All Posts

Purpose:  Assess whether climate action strategies are being executed and shared transparently. Category Score (/5) Notes Execution 4.0 Emissions goals linked to real implementation (e.g. fleet, bylaws). Alignment 4.5 Public education matches internal policy decisions. Community Engagement 3.0 Youth engagement strong, but low rural outreach. Accountability 3.5 Clear project benchmarks, but no consequences for missed targets. Transparency 4.0 Excellent digital dashboards and o

Purpose:  Support a midsize nonprofit in aligning board practices with its DEI values and community mission. Category Score (/5) Notes Execution 3.0 Strategic plan targets reviewed annually, but DEI priorities are vague. Alignment 2.5 Community values are clear but not modeled by leadership. Community Engagement 3.0 Member feedback is solicited but not reported back. Accountability 2.0 No board evaluation framework or ethics process in place. Transparency 3.5 Meeting minutes

Purpose:  Evaluate community trust and operational integrity after a year of public complaints. Category Score (/5) Notes Execution 2.5 Maintenance backlogs persist despite new funding. Alignment 2.0 Tenant feedback rarely reflected in decision-making. Community Engagement 1.5 Town halls cancelled; complaints process unclear. Accountability 2.0 Limited documentation of internal reviews or corrective actions. Transparency 2.5 Budgets available but tenant-facing communication i

Purpose:  Assess whether stated equity values are reflected in operations and leadership. Category Score (/5) Notes Execution 2.0 Strategic equity goals exist but lack funding or implementation plans. Alignment 1.5 Leadership composition does not reflect population served. Community Engagement 2.5 Patient input panels exist but have minimal influence. Accountability 2.0 No public-facing accountability reports or DEI audits. Transparency 3.0 Policy documents are accessible but

Purpose:  Evaluate alignment between strategic plan and actual governance practices mid-term. Category Score (/5) Notes Execution 3.0 Infrastructure progress strong; social initiatives lag behind stated goals. Alignment 2.5 Public stances on inclusion do not consistently align with budget decisions. Community Engagement 3.5 Improved public meeting transparency; some ward-level gaps remain. Accountability 2.0 Few public performance reviews or post-mortems on failed initiatives

Summary: A high-performing staff member disclosed a chronic health condition and requested remote work flexibility. Leadership agreed — then began excluding them from key meetings, assigning less visible work, and citing “fairness to others” as a reason for reduced opportunities. Eventually, the employee was let go during restructuring. Ethical Lens: The misuse of accommodation as a justification for exclusion Legal obligations under disability law “Fairness” narratives that

Summary: A healthcare organization launched a DEI committee, brought in diverse speakers, and added a land acknowledgment to every meeting — but did not change hiring practices, budget allocations, or policies that excluded Indigenous and Black staff from leadership. Staff described it as “DEI theatre” — all optics, no substance. Ethical Lens: The illusion of progress through performative acts Checklist culture vs. systemic change Psychological harm of symbolic inclusion Lead

Summary: After a public incident involving racial profiling, the organization issued a well-written apology and launched a “values reset.” Internally, however, the staff member who raised the concern was sidelined from projects, removed from committees, and told they were “too emotional.” The gap between the public messaging and internal response destroyed trust across the team. Ethical Lens: Misuse of apologies as PR tools Retaliation after disclosure Culture repair vs. cult

Summary: After months of being overlooked, interrupted, and excluded from key projects, a long-standing staff member simply stopped contributing. They didn’t file a complaint. They didn’t quit — not immediately. They just emotionally checked out. Leadership framed it as “disengagement,” but never asked what they had done to contribute to the silence. Ethical Lens: Lack of feedback culture Passive leadership avoidance The danger of normalizing disengagement Leadership Insight:

Summary: A racialized team member with excellent performance reviews was passed over for promotion — three times. Each time, the feedback was vague: “You’re just not quite the right fit for the team.”  Meanwhile, newer, less experienced staff were advanced quickly. Eventually, the employee left — not because of performance issues, but because of exclusion masked as professionalism. Ethical Lens: Bias in advancement pathways Policy vs. lived culture in inclusion The misuse of

Context An organization celebrated psychological safety and inclusion in its retreats and KPIs. But in practice, leadership delivered feedback in ways that contradicted those values. Events - A staff member carried multiple responsibilities at a national conference.- Leadership later suggested they needed 'accommodation' because they weren’t 'pulling their weight.'- A private hallway comment was reframed as 'unprofessional' and weaponized against them. How It Felt - Confusing