2019-05-16 - 6:18 p.m.
I tried to address how those with disabilities are viewed in the workplace by speaking to someone at work whom I thought was the right person.
Amazing my conversation was not private, but rather than flowing UP to the policy makers (those I wanted the person I talked to , to address- thought I was clear about regulatory language omitting the word "disability" in its equal opportunity language as the concern I feel it appropriate for Company LEADERSHIP to be aware of; apparently my communication was deemed "poor; scattered; all over the place" and that feedback was given to my immediate boss and the boss' supervisor. A main point of my conversation was that one's communication should not be criticized ONLY AFTER raising a disability rights issue! REALLY I think that ironic and hilarious that perhaps that point was lost?
In a way the response just codified my view there is a problem! The response was EXACTLY the kind of thing I was attesting needs to change!
Flow down of feedback on my communication being unclear and not organized in presentation of ideas is what I got along with a warning that the conversation will affect my professional review. I commented that this conversation was out of the scope of my daily work, tasks and work with my team - and the response I got was that BEHAVIORS are evaluated and part of scope of our work. Communication is a behavior, and those are 50% so it will be hard for my boss to make a case for my positive contribution!
Just amazing, and in same breath boss shared all the POSITIVE comments of peers and that same individual (who got the complaint and shared it with my boss). So its again a case of worry about perception of the leader at top being all that matters. I started out the conversation with leader at top sharing the view that is the impression, and because of such weight of the one opinion there is this chilling effect of people being comfortable sharing views. There is such fallout if their view differs in alignment with the top view in our part of org.
I hope there is at least as much attention to the CONTENT of what I shared as my delivery.
I articulated the content to my boss in a way deemed clear by my boss. Ce la vie..
It's just disappointing.
Super busy week. At library to print kids school assignments. Got to a couple Dr. offices and wrote letters for POTS accommodation, etc... etc.
Got a few smiles from that flirt, but that will likely be about it as at end of day once I get home from work and the managing of child's needs, then cook and feed the fam, and do the housework and last night had to say YES to youngest child's request to play a game with her of course, well then it is time to crash.
I am up super early, busy days, then in bed super early. The only thing keeping me up is the router shut off time which is PAST my natural bedtime! I get up to shut it off @ 10:30 so teens go to sleep. Next year that will be earlier as they don't stop doing anything until 10:30 pm and the intent was for that to be bedtime (So need an hour without electronics for brain to shut off before then!)... only a few more weeks left in this year....
Sometimes they go to bed earlier on own, but most often NOT. I do think they are adversely affected by being on line too long and too late. Honestly think withholding electronics and games is a GREAT idea for any parent for AS LONG as one can get away with that! I think had they been introduced earlier the problems associated would have just manifest earlier.
Good news is I did get the essentials done this week.
Taking care of house and car can wait til next week.....
Exhausted but will go home and prepare and eat dinner and either get to bed to get up super early to catch up on work I need to attend to (for work!); or do it tonight as I did have to work on medical care during office hrs. Can't fall BEHIND as criticized again for my communication when bringing up disability advocacy issues in workplace.
I am just too old to be quiet about this. Seriously, I am just too confident. Either they want to grow in this area as a company or not. Either I grow with them or find somewhere else to grow.
If you are a fed, check YOUR agency language for inclusion and hiring. Did IT change in the past year? The change may be undetected as it is as subtle, yet as serious, as the omission of one word from federal regulatory language:
the word "disability".
YEAH I refuse to silent about that issue.
If the feedback is accurate my delivery was awful, scattered, all over the place, disorganized and unclear
Well that means I have to just deliver the message again more clearly. I will find time to work on that.
To me it is really simple:
There is no such thing as inclusion if it is only "Invisible".
This phrase : "Invisible Inclusion" is offensive. There is not actual inclusion for those with disabilities in the workplace UNLESS those with disabilities (and I don't CARE WHAT THE DISABILITY) are accepted when their disability is VISIBLE.
*If they choose for it to be.
But the choice should be a valid and accepted one.
I think it is really less than an issue of my communication not being clear, but more frustration that when I call out bad behavior to show examples of how employees need growth I REFUSE to NAME NAMES or GIVE SPECIFICS as this is not an issue of anyone's individual problem at not understanding inclusiveness. It is a much bigger issue. But that makes me seem not clear. I dance around facts. I don't call out particulars EVEN Though there are a # of particular moments of insensitivity of comments and downright awful things said in response to the issue of MY disability having been mentioned (when job related by me- or mentioned inappropriately by others at times.) I just don't let those moments go but try to address the bigger issue.
That is in fact a start of raising awareness. A necessary step unfortunately- we have to look at the ugly realities in life to ever change them.
So I have to believe there was SOME effectiveness of my communication or no one would have been upset by it.