Account-ability: human rights in disability conversation

In the professional realm, the articulation of accountability within the framework of Equality & Diversity is pivotal. This approach also provides a lens through which to examine and address disablism and ableism in everyday practices. 

This post touches on:

- The Voices of Disabled People and THEIR Civil Rights Movement

Recognition of disabled individuals as the primary authors of their narrative, but foremost for business the role of D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations in articulating a collective story of shared interests
- Trust as a Foundation for Inclusive Practice 
 Accountability is viewed as a journey where positive exchanges contribute to a bank of trust, which serves as a buffer against lapses in practice, fostering a workplace environment guided by respect.
- Beyond Financial Considerations:
Accountability can be measured as the amount of time given in conversation to the interests of the disabled population [as defined by the Sustainable Development Goals].
- Account-Ability and the Social Model
The Social Model is used as a way of offering an alternative to the legitimacy gap as defined in the previous post.

This post addresses the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, which deal with inequality, sustainable institutions, governance, and peace & justice.

Expressing Interests Equitably:

Disabled individuals are the primary authors of their narratives. The story they tell is a manifestation of their interests and experiences. Recognising and valuing their self-expression, professional knowledge, and group voice is fundamental in fostering an inclusive environment.

 

The Role of Civil Rights Organisations:

 

In the tapestry of disabled people's voices, civil rights movements play a crucial role. D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations serve as storytellers, articulating a narrative of shared interests. Their legitimacy is derived from being accountable to the disabled population, providing a genuine reflection of the challenges and interests within and across communities of disabled people.

 

Trust as a Currency

 

Accountability can be viewed as a journey where positive exchanges contribute to a bank of trust. When leaders appreciate the contributions of disabled individuals, acknowledging and adding to the metaphorical pot, the trust they demonstrate can help build a culture of mutual respect. Trust becomes a buffer, positive feeling in cases of inadvertent lapses in appropriate language, for example, fostering a workplace where communication is guided by respect.

 

Response Ability and the Social Model:

 

The Social Model, a cornerstone of critical disability theory, offers an alternative perspective to the prevalent Medical Model [see Figure 2]. It represents a recognizable voice guiding organizational conversations away from individualized or medicalized problem-solving. Instead, it promotes shared responsibility, recognizing Disabled people as a civil rights group with a legitimate voice for human rights accountability. The daily disadvantages faced by Disabled individuals are not solely physical; the model also highlights the societal fear and lack of understanding perpetuating discrimination.  In essence, accountability transcends mere policies; it is a collective journey undertaken by all workers. Shifting organisational storytelling to be able to count disabled people 'in' requires a holistic and inclusive approach. Each member of the workforce plays a crucial role in creating an environment free from discrimination, and fostering a workplace culture guided by respect, trust, and shared responsibility. By embracing these principles, organisations can truly become equitable by laying the groundwork for workplaces that are not only inclusive but also empowering for all.

 

Beyond Financial Considerations:

 

Accountability to the disabled population, 10% of any group, must not be compartmentalised into single policies or departments. The notion that 'disability' can be confined to a stand-alone file contradicts the idea that every worker may identify, and can willingly and effectively respond to prevent discrimination or speak out against injustice. Accountability can be measured as the amount of time devoted to talking about the disabled population's interests - not any one individual's preferences. In my work, I plotted these along five axes representing a human rights discourse: political, public, innovative, financial; and civic.

 

Shared Responsibility for Inclusive Environments:

 

The Social Model, like the Medical Model, is a shorthand for critical disability theory - as put forward by Disabled people.  A recognisable voice which represents an alternative perspective. The concept of response-ability, can be strengthened by the Social Model [Disability Studies], and urges organisations to embrace a shared responsibility. Through its lens Disabled people are not viewed merely as individuals with specific needs, but as a civil rights group advocating for human rights. The Social Model shines a light on the societal factors contributing to discrimination, emphasising the need to address fear, lack of understanding, and inequality alongside physical barriers.

