely to be hired for entry-level positions even though more women than men are earning bachelor’s degrees¹. While many companies have begun to review and audit their hiring processes looking for gender bias, very few look for bias in performance reviews, thus compounding the disadvantages women face in the workplace.  These biases result in occupational segregation and women holding fewer positions of responsibility which, in turn, exacerbates a wage gap between men and women. Women also receive less support from management teams and have less access to the resources and contacts they need to succeed and advance their careers. This lack of support and access adds up and serves to further depress the advancement women’s careers. Unlike men, women have to work harder, be more vocal, and provide more evidence of their knowledge and competence to be taken seriously in their positions. And still they will have their judgment questioned in their area of expertise. Women are also twice as likely as men to be mistaken for someone in a more junior position. Motherhood can also have a negative impact on a woman’s career.  41% of employees have children at home, and 17% of them do not benefit from the support of a partner in the house.¹ Women are far more likely than men to be single parents.   Having to balance these family and career responsibilities can further disadvantage women by limiting their ability to participate in business and networking opportunities outside of normal work hours. Sexual Harassment also plays a role in the inequality that women experience in the workplace. Ninety-eight percent of companies have clear policies prohibiting sexual harassment but in 2018 just 62% of employees said that they had received training or guidance that affirmed sexual harassment wouldn’t be tolerated.  Worse yet, 40% percent of employees think a sexual-harassment claim would not be fairly investigated or addressed by their company². So, how do you address these issues and create a more equitable workplace for women? You start by asking questions.  What percentage of your employees are women? What are their percentages by type of position?  Does the percentage of women decrease at higher levels of skill or responsibility? Are women being paid at the same levels men are? Now comes the hard part.  Understanding why. Why aren’t women better represented throughout your company?  Why aren’t they earning more? Why are their performance evaluations less likely to reflect outstanding ability?  Why are they earning less? Once you know where women truly stand in your company and the obstacles that they face, set goals for progress.  Right now, fewer than ⅓ of companies set diversity targets for hiring and promotions¹. If you don’t set goals, how will you know when you have achieved gender equality? To reach those goals you are going to need policies and training in place that ensure fair practices in hiring, mentoring, evaluation, and promotion processes.  That means clearly outlining in policy the the guidelines and actions that must be followed at every stage. You will also need to train your management teams and employees to recognize and push back against bias in hiring and promotions. The work doesn’t end there though.  In order to Foster an Inclusive Culture and create an environment where women feel safe and respected, you are going to need to track your progress, monitor the implementation of policies and practices, and hold everyone accountable.  For your gender equality initiatives to be effective though, your company must also have a clear reporting process and then swiftly address the biased and disrespectful behaviors that are brought to light. Don’t forget, training can’t be a once and done thing.  People are going to need refreshers. They will need to be reminded that gender equality is a priority and that the company is fully invested in making sure that biases behaviors are never allowed to flourish. Signup for the Newsletter Thomas, R., Cooper, M., Ph.D, Konar, E., Ph.D, Rooney, M., Noble-Tolla,, M., Ph.D, Bohrer, A., . . . Robinson,, N., Ph.D. (2018, October). Women in the Workplace 2018 (Rep.). Retrieved November 14, 2018, from LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company website: https://womenintheworkplace.com/ Krivkovich, A., Nadeau, M., Robinson, K., Robinson, N., Starikova, I., & Yee, L. (2018, October). Women in the Workplace 2018. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/women-in-the-workplace-2018

“Why don’t you do more to hide who you are?”   “Wouldn’t work be easier for you if people didn’t know?” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard these questions.  And maybe I could be less visible. Maybe I could wait longer to bring people into my confidence and trust.  Maybe it might be easier. . . at first . . . but, maybe it would lead to situations like ones I’ve already experienced where my identity as a transgender woman has come to light later in the cycle of a work relationship and caused all sorts of tensions and issues. So for me it’s easier to be upfront and let the issues happen early so that maybe we can work through them without all the trust issues and heartache.   When a person downplays or intentionally does not disclose a known stigmatized identity to better fit within a dominant culture, it’s called covering.   I have tried covering my identity at work and it didn’t always go well. The first time was when I was serving in the Army.  I knew that I felt like a girl but hadn’t really figured out how to assimilate the full truth of that.  By the end of my 3rd year in I was in crisis. I presented as male because that is what everyone thought I was.  But there came a time when I reached a point where I couldn’t will myself into the barber’s chair and I stopped forcing myself to remain emotionally distant from the men and women I served with.  It didn’t take long before I crossed a line that called attention to the fact that I was . . . well they decided on gay. But back in the 90’s admitting to your command, when confronted, that you felt like a girl meant gay because they didn’t have the language or understanding to know what transgender was and I had only learned what it meant a few months before leaving for Korea, myself. I ended up being discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Another time was when I actually began my transition.  