Search

This evidence-based Work in Progress research paper will explore how collaborative technology impacts student engagement with teams and programming activities in an introductory first-year engineering course. Introduction to engineering has been a historically difficult course for undergraduates as they are introduced to algorithmic thinking, design processes, and problem-solving methodologies. To assist students, a variety of approaches can be employed in the classroom; teambased capstone projects with end of course demonstrations, synchronous collaborative technology that supports teamwork and communication in and out of class, pair-programming, and visual-based programming languages. Each of these provides benefits to the students individually, but with COVID-19 forcing a shift to remote learning, collaborative technologies experienced an unprecedented development of innovations and tools. A return to in-person classes may incline educators to drop collaborative technologies for teaching, but remote control, screen share, and collaborative tools are still beneficial if using teamwork in the class. This paper investigates the following research question: to what degree is student engagement impacted by the usage of synchronous collaborative tools in a teambased, in-person undergraduate introductory engineering course? An experimental setup was implemented in three different sections of an introductory engineering course at a large, midwestern, R1 institution. All three sections had different instructors and a class size of around 50 students. One of the three sections implemented a technology that allowed students to connect to a teammate's computer and share control of keyboard/mouse, enabling real-time collaborative programming in a normally individual programming environment. The other two sections were control sections with no specific implementation differences. A survey instrument grounded in Burch et al.'s conceptual framework was developed and distributed at strategic times to measure students' engagement with their team and inclass programming tasks. Results presented include a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) that supports the factor structure of the student engagement survey and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure to compare the three sections and investigate significant differences between them through student grades. The results of this research have potential to provide direction for usage of remote collaborative technology for in-person, academic settings. Future implications of research include investigating the impact of similar technologies on student engagement and learning outcomes; contributing a validated instrument to measure students' engagement with their programming tasks and teams; and provide educators with potential methodologies to improve student engagement in team-based coursework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the effectiveness of learning transfer-focused or transfer-focused lab report writing instructional modules on engineering undergraduates' lab report writing in entry-level engineering laboratory courses. The modules are novel due to their shared language to describe and reinforce foundational writing terms used by the writing faculty and are ready for immediate use by engineering lab instructors. Three different universities, consisting of a polytechnical university, a liberal arts-anchored private university, and a branch campus of a research-one land grant university, participated. Student lab report samples from six various sophomore-level engineering courses were collected. For the control group, none of the participating lab instructors accessed the transfer-focused modules (academic years of 2019-2020 and 2020-2021); sixty-four control group lab report samples were collected (n = 64). In the academic year 2021-2022, the lab instructors had access to the transfer-focused modules via the web to be encouraged to update their lab instructions; the experimental group lab report samples were collected from forty-two students (n = 42). Using defined writing outcomes, a panel of engineering lab instructors assessed the participating students' early (one of the first reports in the class) and late lab reports (written near the end of the course). The lab report assessment analysis indicates that only 30% of the control group students could write their early lab reports at a satisfactory level, while 60% of the experimental group students reached a satisfactory level in their early labs. For both early and late lab reports, the experimental group students outperformed most outcomes over the control group. The notably improved outcomes were related to audience awareness, data presentation, data analysis, and data interpretation. The transfer-focused lab report writing pedagogy enhanced engineering undergraduates' ability to engage in critical thinking practices, including analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of their lab data/products. Additionally, students appeared to improve their awareness of a technical audience, expecting engineering language, styles, and conventions commonly shared by writers in engineering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate how engineering lab courses intervene with students in terms of written course materials. The instruments used for the study include Feisel and Rosa's philosophical-based lab learning objectives and engineering lab report writing outcomes (1 through 9). The participating lab courses include seven engineering lab courses across four institutions. The laboratory courses cover the majority of Feisel and Rosa's learning objectives for lab assignments. The most typical assignment method is to provide lab report guidelines in individual lab assignments or for the entire lab