The task of altering environments to eliminate disadvantages for disabled workers should not be the responsibility of a select few. Instead, it necessitates a collective effort from all workers. Shifting organizational storytelling to be accountable to disabled people requires a comprehensive and inclusive approach, where each member of the workforce actively contributes to creating an environment free from discrimination.

Conclusion 

In this exploration of accountability, it is evident that the power of disabled people's voices and civil rights movements is paramount. Recognising disabled individuals as the authors of their narrative and acknowledging the role of D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations in articulating shared experiences creates a foundation of authenticity and understanding.

 

Empowering Inclusion: The Power of Respectful Language in Conversation

Introduction:

In the realm of disability discourse, the choice of words becomes a potent tool to articulate barriers, disadvantages, and discrimination. This blog delves into the nuances of language policy, advocating for a mindful consideration of the words we choose and the profound impact they carry. By challenging negative narratives and stereotypes, we can cultivate a culture of inclusivity and understanding within organizations.

Respectful Language

Current terminology surrounding disability often carries negative and medical connotations, perpetuating myths prevalent in everyday conversations. Words like 'disability' attempt to encapsulate 'personal difference,' 'labelled group,' and 'inequality.' However, the focus should shift towards promoting respectful language that prompts individuals to contemplate the meaning and context of their choices, especially in public documents where terminology plays a crucial role in defining organisational culture.

The Workplace as a Potential Source of Barriers:

The workplace, often unintentionally, presents barriers through organisational and institutional practices that may contribute to disabling people. It is crucial for professionals to feel empowered to participate fully, irrespective of whether they have impairments themselves.

Words to Use with Care in the UK:

1. Ableism: A societal oppression embedded in workplace language, comparable to other forms of systemic discrimination such as homophobia, racism, sexism, classism, ageism, or religious intolerance.

 2.D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations: Organisations and groups run by Disabled people, including those who identify as Deaf and/or have their own language, such as British Sign Language in the UK.

3. Institutional Discrimination: Organisational oppression directly affecting disabled people, unchallenged within the workplace and across institutional boundaries.

4. Disabled People: The capital 'D' is used by those aligning with the Disabled People’s Movement, reflecting a political choice rooted in Disability Studies. In the UK, 'disabled people / dp' is preferred over 'people with disabilities.'

5. The Disabled Population: Acknowledging the large number of individuals experiencing ableism, 'population' denotes a statistical group. Not all disabled people identify with being Disabled, or join the Disabled People’s Movement, and some may not even like the term 'disabled.'

6.The D/deaf and Disabled People’s Civil Rights Movement: A network of disabled individuals, some supported by allies, viewed as a civil rights group, comparable to feminist or anti-racist movements.

Myths and Assumptions:

1. Scale: Challenge the myth that disabled people are a small, separate group by describing them as the 'world majority'—1 to 2 in 10 people could identify as disabled.

2. Fitting In: Avoid polarising disabled people as a separate subgroup. Instead, recognise them as part of a population facing common disadvantages.

3. Societal Impact and External Cost: Present any cost of employing disabled individuals as a good investment to secure a more inclusive culture and a larger talent pool.

4. Illness and Institutional Practice: Differentiate between illness and disability to prevent viewing the disabled as having a problem to be cured.

5. Personal/Private Boundaries: give disability and illness separate definitions in workplace conversations /policy/guidelines in order to address the barriers, discrimination, and inequality the disabled population face with intent.

The Legitimacy Gap – The Medical Model:

An ethical articulation of accountability is one that qualifies equality and diversity, and helps all workers speak with confidence when addressing ableism in everyday practice.

A legitimacy gap arises when organisational storytelling fails to demonstrate accountability, and diverges significantly from a narrative that hours the interests of the disabled population. 

Acknowledging the character of this gap, for example, the significance of the Medical Model, allows business leaders to respond effectively in both personal and public conversations by addressing specific barriers, discrimination and injustice disabled people face in conversation.

