Normally I talk about accessibility, and I will, but when we talk about the business of AV there is a bigger issue at play:
I swear, I have a point and hopefully, it comes across at the end.
Siloed Accessibility Resources
Accessibility for a workplace can of course mean many things, from automatic doors to screen readers, but there is always a cost, which is why businesses tend to be reactive, not proactive with delivering accessibility. However, in AV we have a different end game and have to not only accommodate our teams, but also our clients. That means we need to look at part of our line of business as being accessible.
This is in stark contrast to most campuses where I have worked where accessibility is siloed into “resource centers” which act as gatekeepers to accommodations. I’ve touched on this before so I’m not going to linger on it, but the impact that this has on our field can be enormous.
Rather than working together to achieve a unified, universal access model which is also labor and cost-saving, gatekeeping means that AV is left out, rooms aren’t natively equipped for accessibility, and many students and faculty continue to struggle rather than have access to tools which would help them learn and teach better.
In an ideal world, we would hold to a universal access philosophy, rather than the current model. This would allow us, the disability office, and our clients to be more successful and likely lead to better educational outcomes. My hope is that just as AV in the classroom has become the norm, so too will this view change for the better. Prove me right, beg you.
The Staff
There’s another aspect of the business of AV that I want to address. And that’s the staff. I know it’s trite, but we’re only as strong as our teams, and if we aren’t making sure the job is accessible, we’re potentially harming our team and our business. While, naturally, there is only a certain pool of the “best” candidates available, there is also a pool who are often overlooked because they don’t “fit” the mold for some particular reason. I know, for example, that I have been passed over based on appearance and disability more times than I can count. Would I have wanted to work in a department that passed me over for those reasons? Probably not.
But why, then, aren’t we working to root out those subconscious biases to make a universally accessible department?
Recruiting is a constant juggling act, don’t get me wrong, and I’m sure I’m just as guilty as anyone else of these subconscious biases. What I’m saying is we need to make sure that our recruiting practices are as neutral as possible in order to be as accessible as possible. I’m not really sure how, I know the military is experimenting with blind evaluations for promotions, but we really do need to do something to make hiring more equitable.
Workspaces
Workspaces are another important consideration. Let’s face it, the current trend of “hot desking” is the final stage of horrible office design that began with cubicles. I’m not suggesting we need to go back to everyone with a door (though that would be the best of all possible worlds) but I am suggesting that we look at our workplaces and employees as investments, and treat them as such when it comes to ensuring they have the best ROI. Open floorplans and hot desks need to go, fast. They are hell for non-neurotypical employees and for employees with mobility issues. They also reduce the ability of employees to focus in general because of increased noise levels. Full height cubicles at the minimum, if not using prefab partitions to create offices where once were cubicles and underused conference rooms, would allow greater inclusion of those who aren’t neurotypical, have visible disabilities, or are in other ways marginalized. It also sends a message that they are valued because of the existing idea that offices = higher status. (No I’m not proposing some pie-in-the-sky socialist idea here, just a reuse of existing floor space.) On top of that, and this will hit a nerve,
Salary
Another element of “accessibility” that we need to discuss is the S-word- salary. In my experience, many universities treat the AV staffs like they are working out of the goodness of their hearts, and that salary and benefits aren’t important. This leads to multiple unintended consequences. First off, it prevents many people who are trying to get into the vertical, either from other verticals or from changing their career paths, may find the salaries discouraging compared to other roles. Add to that an ongoing mismatch between traditional “tech” roles and AV in salary, and already there is a disincentive for top talent to enter the higher ed vertical. But the salary is more than that. Many universities are located in major cities, places like Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and so on, where the cost of living is extremely high. We can’t attract that talent if they can’t live there. One of the best interviews I ever had was with a school in New York. I threw out my salary number, thinking it was high compared to what I made. The interviewer told me I was lowballing both in terms of my skills and the cost of living there. He told me to add a whopping 40 grand to the desired salary. I didn’t get the job, alas, but it was transformative to hear that. We need to make sure our staff can afford to live near work, not just because gas is more expensive but because they should also be able to afford time off. If employees feel that taking PTO would just mean a “staycation” in a shared apartment with multiple roommates, what incentive is there to take it? It doesn’t help their mental health or prevent burnout. All it does is increase the frequency with which we need to hire.
Neurodiverse Employees
Finally, an issue that affects many neurodiverse employees, particularly those in higher ed, is a lack of clarity. We’ve all, I’m sure, had those job descriptions which sound like a kitchen sink and end with “and other duties as assigned.” First off, that line needs some teeth that benefit the worker, and those duties may come with increased compensation as well or if the employee is able to do it. Additionally, and this comes back to my point about hiring, vague “well feel free to apply for the promotion” statements don’t help. They hinder. Job descriptions are already written to deter applicants who actually read them carefully, listing an unrealistic background for the job and salary. Now imagine your brain is wired to take everything literally. Those descriptions, especially if they are for a promotion internally, are discouraging. Management needs to either make it clear that a candidate is qualified for the role and encourage them to apply or better still not go to competitive applications unless no internal candidates are available. We’re shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to be overly “fair” to the hundred plus external applicants a job may get while internal candidates are wondering if they should apply. And of course, the hiring of external candidates over internal ones leads to higher turnover, or at least lower staff morale. And explaining the rationale without generic reasons like “well you didn’t have enough X” or “you weren’t the best fit” while difficult to do without increased liability is also a way to help your staff grow, especially those who are in some way neurodiverse.
Pay Later but with Interest
At the end of the day, business is diametrically opposed to accessibility because it has a built-in cost, either upfront or when it’s needed. We have to pay it one way or the other, however, and many times the “pay later” method has higher costs, either from acquiring equipment or contracting out, or in legal costs as universities are learning with uncaptioned internet content, or in high turnover. By being open to new technological solutions, new internal partnerships, and new ways of working we can change the narrative towards inclusion and accessibility rather than one of the closed doors.