Inclusive Culture Initiatives

What do you do when the needs of two different disabilities clash? Let’s say someone relies on a support dog for mobility or medical alerts. Another person in the same space has a severe allergy to dogs that can trigger anaphylaxis. Both have valid, documented access needs. Neither is more important than the other. So how do you resolve this? You figure out a way to accommodate both. You don’t ban the service animal. You don’t tell the allergic person to WFH. Those are the easy, but highly dissatisfying answers. When needs clash, you need to be creative and collaborative, including both parties in the solution. Separate seating. Air purifiers. Designated paths of travel. Adjusted schedules. Dedicated conference rooms. Extra janitorial services. Communication in advance. There’s no universal playbook, but the goal never changes. Create an environment where everyone can safely participate. You don't achieve inclusion or belonging by picking a winner and a loser. Do the work to make space for everyone, even when it’s complicated. Especially when it’s complicated. Also, for those of you who are motivated by legal risk, don't forget that the party that disengages from the collaborative process first is almost always the one that loses EEOC complaints and litigation. #Accommodations #ReasonableAccommodations #Disability #Inclusion #Belonging

How much do employees have to “earn” their refresh (ongoing) equity? Stock based compensation used to feel a little like free lunch. But amidst the recent years of increased emphasis on bringing down topline metrics such as equity burn and SBC as a % of revenue, companies have been forced to think a little harder about how to maximally leverage each share of equity being granted. There are numerous levers to keep equity burn in check–discounting grant sizes, innovative vesting structures, and equity eligibility to name a few. An undertone of many decisions regarding equity is how to align your equity program design with pay for performance interests so that you indeed maximize the leverage of each share. Today, let’s zone in a bit on refresh (ongoing) equity participation by performance rating. ___________ Our data science team took a look at the percentage of employees who receive a refresh (ongoing) equity grant broken down by performance rating across Pave’s dataset. The results: ✅ Below Expectations (no promo) ⇒ 0% median ✅ Meets Expectations (no promo) ⇒ 12.7% median ✅ Above Expectations (no promo) ⇒ 39.1% median ✅ Promoted ⇒ 95.2% median Are your “below” and “meets” expectations employees receiving refresh (ongoing) equity at a higher rate than the benchmarks? That is perhaps a sign of a “peanut butter” skew of your company’s equity program design. Of course, the actual grant sizes broken down by performance rating are of material importance as well. We will take a look at that soon. ___________ Methodology: Our data science team mapped all available performance ratings from various systems (3-rating, 4-rating, 5-rating, 9-box, etc) into three categories–below meets expectations, equivalent to meets expectations, and above meets expectations. Then, the results were broken down by job level. All 47,000+ incumbent data points in this analysis come from Pave customers who used the compensation planning tool for 2024 merit cycles. Also, as a caveat, Pave’s database skews heavily towards the tech sector which historically has higher equity eligibility across a higher proportion of job levels, job families, and locations compared to other industries. #pave #equity #benchmarks

We shouldn’t be placing the burden of responsibility on an individual to openly share their Disability to receive adjustments/ accommodations. To receive equitable support. Nor should we ever ask for proof of their disability to provide adjustments/accommodations. When your adjustment/accommodation process is inaccessible, it’s not fit for purpose. When it forces a person to have no choice but to self-identify, it is not as inclusive. If it relies on a conversation with a manager that is not equitable or accessible for everyone. It's time we make our adjustment/ accommodation process accessible and inclusive. Image Description: A Disabled By Society graphic. The title reads, “An Accessible Adjustment/ Accommodation Process should:” Below nine circles with clipart and a statement, they read. 1. Offer alternative ways to request – a sign with different ways to go. 2. Not rely on a talk with a manager – a person with a settings clog, time and paper icons above their head. 3. Be accessible – the global accessibility symbol, only lots of people where the circle should be. 4. Provide examples – a book with a magnifier. 5. Have a point of contact – an email and phone icon. 6. Be straightforward – a tick inside a ribbon circle. 7. Offer support - a set of hands holding people. 8. Outline next steps – two icons pointing forward. 9. Provide clear timelines – a clock hanging. #DisabilityInclusion #DiversityAndInclusion #WednesdayWisdom #DisabledBySociety 