In Conclusion:

Understanding and embracing respectful language while dispelling myths in conversation about disability can help organisations create an inclusive and empowering environment for all. By fostering a culture of awareness and sensitivity, business leaders can contribute to breaking down barriers and promoting equality within our workplaces and beyond.

The Disability Employment Gap – A Closer Look

This blog sheds light on the gap in work opportunity for the disabled population. By exploring how:

- Workplaces often fall short in recruiting and promoting disabled workers, and

- They unwittingly contribute to the injustice imposed on the disabled population. 

EMPLOYMENT 

The low employment rate of disabled people is a human rights issue, which leads to a higher likelihood that disabled individuals struggle to secure employment and face extended periods of unemployment. The scope of the disabled population is larger than commonly thought. For instance, in a company of 1,000 employees, roughly one in ten, or 100 workers, may have impairments, whether they identify as disabled or not. This figure is significantly greater than the number of individuals parked in the few accessible bays outside the building. However, many people underestimate the size and diversity of the disabled population as a whole. Consequently, they tend to underestimate the extent of the problem and the cost of the disability employment gap to both the industry and society.

Clearly, the issue goes beyond the occasional lack of personal fit. Effective inclusive practices remain inconsistent, partly due to the diversity of impairments. While most differences have likely found accommodations in some form, overall inclusive practices are not yet a reality that disabled professionals can take for granted. Organisations and institutions often serve as sources of injustice, as disabled workers possess no less experience, skill, or wisdom than their non-disabled colleagues. However, they encounter far more barriers than most employers imagine. Many depend on organisations willing to take action to address the disadvantages they face. For business leaders, the challenge is to align organisational change to benefit both disabled individuals and the broader working community.

Culture Shock

• The unemployment rate is 1 in 4, which drops substantially for people with learning disabilities, compared to 1 in 10 for others.

• Fewer than 1 in 10 disabled individuals are currently employed, in contrast to 1 in 10 non-disabled people. This disparity has repercussions extending beyond finances, affecting well-being, self-esteem, relationships, and health.

• An astonishing 86% of all disabled people in the UK acquire their disability during the course of their working lives.

• The employment rate for disabled people stands at 45.4%, while non-disabled individuals have an employment rate of 81.2%, resulting in a substantial gap of 35.8 percentage points.

Why Being Seen at Work Matters

Efforts have frequently focused on accommodating impairments, with training solutions targeting frontline staff, while senior leadership teams have received less attention. Understandably, this has led to resistance from workers who felt overwhelmed by the amount they needed to learn. Moreover, without support from decision-makers, there has been minimal funding for strategy implementation. Additionally, it seems that disability training, when provided, often receives less time and attendance compared to other equality strands. This poses a challenge, as professionals realize the depth and breadth of knowledge required to address these issues. Many now recognize that without the backing of senior management, leadership teams, and boards, strategies often fail to align and achieve the necessary changes. Time-consuming and costly individual-level adjustments rarely result in significant departmental transformations within a company's purpose. Therefore, viewed in this way, few organizations do nothing, most take some action, and many could do more.

The net result is that few do nothing, most do something, and far more could make better use of what can and is being done together.

The importance of being visible at work lies in creating clear boundaries between private and public discourse, dispelling myths and uncertainties about disability, and fostering inclusivity. In the workplace, error is rarely as problematic as silence. People are generally flexible and understanding when they make an effort to use mindful language. However, in public documents and within organisations, terminology becomes far more critical, as it shapes the culture and values of an organization. Therefore, being seen at work and fostering open discussions about disability is pivotal in bridging the gap and promoting a culture of inclusivity.

Ableism - Lifting The Veil

Ableism: 

I will be posting a series of posts dealing with tackling ableism at work. The handbook capturing the series can be found here.

A Silhouette of Silence 

 

This piece outlines the challenges and limitations of addressing the aspects of culture and language that disadvantage disabled people. The first three sections specifically address ontological and epistemological issues that must be addressed before methodology or literature can be discussed.