course; however, some labs offer templates with blanks, so students simply fill those in for lab reports. We mapped lab assignments and assessments with the engineering lab report writing outcomes. Most labs focus on audience expectations, experimentation processes, high-quality tables/graphs, lab data analysis, and organization. After surveying all the lab courses, we conducted a case study to investigate how lab instructors' lab report assignments affect students' lab report quality in the two lab courses (EE 221 with n = 12 and CE 212 with n = 12), showing distinct characteristics in their lab assignment and assessment. EE 221 did not provide the instructor's expectations or any guidelines but required fill-in-the-blanks-type lab reports. In the EE 221 student samples, none of the outcomes reach a satisfactory level. In contrast, CE 212 provided the instructor's expectations for the labs and lab reports explicitly through handouts and guidelines. CE 212 student samples show that most outcomes reach the satisfactory level. It is concluded that engineering lab courses offered a variety of materials with a wide range of lab objectives and outcomes. Those materials could impact the students' lab report writing extensively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laboratory report writing instructional modules have been developed and refined using a community of practice (CoP) approach. Supported by the National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education initiative, researchers at three institutions have refined and reorganized a series of scaffolded laboratory writing modules based on the work of faculty and graduate students at a CoP meeting. This paper documents the process used at the CoP meeting where draft modules were made available and a model laboratory session was considered. Other published laboratory report writing resources were evaluated alongside the draft modules to determine areas of overlap and novelty and to ensure the completeness of the revised modules. The process of revising instructional modules was valuable for both the quality of the modules and the development of the community of practice. The modules are now organized into two guides, published at http://labs.wsu.edu/engineeringlab-report-writing/. An Instructor's Guide to Engineering Lab Writing, targets instructors and provides model lab writing and data analysis learning outcomes for consideration when planning a laboratory session, as well as approaches for course organization and teaching to support lab writing outcomes. A library of lab report types and a model rubric for lab report scoring complete the instructor-oriented resource. A Student's Guide to Engineering Lab Writing, supports students who are learning lab report writing for the first time or are advancing as technical writers. It is organized according to traditional lab report format and is aligned with the learning outcomes in the instructor modules. The content in the student-oriented modules is scaffolded to support continuous development. The modules are arranged in order of increasing cognitive difficulty, first addressing formatting conventions and arrangement, then section contents and methods of data analysis, and finally effective methods of interpretation, reasoning, and conclusion writing. This paper demonstrates the mutually reinforcing nature of collaboratively developed instructional material and the growth of a community of practice. The CoP approach to structuring a meeting was effective for gathering targeted and relevant feedback in a short period of time as well as for developing the CoP itself. The instructional modules revised at the CoP meeting were significantly improved creating a sense of ownership and inclusion by those participating in the meeting. They are now publicly available to serve a growing community of practice focused on engineering lab writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laboratory reports are a genre of writing that students are exposed to early in their engineering curriculum. Varied student writing preparation ensures that students need differentiated support in laboratory writing to achieve learning outcomes. Supported by the National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education initiative, researchers at three institutions have developed a series of scaffolded laboratory writing modules related to different components of a laboratory report. The module contents were informed by prior research into student performance in laboratory report writing in multiple engineering disciplines and with varied writing preparation. The modules provide definitions and guidance for novice report writers and instructor support for developing assignments and rubrics for laboratory reports. The scaffolded modules treat elements of a laboratory report at fundamental, intermediate, and advanced levels. Fundamental modules include audience expectations, lab report organization and conventions, simple statistics, and data presentation in tables and graphs. Intermediate modules address primary and secondary sources of data, trendlines, summary and conclusion writing, and referencing secondary sources. Advanced modules address logical appeals and encourage student writers to consider error analysis and error propagation. This paper describes the structure and content of the modules as well as the process used to develop them. Initial assessments by instructors as module users are presented. Other publicly available writing-support resources are catalogued to demonstrate the novelty and value of the lab report writing modules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engineering undergraduate programs offer a variety of laboratory courses that aim to give students hands-on experience with engineering practices while also