It was exhausting hiding who I was all the time and I only lasted four months before I simply couldn’t go another day.  And, to be honest, at four months into my transition, I wasn’t even close to passing.  But being authentic and knowing I didn’t pass was so much easier than hiding who I am. There are four manifestations of covering: Appearance , which is when a person changes their self-expression; Advocacy , which is when a person avoids discussing topics central to their identity; Affiliation , which is when a person avoids behaviors associated with identity group; and Association , which is when a person intentionally avoids socializing with other members of their identity group. In the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s (HRC) 2018 report, A Workplace Divided: Understanding the Climate for LGBTQ Workers Nationwide, they discuss being closeted at work.  Which is a very common way of referring to covering one’s LGBTQIA+ identity. Here are some of their findings. 46% of LGBTQ workers are closeted at work. The top reasons given for not being open at work about their sexual orientation and gender identity are: Possibility of being stereotyped: 38% Possibly making people feel uncomfortable: 36% Possibility of losing connections or relationships with coworkers: 31% What this tells us that a significant number of people feel they need to cover their identities in order to fit and be effective in their positions.  But why is this a problem? And what impact does it really have? HRC’s report goes on to say that working in an unwelcoming environment can lead to the following outcomes: 25% of LGBTQ workers feeling distracted from work 17% felt exhausted from spending time and energy hiding their sexual orientation and 13% from hiding their gender identity 20% of LGBTQ workers avoided a special event at work such as lunch, happy hour, or a holiday party 25% of LGBTQ workers avoided certain people at work 31% felt unhappy or depressed at work 20% have stayed home from work because the workplace wasn’t always accepting of LGBTQ people 20% searched for a different job Look at all that lost productivity. And this missed opportunities for team building and collaboration.  And the loss of talent is no small issue either.  I focused on LGBTQIA+ issues in this article because being a transgender woman is a huge part of who I am and this affects me personally.  But there are many identity groups that an employee could belong to that they feel the need to cover.  Such as those who belong to religious minorities, those with a political affiliation that differs from the majority of their coworkers, racial minorities who are concerned that will feed negative stereotypes (This fear that they will live up to a negative stereotype about their identity group is called Stereotype Threat.), and many others. Fostering Inclusive Cultures in the workplace is important because it will allow your employees to be authentic and to build better relationships with their coworkers, clients, and customers.  Which, in turn, improves their productivity and potentially decreases the likelihood that they will seek employment elsewhere. Signup for the Newsletter

"Quiet Quitting is nothing more than employees setting boundaries based on the job expectations that employers disclosed at the time of hire. When a candidate accepts a position they are consenting to do the work as described. If you tell an employee that they will be doing a job with defined responsibilities on a set schedule for a specific wage and then expect them to go above and beyond that or to tolerate an erosion of those boundaries you are violating the consent they gave." ~ Jessica Jaymes Purdy Signup for the Newsletter

Employee experience is the summation of every program/activity an employee went through, saw, felt, or was involved in, as well as their work environment while with a particular company. It is essentially the journey an employee takes with the organization, otherwise known as the employee lifecycle. The employee lifecycle proceeds from the recruitment phase through the onboarding, development, retention, and exit phases. Your employees’ experience spreads across these stages. Organizational culture, on the other hand, refers to the shared beliefs and values (as defined by leaders of the organization and duly communicated to everyone) that guide people’s behavior within the organization. In other words, it is a set of practices, values, and behaviors that define your employees’ experience at work. In this post, we’ll zero in on the relationship between employee experience and organizational culture, and then look at how organizations like yours can improve your organizational culture. Why Organizational Culture is Important A critical thing to keep in mind is that your organizational culture has a direct impact on your employee experience. Whether or not an employee enjoys their time at a particular company will depend on the nuances of the company’s workplace culture and work environment. Studies also show that employee engagement is directly related to employee experience. In recent times, the direct interaction between workplace culture or organizational culture and employee experience has risen to become a major workplace challenge for a good number of organizations. To be a little more specific, culture matters because: It is important in creating and sustaining the identity of an organization. It provides a behavioral playbook for everyone, including leaders, within the organization. It influences employee engagement and allows companies to retain top talents for the long haul. With increased employee retention, organizational culture indirectly impacts productivity. It makes it easier to define and manage employees' experience. Your company’s culture is the expected social order within the organization; it defines what is accepted, shunned, celebrated, and discouraged in your organization. All of these can affect how employees behave and commit to their work. It is therefore safe to say that organizational culture impacts employee experience, which in turn