12 minutes
Putting the lenses to work Run one ordinary problem through all six perspectives, see why a workaround is not a fix, and practice writing a barrier-removal decision with an owner.
What you’ll be able to do Apply each perspective to a single organizational problem, select the most inclusive response, and explain why redesigning a system differs from asking a person to find a workaround. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: Which response is the most inclusive? Document a next step for Putting the lenses to work: Write the six-perspective comparison for one real decision in your unit and share the barrier-removal version with the person who owns the system. Six responses to one afternoon The value of learning the perspectives is not the vocabulary. It is that once you can name them, you can see your own organization’s reflex. Put Jordan’s situation through each lens and the differences are not subtle. One lens asks about Jordan’s vision. One asks about the platform. One asks what supports would let Jordan finish this week. One asks what the agency owes an employee who cannot access required training. One asks whether the training itself respects blind staff as colleagues rather than as exceptions. One asks which other staff, in which roles and locations, are quietly failing to complete the same training and never reporting it.
The most inclusive organizational response almost always changes the system rather than the person’s workaround, and it does so without leaving the person waiting. That is the shape to remember: access now, fix the source, name the owner, set the review point.
What each perspective says about Jordan Medical Social Functional Rights-based Cultural Intersectional
“Jordan is blind and cannot use the platform.” Accurate as far as it goes, and useless for deciding what to do. Its natural next step is a deadline extension, which changes nothing.
“The platform has unlabeled buttons and an uncaptioned video, so screen-reader users cannot complete the training.” The barrier is now the subject, and the fix is visible: label the buttons, add the transcript, or replace the platform.
“With the source document and quiz in an accessible format, Jordan can complete the training this week.” Supplies the immediate path without waiting for the redesign.
“Required training is a term and condition of employment, and the agency must provide an equally effective way to complete it.” Gives the request weight and a route: the training owner, human resources and the accessibility team.
“Does the way we talk about this treat Jordan as a colleague who was locked out, or as a special case who needs help?” Shapes the tone of every email in the thread.
“Who else cannot complete this training and has not said so?” Staff in county offices with older equipment, staff whose first language is not English, staff with cognitive disabilities facing a timed quiz. The fix should reach them too.
Refuse the workaround as the final answer What you can change You control whether a temporary path for one person is treated as the solution or as the first half of it.
What to watch for Do not close the ticket when Jordan finishes the training. The platform is unchanged and the next person’s deadline is already running.
Your next step Whenever you arrange a workaround, write the system fix, its owner and a review date in the same message.
Writing a barrier-removal decision State the barrier with the design as the subject: what specifically stops participation.
Provide immediate, equally effective access for the person, chosen with them.
Name the system fix: what will change so nobody has to ask next time.
Name the owner of the system fix and the date by which it will be reviewed.
Ask the intersectional question: who else is affected, and does the fix reach them?
Tell the person what was decided and when they can expect the change.
A workaround means I get through today and the wall is still there tomorrow, and now it is my job to remember the way around it. A fix means the wall is gone for everyone, including the person who has not been hired yet.
Composite staff perspective, illustrative The six lenses, one card each Medical
What condition is involved? Useful for care. Alone: the person becomes the problem.
Social
What in the environment restricts participation? Useful for finding what you control. Alone: can understate individual needs.
Functional
What can this person do in this setting with these supports? Useful for planning support. Alone: hardens into a capability verdict.
Rights-based
What equal-access duties apply? Useful for accountability. Alone: becomes a checklist.
Cultural
How do disabled people form identity, language and community? Useful for respect and tone. Alone: may not fit every person.
Intersectional
How do disability and other identities combine? Useful for finding who is affected most. Alone: demands data and listening many teams skip.
Carry this forward Each perspective produces a recognizably different response to the same situation. Writing them side by side exposes which one your team defaulted to.
A workaround privatizes a public barrier: the person absorbs the cost, the barrier remains and the organization learns nothing.
A barrier-removal decision has two parts, immediate access for the person and a system fix with an owner and a review point, and it is not complete without both.
A branching scenario decision, the final knowledge check and a written comparison of the six responses to the case.
Write the six-perspective comparison for one real decision in your unit and share the barrier-removal version with the person who owns the system.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Back to course Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