 

I argue that experimental science is not an appropriate methodology for this type of research, as it is inherently oppressive to disabled people. Instead, I want to say that a caring methodology,  a feminist approach, for example, respects disabled people's experiences and perspectives. Research also needs to be emancipatory, meaning that it should seek to empower participants and challenge the systems that disadvantage them. Research, therefore, needs to be grounded in a social constructionist perspective of co-production, which means that it should be conducted in collaboration.

I  conclude by discussing the importance of language and culture in shaping the experiences and argue that ableism is often reinforced through language and culture unwittingly, therefore important to be mindful of this when conducting research.

Here are some key points:

·      Ableism is a form of oppression that disadvantages disabled people.

·      Traditional positivist experimental science is not an appropriate methodology for researching disability, as it is inherently oppressive.

·      Interpretivist-inductive methodology is a more respectful and emancipatory approach to researching disability.

·      Research on disability should be grounded in a social constructionist perspective of co-production, meaning that it should be conducted in collaboration with disabled people.

·      Language and culture play an important role in shaping the experiences of disabled people.

 

This blog critically examines the concept of ableism and its profound impact on d/Disabled individuals. I want to explore the social and systemic barriers faced by disabled individuals, emphasizing the urgent need for organisations and society to acknowledge and address these challenges. Accountability may be addressed by promoting the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, which deal with inequality,  institutions, governance, and peace & justice.

This piece encourages readers to reflect on their own biases, become advocates for disability rights, and actively contribute to positive change.

 

I. Introduction:

The issue of ableism has long been a subject of concern in contemporary society, I aim to provide a summary and analysis into the intricacies of this pervasive form of discrimination. By examining insights, we aim to shed light on the social and systemic barriers faced by disabled individuals.

 

II. Understanding Ableism:

Ableism refers to the prejudice and discrimination experienced by disabled individuals, stemming from societal attitudes and infrastructural barriers. This post emphasises an urgent need for society to recognise and address these challenges, as they significantly impact the human rights of disabled individuals.

 

III. Unveiling Social and Systemic Barriers:

I want to emphasise the importance of recognising and dismantling social and systemic barriers that perpetuate ableism. These barriers include inaccessible physical environments, limited educational opportunities, employment discrimination, and social stigmatization. Such barriers limit the full participation and inclusion of disabled individuals in various aspects of society.

 

IV. Promoting Equality and Opportunities:

In order to combat ableism, more needs to be done at strategic levels to address equality and opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their abilities. It highlights the significance of fostering understanding and empathy towards disabled people, I encourage readers to reflect on their own biases and assumptions.

 

V. Advocacy for Disability Rights:

The post serves as a call to action, urging readers to become advocates for disability rights. By raising awareness about the challenges faced by disabled individuals and engaging in open and respectful conversations, we can challenge ableism at both an individual and societal level.

 

VI. Conclusion:

In conclusion, the blogs that follow will provide a thought-provoking framework to explore the issue of ableism and its impact on disabled people. The crucial role of equality, understanding, and equal opportunities in fostering a more equitable society. By actively challenging ableism and advocating for disability rights, we can collectively work towards building a more inclusive and accepting world.

 

Be the challenge!

Challenging inequality is everyone’s business.  

Be the difference!

 

 

 

  

This presentation can help with a supported conversation about leadership, Equality & Diversity and inclusive practice with a view to organisational change. 

 

Currently, from a professional perspective, many of us face ethical decisions on a daily basis. Whether from a personal perspective or within our working roles. Our daily activity has an impact far beyond the organisation in society. It seems that our companies are contributing far more to social inequality than we would like to acknowledge. 

 

On sustainability, to quote Naomi Klein, "What can I do as an individual?" 

 

She says, "the first thing is to stop thinking of yourself as an individual. So you're likely to be far more influential and really come into your full capacity if you connect up with others. So if you work in a company, try and transform that company, if you're senior within a company, then try and transform your institution. If you're the head of an institution, then team up with other institutions and try and shift the whole narrative of society and so on…"

 

I use Kahane’s ideas to articulate the tension between power and love, to explore a few of the many challenges of leader-ing in practice and policy.  Because sadly, we do not view community action as leadership activity. what is currently understood as leadership in common terms, is loud speech, personal heft, and visibility,  but not values-led questioning and moral strength: power and love.  