affects employee engagement. How Organizational Culture Affects Employee Engagement and Productivity Many employers have realized that employee engagement and workplace culture are two critical workplace themes that are inextricably related. This means that if your workplace culture is structured in such a way that employees feel uncomfortable, excluded, unheard, unchallenged, or stressed at work, there’s a very high probability that you’ll likely lose your talents very fast. Gallup’s employee engagement report indicates that companies with a highly engaged workforce record 21% higher profitability. Nowadays, workers are not just looking for the fastest paycheck or the finest offices, but they are even more interested in the culture that exists in an organization. This is why diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging have taken center stage in staffing and HR management spheres. If your culture makes employees feel valued and cherished in the organization, you can expect to see their best, as their engagement will improve. For example, an organization that has a poor communication and feedback culture will find it difficult to carry everyone along with its vision and policies. If workers do not feel like they have a voice in the firm, they might as well look to work elsewhere where their opinions matter and they are kept in the loop. Considering that about 85% of employees become more engaged in the workplace when internal communication is effective , we can agree that a workplace culture promoting effective communication benefits business growth. What employers of today must know is that a good culture is a competitive advantage, after all, high turnover rates do not look good on any company. A hostile organizational culture will negatively affect productivity and increase the turnover rate as more employees feel disconnected from their work and the organization. How to Improve Your Organizational Culture There is no one-size-fits-all strategy to it. Organizational culture varies from one organization to another it changes frequently. However, some practices can help organizations - regardless of their industry or niche - to improve organizational culture: Define Your Business Goals, Mission, and Values Building an effective and purpose-driven organizational culture starts with revisiting your company goals, mission, and values. You want your organizational culture to align with your company’s purpose and interests. With this taken care of, organizational leadership can narrow down the core elements of their organizational culture and communicate them clearly to staff members and stakeholders. Review Your Existing Culture Companies must keep an eye out for workplace culture trends, then look back to their own culture and identify areas that are not in line with global best practices. You need to routinely evaluate your existing organizational culture to pinpoint areas you can tweak to improve your organizational culture. This is where the FIC Human Resources Partners’ Nuance Culture Consulting™ and Nuance Culture Surveys™ services become pretty handy for organizations. Nuance Culture Surveys offer you a series of integrated audits, assessments, and surveys to measure and define the organizational culture at the macro and microculture levels, as well as the workplace culture experience (inclusive of intended/permitted culture) throughout the employee lifecycle. Our Nuance Culture Consulting service is designed to offer you the coordination you need to implement a culture strategy that is tailored to your specific organizational needs. It involves: NUANCE Culture Development Program Culture Quality Audits DEI Policy Audits Policy Development Inclusion Policy Development Mission, Values, Goals Development Culture Initiative Planning Culture Training Goal Setting; Listening Tours Executive Roundtables Organizational and Career Mapping Pay equity Audits Improve Internal Communications Organizations thrive on effective communication. Leaders must encourage authentic, timely, and open communications with other staff members. Workers typically appreciate a work environment where everyone is encouraged to communicate and contribute freely. Two-way communication is typically the best, as it creates a seamless communication structure between leaders/executives, subordinates, and co-employees. Encourage and Reward Great Performances Consider appreciating and adequately rewarding high-performing employees as part of your core values. Rewards and appreciation are morale boosters. When the business does well, consider adding more bonuses to employees’ paychecks. To ensure that outstanding employees are properly appreciated, you might need to review your existing rewards and recognition program and make changes. Train and Engage Employees While the company’s leadership is responsible for formulating the policies and culture that define the organization, employees are the ones who run with the policies and bring the culture to life. So, engaging employees as you create and adjust your organizational culture is a critical part of the process. As employees shift their behavior and work approach to align with the organizational culture, it grows organically from within the organization. Besides this, you want to also ensure that your employees are provided with enough training and development opportunities to help them grow in their careers. Create a Flexible Work Environment As part of our efforts to help organizations stay ahead of the talent game, we encourage them to focus their resources on promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in the workplace. These are key ingredients that we believe should be part of every culture. The work policy should also be flexible enough to allow employees to work from the comfort of their homes if necessary. Finally, flexibility here also means creating room for feedback from employees and making adjustments that allow them to work autonomously or with less supervision. Feel free to reach out to learn more about how your organization can leverage our Nuance Culture Consulting™ and Nuance Culture Surveys™ services to build an effective organizational culture that allows your company to thrive. Signup for the Newsletter