assigning lab report writing that builds communication skills within their major. This study aims to investigate how engineering programs of Washington State University Vancouver offer writing education in undergraduate lab courses. Among numerous electrical engineering and mechanical engineering course offerings at the university, nine undergraduate engineering lab courses were chosen for this study. To begin, the purpose, content, environment, and grading contribution of the chosen labs were surveyed. Then, the materials provided to students about lab report assignments were investigated using nine lab report writing outcomes defined in earlier studies. Finally, the provided evaluation criteria of the lab reports were studied using the same nine outcomes. The lab report writing outcomes used in the study include 1) address technical audience expectations, 2) present experimental processes, 3) illustrate lab data using appropriate graphic/table forms, 4) analyze lab data, 5) interpret lab data, 6) provide an effective conclusion, 7) develop ideas using effective reasoning and productive patterns, 8) demonstrate appropriate genre conventions, and 9) establish control of conventions for a technical audience. We concluded that, regardless of major or program level, the primary purpose and contents of the course materials were usually categorized as educational and experimental, respectively. The secondary purpose and contents were predominantly developmental and analytical. Additionally, we found that most courses explicitly addressed outcomes related to report organization, data presentation/analysis/interpretation, and writing conventions. However, the outcome related to developing ideas using effective reasoning and productive patterns was not proven to have been explicitly covered in any of the courses studied. Finally, we found that though many of the courses studied had explicitly addressed these outcomes, fewer courses directly assessed the nine outcomes. It can be interpreted that engineering students might struggle with the inconsistency between the assignment and the assessment in lab report writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This symposium features research addressing cutting edge issues aimed at increased understanding and full organizational inclusion of people with disabilities. We include five research studies by 18 disability scholars, two discussants and two session co-chairs from Belgium, Canada, France, India, Poland, Switzerland, The Netherlands and the United States. Topics of focus include working with neurodiverse employees; examining the roles of managers and leaders; and the effects of remote work employes with disabilities. Our discussants will synthesize the presentations to suggest future research directions and practical implications for promoting diversity, equity and inclusion within organizations. Our collection of papers in notable for its range of topics, all of which are at the forefront of DEI research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As organizational research begins to catch up with the largely theoretical framework around the experience and effects of diversity at work, we propose a symposium that focuses on managing marginalization at work through the issues surrounding impression management. The purpose of this symposium is to explore the impact of social and contextual factors on interpersonal impression management choices and outcomes. Specifically, the presentations in this symposium investigate how organizational factors and individuals' experiences with identity-related issues influence their (a) self-perceptions, (b) image concerns, and (c) self-expression choices. By integrating literature on marginalized identities, impression management, and authenticity, we aim to generate discussions around how employees navigate their identities in complex workplace dynamics, how managers can be allies against stereotyping processes, and how organizations can develop future work environments that promote individuals' sense of self and well-being. Voices in my Head: How Women of Color Manage their Constellations of Intersecting Identities Author: Alexis Nicole Smith; Oklahoma State U. Author: Chi Nguyen; Oklahoma State U. Author: Marla Baskerville Watkins; Northeastern U. Undoing Discrimination at Intersectional Identities: Gender Quotas and Marginalized Women Directors Author: Priyanka Dwivedi; Texas A&M U., Mays Business School Author: Yashodhara Basuthakur; Texas A&M U., Mays Business School Author: Cynthia E. Devers; Virginia Tech A Latent Profile Analysis of Social Class Management Strategies Among Junior Professionals Author: Hyejin Yu; NEOMA Business School Author: Alexis Nicole Smith; Oklahoma State U. Author: Songqi Liu; National Science Foundation How Scanning One's Workplace Environment Influences The Identity Management Process Author: John Lynch; U. of Illinois at Chicago Author: Alexander Lyle Effinger; U. of Illinois Chicago Author: Jingyu Zhang; U. of Florida Workplace Advice to "Just Be Yourself!" Repels Stigmatized Employees Author: Rebecca Ponce de Leon; Columbia Business School Author: Katherine Du; Lubar College of Business Author: Kyle Dobson; U. of Virginia [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This presenter symposium features five research studies by well-known disability scholars, from North America and Europe, on the inclusion and workplace experiences of employees with disabilities. Together, these studies extend the boundaries of disability research by showcasing inadvertent ways in which new supposedly inclusive workplace designs (e.g., alternative/digitalized work/conference spaces) can become empty promises or perpetuate social inequality; how and why career advancement may be stalled for some employees with a disability; how an employee's