  

 I would like to explore the tensions brought by the challenge to balance power and love. The precarious position we between small and big picture, reconciling groups - ‘them’ and ‘us’, articulating prejudice, discrimination and inequality, understanding alternative views, and being aware of legislation and an social justice imperative. 

 

I talk not of sentimental romantic love, but a tangible positive regard for humanity, a wish to see others flourish.   What Barry Schwartz calls an application of professional wisdom that aims to better the lives others.  

 

I ask: What happens when we care enough to articulate love in our work?  When starting with our own jobs, within our teams, we go further to acknowledge a shared power, using an understanding of our community's knowledge critically.

 

I conclude that leader-ring needs congruence! A balance in the tensions between love and power. As Sergiovanni suggests, it’s a movement of head, heart and hand together. So that we can stand against what is wrong in the world. It’s a way of being that is far more likely to stand against prejudice, discrimination and inequality. Viewed as balance  leadering brings us to articulate the tension between power and love that drives our passion for justice.

 

Equality & Diversity and inclusive practice: research and knowledge 

 

For over two decades - well 3 - I have explored the rights of marginalised groups. My PhD research explored legitimacy, that is the organisational response to the voice of the civil rights movement. I used conversation as a measure of accountability. The way I read it, leadership is about action, not position, therefore, I use leadering here to suggest both direction and movement. I am leadering on this, I’m not a leader. 

 

I became aware in my work with professionals, that disability is rarely mentioned in strategic conversation - it tends to be viewed as a personal problem and an operational concern. An ideal for organisational accountability was informed by well-being, disability equality, social justice and human rights literature.  Unintentionally, it appears, an organisation’s impact on the disabled population is largely unaccounted for - not told or costed – and the specific systemic inequalities affecting the population are rarely spoken of as leadering. 

 

I am not a fan of giving leadership an epithet. I think those who act with courage, moral purpose, and in inspiring, transformational, quiet, imperfect, dynamic, and fierce ways… are all part of strategic change. To me, leadering means being in the moment, and addressing an imperfect status quo. 

In introducing leadership as a state of being whole, Sergiovanni puts forward the idea of congruence of head, heart and hand - all working as one. The head holds the theories of practice and ideas that inspire change. The heart holds the beliefs, hopes and values that make up vision. The hand is our action, our movement, activism and ways of working. I use leadering, the being in every situation, where we are challenged to bring them together. Positively, if not easily, or fluently, but with a degree of momentum.  

 

 

From mindscapes to landscapes

 

We would be foolish to assume that it’s easy to achieve a fair society. If it was easy, we would have cracked it! We would all live in an equitable world. 

 

the stories we tell are shaped by implicit distortion - if not for explicit gain [see green- and business- washing]. where communication is intended for public view a company’s tale can be worded for those beyond its walls, often boasting a ‘value’ narrative poorly reflecting community ‘values’ - things not people. Rarely are organisational accounts co-authored, offering a shared narrative including community voices equitably.

 

organisational stories rarely challenge cultures, as they omit the tensions that silence, gate-keep knowledge, mould ideas, or silence diverse voices within our workspace. Unwittingly, therefore, they tend to echo more mainstream storytelling, one that denies group experience, specific sensitivity, and trustworthy knowledge.  

 

How do we share the challenges of tension?  By changing personal practice, department policy, or organisational culture maybe?  It’s hard to say exactly what may not bring about world change. But growing evidence suggests the bigger the group,h the more pronounced its probable impact will be on locality. Therefore, ethically don't we have a personal duty to take action in order to unlock a community's movement that changes culture?

Overall Tension: Power and love

 

To articulate balance, I draw on Kahane’s ideas of power and love, by stating that needs to be both probable and desirable.  The love part, speaks to a force for good, a positive regard for humanity. Where ‘Love is the other-acknowledging, other-respecting, other-helping drive that reunites the separated’. The power is a strength to acknowledge and stand against inequality in the bigger picture...  