Here’s the thing about reasonable accommodations: The law frames them as “reasonable.” The process calls them “interactive.” But depending on whether management engages in good faith, they can either be empowering… or soul-crushing. For many disabled professionals, the first physical reaction is anxiety. Every ping in the inbox brings the dread of having to re-prove what has already been proven. The process can feel less like collaboration and more like erosion, slowly wearing people down. Whether leadership engages in good faith makes all the difference. And here’s the painful truth: nothing changes about an employee’s ability to do their job. They’re still the stellar hire management believed in, still delivering results. The only shift is that they ask for support to keep doing the job well, and suddenly the ground moves beneath them. Trust erodes, and that’s gut-wrenching. Disabled employees know this feeling: the endless re-justification, the sense of being undervalued, the quiet fear of not being believed. And managers? Believe your employees when they ask for an accommodation. Make it easy. They’re not asking for special treatment, they’re asking for what they need to keep doing the job you already knew they could do. Extra scrutiny doesn’t help anyone. It breaks trust, fuels turnover, and makes good employees want to leave. Work with your people, not against them. That’s how accessibility works. #ReasonableAccommodation, #Disabled #DisabilityAtWork #InteractiveProcess #NothingABoutUsWithoutUs #WorkplacePolicy

Dear People Managers, Subject Line: Subtle biases during performance reviews - watch out... Many of you are entering either a mid-year or an annual review cycle in the next 1-2 months and are starting to think about performance ratings for the people on your teams. You’ve done your equity and inclusion training, and you are hopefully well poised to avoid common biases based on age, gender, and race. However here are 3 biases that aren’t quite as commonly discussed, but incredibly easy to succumb to and important to avoid: 🔙 *Past performance bias*: Calibrating someone based on their past performance history instead of assessing THIS performance period. This can either show up as defaulting to an exceeds rating for someone who exceeded expectations over the last few cycles OR defaulting to an achieves rating for someone who achieved expectations in the last few cycles. Sure, there are some folks who have genuine streaks of outstanding performance over long periods of time, but your job Is still to treat every cycle as a fresh opportunity for fair evaluation. 📣*Shiny project bias*: The name says it all. This is where you lean towards the stronger ratings for folks working on the big shiny visible projects, and average ratings for folks working on ‘keep the lights on’ projects. Sure, it could be a chicken and egg situation where strong performers were assigned to the highest stakes work, but what you want to avoid is the ‘scope penalty’ where you evaluate people on the merits of their scope (which they often did not get to choose) and not their performance. Shiny projects also create compounding bias where the people working on them get greater exposure AND the shiny project badge of honor, so be especially careful about this one. 🎆 *Competence bias*: I know this sounds ridiculous, but stay with me for a minute. Competence bias is when you overlook how difficult an individual is to work with or how poor they are at collaborating with others simply because their work - and let’s admit it, sometimes, how they show up - seems SO impressive to you. (#notallcompetentpeople) It’s when you disregard indicators that their partners are having a hard time working WITH them and are often resorting to working AROUND them. When you continue to reward these folks, you send not-so-subtle signals to everybody else about what you truly value. It’s a dangerous and slippery slope for team morale so watch out for this one. ❓What are other not so commonly discussed biases that you would add to this list? ❓

The EEOC just released new telework accommodation guidance — and private employers should read it. The guidance was prompted by the President’s order requiring federal employees to return to in-person work full-time. Agencies asked how to implement that directive without violating disability accommodation obligations. Although written for federal agencies under the Rehabilitation Act, that statute incorporates ADA standards. So the analysis translates directly to private employers navigating return-to-office mandates. Here’s what matters: 🔹 No blanket revocations. You cannot rescind all remote accommodations just because you announced “everyone back.” Each situation requires an individualized assessment. 🔹 Telework can still be a reasonable accommodation (duh!). If it enables the employee to perform essential functions, you may have to permit it — unless there’s undue hardship. But here's the thing... 🔹 You can choose among effective accommodations. If an in-office alternative works just as well, you don’t have to provide the employee’s preferred option. 🔹 COVID flexibility didn’t permanently rewrite essential functions. Temporarily excusing in-person duties during the pandemic does not mean those duties aren’t essential now. 🔹 Anxiety alone isn’t enough. The question is whether the condition creates a material barrier to performing essential job functions on-site — not whether the office feels stressful. 🔹 Commute issues usually aren’t your obligation. The ADA typically doesn’t require you to eliminate a commute that’s outside your control. If you’re tightening your RTO policy, tighten your accommodation process too. I've added the full FAQ below. So feel free to save 🔖 this post. And if you want future posts like this emailed to you automatically? Comment SUBSCRIBE, and I’ll add you. #TheEmployerHandbook #EmploymentLaw #HumanResources