identity can be associated with their disability management strategy, and in turn their help-seeking preferences; and finally how even conventional large organizations may unintentionally exclude employees with a disability. Our discussants will synthesize the individual presentations to suggest future research directions as well as practical suggestions for promoting equity and inclusion within organizations as well as within important spaces of organizing such as this Academy of Management annual meeting. (In)visibilizing Disability in Activity-Based Working Author: Ive D. Klinksiek; UCLouvain Author: Eline Jammaers; Hasselt U. Author: Laurent Taskin; Critical Management Studies COVID-19 and Conference Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities Author: Joy E. Beatty; Eastern Michigan U. The Effect of Stereotype-Inconsistent Behaviour on the Feedback Provided to Employees Author: Catherine Connelly; McMaster U. Author: Silvia Bonaccio; Telfer School of Management, U. of Ottawa Author: Ian R. Gellatly; U. of Alberta Author: Sarah-Kay Walker; McMaster U. Author: Jennifer Ho; DeGroote School of Business, McMaster U. Differential Help-Seeking Patterns among the Invisibly Disabled Author: Jordan Nielsen; Purdue U. Author: Seonyoung Ji; Purdue U., West Lafayette Author: John Lynch; U. of Illinois at Chicago Author: Julia Stevenson-Street; Purdue U., West Lafayette Experiences of State Agency Employees with Disabilities who Request Accommodations Author: Christine Nittrouer; Texas Tech U. Author: Claudia Cogliser; Texas Tech U. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This symposium discusses the perpetuation of societal defaults--assumptions favoring the majority category as opposed to specified linguistics which explicitly state the category--and how they maintain systems of structural inequality. The fist presentation articulates the process through which linguistics constructively influence the default understanding of various identities in the workplace. The second presentation dives deeper into linguistic default assumptions that affect marginalized individuals by examining the affects of pronoun signposting during the hiring process. The third presentation expounds upon the minority/ally relationship by quantitatively exploring factors critical to its existence and communication of minority identity to allies. In the third presentation, a comprehensive framework on workplace allies elucidates factors preventing allyship and teases out the underlying mechanisms leading to stronger relationships between stigmatized employees (such as LGB employees) and their allies (heterosexual employees). The fourth presentation involves an intervention study looking at how diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives can influence dominant employees (e.g., whites, men) to change their default understanding of their membership to a privileged social identity group. Finally, the last presentation qualitatively explores alternatives to the default professional image and formulates definitions of Hood culture, Hood identity, and its presence in the workplace. This symposium speaks to a variety of stigmatized groups, not fully embraced by organizations, and argues that their inclusion into organizational norms is critical to advancing the DEI literature as a whole. * Changing the Default * Presenter: Ryan Scott Teschner; U. of Texas at Dallas [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This symposium brings together a set of four papers that aim to advance our understanding of LGBTQ identity management. All these papers draw from diverse theoretical perspectives to identify and understand the factors that may contribute to managing LGBTQ identities and their outcomes. Multiple papers in this session also examine other forms of identity management strategies that move beyond the decision between disclosure and concealment. To tease apart identity management processes both within and across each unique identity group, multiple papers take an intersectionality perspective to further our understanding of managing LGBTQ identities at work. These papers contribute empirically to research on diversity and invisible marginalized identities, and offer practical implications for building a more inclusive workplace. * The Role of Employee Scanning in LGBTQ Identity Management * Presenter: John Lynch; U. of Illinois at Chicago * Presenter: Alexander Lyle Effinger; U. of Illinois at Chicago * Presenter: Jingyu Zhang; U. of Illinois at Chicago * An Examination of Coworkers' Reactions to Sexual Minority Employees' Identity Disclosure * Presenter: Lindsay Dhanani; Ohio U. * Presenter: REbecca Totton; Amherst College * Presenter: Taylor Hall; Ohio U. * Relationship Status Congruence and Self-Presentational Accuracy * Presenter: Hayden DuBois; U. of Texas At Arlington * Presenter: David F. Arena; U. of Texas At Arlington * Why and How LGB Employees Leverage Their Identity at Work * Presenter: Cheng-Huan Liu; Rutgers U., School of Management and Labor Relations * Presenter: Maria Kraimer; Rutgers U., School of Management and Labor Relations [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The six works in this symposium provide examples of scale development and exemplify best practices. Rather than reiterate similar steps among the six studies, the presenters will focus on the most difficult aspect(s) of developing each scale providing a "behind the scenes" look at challenges in scale development. Two measurement expert discussants will subsequently expand on each challenge and provide recommendations and general feedback regarding the challenge and how best to address it within the field of management. Following the paper presentations, the discussants will share their thoughts on the future of scale development as well as answer audience