 

Because, leadering that doesn’t aim for better with intentionality is no leadership action at all. A flawed assumption, unlike mistakes, is an important distinction here. Action that doesn’t acknowledge the probable impact on organisational, institutional and societal change is not strategic. This doesn’t mean that what does unintended harm is wrong - so much as activity devoid of strategic impact has no power or love. Such activity may the only a show of muscle, abuse of force, loud voices, or acres of wordage aimed at getting seen.  Sadly, it seems we’re drawn to the charismatic in times of crisis, assumptions trump what we believe [pun intended!). According to Kahneman, we’re often unable - or unlikely- to think deeply when we’re stressed or anxious, so we rely on stereotypes and act with prejudice in times of crisis.

 

Tension: ‘we’ and ‘they’, civil rights groups and culture 

   

It is not up to individuals from marginalised groups to be more fluent about their experiences of rejection and disadvantage; the onus is on those leading to address discrimination. The tension challenge is to understand the nature and harm imposed through culture. Because its impact on those experiencing inequality is traumatising, the experience need not be asked of each individual- they may not have words - the evidence can be found within growing forests of texts. Trying to articulate which groups are most disadvantaged by organisational activity is a good place to start. Naming the ‘they’ not included in the ‘we’ of daily living?

 

Acknowledging that difference is missing in our workplace, is a far bigger job than most believe. Truth is the problem of exclusion is greater than a lack of individual fit, since many of those rejected by ‘organisational culture’ have no less experience, skill or wisdom. 

 

As Schwartz suggests professional wisdom means knowing diversity has been accommodated somewhere, yet it still seems barriers are substantial. Variation means that the practice of accommodating individuality remains patchy. People from marginalised groups still face far greater barriers than most imagine. For those leading, the challenge is therefore to sit in the tension between what we do and what we could do, in order to benefit those currently denied a welcome within the wider community equitably [sustainable development goals].

 

 Tension: Globe-local

The climate emergency: "Lawrence Wainwright & Eileen Neumann... stats about the impact of heat waves on people's mental health, including, for example, every 1% rise in monthly average temperature leads to a 2.2% rise in mental health health deaths"

Countless examples hit our screens daily, decisions affecting many unfairly, often imposing inhumane conditions on the hardest hit. The three-fold risk experienced by disabled people during the current COVID-19 pandemic results from: a greater risk of negative outcomes from the disease itself; a greater risk of reduced access to routine healthcare and rehabilitation which differentially affects them; and the damaging impacts of policy, strategy and planning efforts to mitigate the pandemic

 

For many years, groups of activists, those opposing sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia, have drawn our attention to hate crime, discrimination, societal disadvantage and global inequality.  You’ll be aware of the Me Too campaign, and the Black Lives Matter movement.  As a group within this movement, Disabled people and deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations, have fought for the rights of the disabled population for half a century.  More specifically the mobilised on a shared list of interests. unlike some charities and research which have focused on single issues or perceived problems - often problems defined by clinicians or researchers acting on their assumptions about a named group’s lived experience.

 

As Klein says: "Slavery wasn’t a crisis for British and American elites until abolitionism turned it into one!  Racial discrimination wasn’t a crisis until the civil rights movement. Sex discrimination wasn’t a crisis until feminism ... Apartheid wasn’t a crisis until the anti-apartheid movement".

 

This shows how important the voices from each ‘community’ are to highlighting the challenges each group faces.  We are facing an ethical crisis when we ignore those most disadvantaged by existing practice and policy, yet these won’t change without specific challenges from those disadvantaged by them. 

 

 Tension: More or less inequality?

As Wolff states, Health inequalities have risen since the inception of the NHS.

 

Given present inequality, its impact on disadvantaged groups, can we even talk of our work as a power to show respect towards individuals, groups and localities?