Every year, like clockwork, Employee Relations case volume spikes during performance review season. 👉 This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a signal. Performance reviews are one of the few moments when power, perception, pay, identity, and future opportunity collide in a single document. When reviews are clear, fair, and grounded in observable behavior, they create alignment, even when the message is hard. When they’re vague, inconsistent, or poorly supported, they become accelerants for mistrust. Here’s the uncomfortable truth. Most ER cases that surface during review cycles aren’t really about the rating. They’re about surprises. They’re about someone learning, too late, that expectations were never shared, feedback was unevenly delivered, or standards quietly shifted without explanation. For people leaders, this is the season where discipline matters. Annual reviews should never be the first time an employee hears something material about their performance. If you’re struggling to write a review, that’s data. It may mean goals weren’t well defined, feedback wasn’t timely, or documentation didn’t keep pace with reality. Precision protects everyone. Specific behaviors. Concrete examples. Clear linkage to role expectations. That’s not bureaucratic overhead. It’s leadership hygiene. For Employee Relations teams, this period demands extra rigor. Allegations of favoritism, bias, or retaliation often rise after reviews because emotions are high and narratives harden quickly. The work here isn’t to defend the process or validate the loudest voice. It’s to slow things down. To separate hurt from harm. To examine whether similar behavior was evaluated consistently across teams, identities, and roles. ER credibility lives in its willingness to test assumptions, including the company’s own. For HRBPs and Talent Management partners, this is where stewardship shows up. Reviewing calibration outcomes, spotting outliers, and questioning patterns that don’t align with policy or past practice isn’t optional. Silence here becomes complicity later. When inconsistencies go unchallenged upstream, they land downstream as investigations, attrition, or legal risk. Asking a hard question early is almost always kinder, and cheaper, than managing the fallout later. Performance reviews are not just administrative artifacts. They are cultural records. They tell employees what the organization actually rewards, tolerates, and ignores. When ER cases spike during review season, the answer isn’t to brace for impact. It’s to get curious about what the system is revealing, and to treat this moment not as a risk event, but as a diagnostic. Organizations that learn from this season don’t just reduce cases. They build trust where it counts most, at the intersection of fairness, accountability, and human dignity.

Another day, another high-profile lawsuit exposing pay and promotion inequities—this time, it’s Google. The tech giant has agreed to pay $28 million to settle claims that it systematically placed Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander employees at lower job levels with reduced pay compared to their white and Asian colleagues. Google denies wrongdoing, but the pattern is clear: even in 2024, businesses—especially those that pride themselves on being “progressive”—are still struggling to get pay equity and career progression right. What Went Wrong? 🚫 Unequal Job Levelling: Employees from historically marginalised backgrounds were allegedly placed in lower job bands despite equal or superior performance. 🚫 Pay Disparities: Years of experience and impact weren’t reflected in salaries at the same rate as white and Asian colleagues. 🚫 Lack of Advancement Opportunities: Many affected employees remained stuck at the same level for years, while others moved up more quickly. These aren’t one-off HR mistakes. They are systemic issues that create long-term disadvantages for diverse talent. And beyond the legal risk, the business case for fixing this is overwhelming. What Can We Learn From This? If Google—one of the most resourced, data-driven companies in the world—can still get this wrong, where does that leave everyone else? ✅ Audit Your Pay & Promotion Data: If you’re not proactively tracking disparities, you’re setting yourself up for expensive legal trouble down the road. ✅ Fix Bias in Performance Evaluations: Too often, subjective assessments reinforce inequalities. Are managers trained to spot and mitigate their biases? ✅ Stop Relying on ‘Meritocracy’ Myths: If your company’s approach to promotion is simply “the best rise to the top,” ask yourself: how are you defining ‘best’ and who is being overlooked? ✅ Make equity a Business Strategy, Not a Side Project: Companies that treat pay equity and leadership development as a core business priority will be the ones that attract, retain, and develop the best talent. The real question for organisations today isn’t just how to avoid lawsuits like Google’s, but how to embed equity into the DNA of their business practices. Because the companies that get this right will be the ones that thrive in the future. 🔹 If your organisation is ready to take pay equity and leadership diversity seriously, let’s talk. https://lnkd.in/euvs4hk9 #PayEquity #LeadershipDevelopment #Inclusion #HRStrategy #FutureOfWork