 

Taking time to speak of inequality and disadvantage, makes the conversation more nuanced. As we speak of our actions which impact the world more widely. Our voice, a response, an accountability not solely to those within our organisations but to those in the space beyond them.  Being able to articulate the challenges faced by some, but not others, demonstrates our intent and commitment to those most in need. We can’t change the world, but stating the inequality within it. A statement of recognition = the expression of our love.

 

If working groups do not reflect the diversity of the communities they serve; Who gets to challenge the harm imposed on marginalised groups?  Having to really think about the impact of strategic decisions really challenges our assumptions about equality. Are we putting the power of the organisation to everyone’s benefit equitably?  

  

Tension:  alternative voice and equal measure 

 As research suggests strategic approaches are rarely equitable or measured fairly. Testimonial evidence suggests a need to focus on more than one characteristic. Because if we pick, say classism, without also addressing religious intolerance - we fail many because in some areas people of Muslim faith are working-class. Clearly, the cumulative effect of group identity is also likely to impose more hardship on those facing the most discrimination and greater disadvantage overall.

 

An organisation wishing to represent its human rights imperative, can choose to state the interests of a marginalised population within its accounts by making them explicitly within its storytelling. While keeping its integrity and purpose.  This articulated responsibility, will provide a more trustworthy account of any dialogue with a named group. If the dialogue is skewed, say people with certain identities silences, then the population is mis-represented. Only those with a recognisable authority will be heard. The organisational account is only of a legitimate dialogue, articulating equity explicitly, where a shared decision about interests and fair participation in stewardship has been made. Very few organisations will achieve this intentionally.

 

In matters of equality and diversity, therefore, experience, self-knowledge and professional education guides us on work needed. Less a search for opposites to identifiers [make vs female], more resistance to the oppression weighing on each group [facing ableism.

 

This is far from a fanciful request, as the imperative to address inequality is also a legislative duty.

 

Tension: Strength and criticality

Stronger together, to quote Putnam, is to have more power as a team and to for our challenge to reach beyond our roles. More than a network, community implies mutuality and heart. From the French words for shared and united, ‘unités communes’, community implies a spirit of public responsibility.  Applied to Equality, Diversity and inclusive practice, this means the addition of minoritised voices, the interests of the civil rights movement. They share, yet unique voices of activists, anti-racists, feminists, queer activists, anti-classists and anti-ableists. 

 

Undoubtedly intent is key, the challenge is to resist the easy assumptions of ‘same share’, in order to demonstrate both our love for diversity and our power to create a community space. Individuals within civil rights groups may then be more willing to raise their voices against the violence they experience. In order to resist injustice - their power against the status quo, love of those disadvantaged.

 

 Tension: balancing the personal and the public 

 

Introduced as a state of being whole, or wholehearted, Sergiovanni puts forward the idea of leadership action as the congruence of head, heart and hand. In the moment, moving in ways that bring ideas, hope, and values that help shape vision. Leadership action is every situation in which we are challenged to bring together head, heart and hand, if not easily, or fluently, with a degree of congruence. I have used this idea to frame the implications of accountability - being and doing - with knowledge, wisdom, and willingness in practice. In opposing injustice, leadership activity aims to lessen the inequality that hits the disadvantaged the hardest.

 

Just ‘any effort’ isn’t sufficient, practice needs to be with the right effort and have a deliberate direction. While good, best and proactive practice sometimes equate, when operational is strategic, it is rarely unintentional. Because being better at treating people unfairly will rarely achieve more equitable outcomes. Practice might need to change to avoid the very activity that compounds the structural discrimination and inequality experienced by so many. Addressing power, especially that ill-used, means different actions are required at individual, team and organisational levels as acts of love.

 

In a metaphor for accountability, Camie the chameleon, epitomises an intentional intent within organisational purpose in everyday practice.    As suggested by Sinclair’s writings, the idea of a chameleon serves well because, as a reptile that can change its colours to represent its surroundings, as the picture illustrates the beastie still manages to clearly display the colours of others without changing itself as a being.  

 

 

Resolving tension: Seeking a legitimacy  Rye crispbread recipe - BBC Food

 

A shorthand for lack-of-accountability, the legitimacy gap, is often a prejudiced or biased response, a reaction to myth, rather an acknowledgement of voice.  The legitimacy gap refers to the amount organisational storytelling differs from the interests of marginalised groups. Because professionals tend to overvalue their personal experience rather than attempting to address their assumptions with evidence or working wisdom of others [them and us]…

 

In accounts, more typical voices are louder than divergent ones, so that ideas are more readily accepted if supported by a wider narrative however prejudiced.   We seem happier to tell – and re-tell – our side of the story.

 

 

Those with power, who acknowledge the significance of equality, can more ably respond in both personal, organisational and public conversations by talking of barriers, discrimination and injustice with nuance.  Pragmatic equality, or justice for marginalised groups, requires that discrimination does not add to the other hardship in the world…   Another way of thinking about it, according to Wolff, might be to say that a world that is pragmatically equitable in respect of groups should contain the same degree of inequality between people as there is between individuals that are not marginalised in society.

 

To lead It is everyone's responsibility, and therefore to sit between perfection and overwhelm.  'Whelming' in the duty to do enough to deepen and widen understanding, while not drowning in guilt and feelings of powerlessness.

 

Leadering 

From an organisational perspective, accountability is legitimate storytelling, that tells of organisational life with a degree of authority. Including voices of professionals, research, community groups and individuals within the locality. Accountability is demonstrated in the willingness to hear with heart and respond with care. 

 

The deviation- gap or greenwashing -  is evidenced when an individual or group denies an experience they will not acknowledge. Eg. When pain is dismissed in the hearing of racism, voices are silenced as individuals' difficult behaviour, denying structural discrimination [think #METOO #BLM].  Furthermore, where communication is intended for the public, the organisational tale can be explicitly worded for those beyond its walls.

 

Legitimate tales will be those which do not omit challenging truths, however unique or uncomfortable. A telling that seeks instead to honour shared voices. If not co-authored, offering a shared narrative, avoiding the distortions embedded in society, stories shaped by implicit untruths. 

 

 

 

Summing up

 

This presentation has explored the implications of leader-ring with love and power. 

1. Balancing the big and small picture in overarching debates;

2. Balancing personal preconceptions, organisational stories and global narratives.

3. Balancing accepted views, alternative voices and challenging ideas.

4. Whelming: Balancing a vast learning curve and doing enough!

5. Balancing the legislative duty and a moral imperative.

6. Seeking a legitimate accountability 

 

From a responsible business perspective moving towards a community perspective with personal agency, is a way of aligning love and power to Sustainable Development Goals.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Dr Chapman, L. (2020). Exploring accountability, human rights and legitimacy from a disability equality perspective . Retrieved from UBIRA E THESES: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/10453/

Fullan, M. (2011). The Moral Imperative Realized. Thousand Oakes: Corwin sage.

Hall, K. (2011). Feminist Disability Studies [Kindle Edition]. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Kahane, A. (2010). Power and Love; A Theory and Practice of Social Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.

Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate . London: Penguin.

McKnight, J., & Block, P. (2010). The Abundant Community, Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhood. San Fransisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.

Mouffe, C. (2014). Democracy, human rights and cosmopolitanism: an agonistic approach. In C. Douzinas & C. Gearty (Eds.), The Meanings of Rights: The Philosophy and Social Theory of Human Rights (pp. 181-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S. (2014). The Village Effect: Why Face-to-face Contact Matters [Kindle Edition]. London: Random House.

Putnam, R. (2003). Better Together, Restoring the American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ryan, F. (2019). Crippled: Austerity and the Demonization of Disabled People . London: Verso Books.

Schwarts, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing [Kindle Edition] .New York: Riverhead Books .

Sergiovanni, T. (1985). Landscapes, mindscapes, and reflective practice in supervision. Journal of curculum and seprevision, No 1.5-17 5.

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). The Virtues of Leadership. The Educational Forum, 112-123.

Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability. Accounting Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 219-237.

Thompson, N. (2007). Power and Empowerment. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.