questions. * Challenges in Developing and Validating Target neutral Scales of Different Bond Types * Presenter: Howard Klein; Ohio State U. * Presenter: Heiko Breitsohl; U. of Klagenfurt, Austria * Presenter: Marina Schefer; U. of Osnabrueck * Presenter: Tammo Straatmann; U. of Osnabrueck * Presenter: Karsten Mueller; U. of Osnabrueck * Rebuilding the Foundation: What Is Status and How Do We Measure It? * Presenter: Truit Gray; Bowling Green State U. * Presenter: Lisa Schurer Lambert; Oklahoma State U. * Scale Development Challenges Related to Scoring the CRT-A * Presenter: Sydney Reichin; Pennsylvania State U. * Presenter: Ashley Linden-Carmichael; Pennsylvania State U. * Presenter: Daniel Smith; United States Military Academy * Presenter: James M. LeBreton; Pennsylvania State U. * Transparency With One's Measure: The Impact of Construct and Item Wording on Measurement Development * Presenter: John Lynch; U. of Illinois at Chicago * Presenter: Jingyu Zhang; U. of Illinois at Chicago * Workplace Boredom: Defining a Construct and Developing a Measure * Presenter: Anna Maria Zabinski; Illinois State U. * Presenter: Lisa Schurer Lambert; Oklahoma State U. * Developing the Facets of AI-Attitudes Scale * Presenter: Daria Morozova; HEC Paris [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new ultrasonic periodontal probe has been developed that offers the potential for earlier detection of periodontal disease activity, non-invasive diagnosis, and greater reliability of measurement. A comparison study of the ultrasonic probe to both a manual probe, and a controlled-force probe was conducted to evaluate its clinical effectiveness. Twelve patients enrolled into this study. Two halfmonth examinations were conducted on each patient, scheduled one hour apart. A one-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the results for the three sets of probing depth measurements, followed by a repeated measures analysis to assess the reproducibility of the different probing techniques. These preliminary findings indicate that manual and ultrasonic probing measure different features of the pocket. Therefore, it is not obvious how the two depth measurements correspond to each other. However, both methods exhibited a similar tendency toward increasing pocket depths as Gingival Index scores increased. Based on the small sample size, further studies need to be conducted using a larger population of patients exhibiting a wider range of disease activity. In addition, studies that allow histological examination of the pocket after probing will help further evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the ultrasonic probe. Future studies will also aid in the development of more effective automated feature recognition algorithms that convert the ultrasonic echoes into pocket depth readings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few decades, research on the inclusion of employees with a disability has allowed for theoretical as well as practical contributions. A key focus of this research has been on how best to include (e.g., through accommodations, legislation) those with a disability in the workplace (Beatty, Baldridge, Boehm, Kulkarni, & Colella, 2019). While this research has alluded to the importance of allies and detractors in influencing workplace inclusion, this topic has not received as much research attention. Specifically, allies can support others through affording tangible help, support, defense from threats, and policy advocacy (Asta & Vacha-Haase, 2013; DiStefano, Croteau, Anderson, Kampa-Kokesch, & Bullard, 2000; Sabat et al., 2013; 2014). To address this important albeit under-researched area, this presenter symposium features five research papers by well-known disability scholars. Together, these studies summarized below, extend the boundaries of disability research by highlighting who can be an ally (e.g., internal stakeholders such as managers, external stakeholders such as vocational rehabilitation employees), when, and forms of help extended by such allies. Informal accommodations for employees with disabilities: i-deal or no i-deal? Presenter: Catherine Connelly; McMaster U. Presenter: Silvia Bonaccio; Telfer School of Management, U. of Ottawa. Presenter: Ian R. Gellatly; U. of Alberta. More than a pillar: When co-workers and supervisors become allies for persons with disabilities. Presenter: Amit Jain; S P Jain Institute of Management and Research. Presenter: Christoph Breier; U. of St. Gallen. Presenter: Miriam Karin Baumgaertner; U. of St. Gallen. Presenter: Stephan Alexander Boehm; U. of St. Gallen. Allies as intermediaries: Strategies that promote hiring people with intellectual disabilities. Presenter: Christine Nittrouer; U. of Houston, Downtown. Presenter: Michelle Hebl; Rice U. Presenter: Eden King; Rice U. Enacting and slipping: Workplace behaviors of disability allies. Presenter: John Lynch; U. of Illinois at Chicago. Presenter: Arjun Mitra; California State U., Los Angeles. Presenter: Haoying Xu; U. of Illinois at Chicago. Workplace materiality as an ally or detractor. Presenter: Koen Van Laer; Hasselt U. Presenter: Frederike Scholz; Hasselt U. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most challenging features of a managerial role is the exposure individuals have to informal negative feedback from subordinates, peers, and supervisors. Although such feedback is an inevitable component of a manager's job, we suggest that it can interrupt a manager's sense of self, or identity, such that their well-being and behavior is negatively affected. Drawing from identity theory and identity perspectives on leadership and stress, this research introduces the phenomenon of leader identity threats-- a situation where claims to leadership are not reciprocated through grants of leadership from others. In a two-wave survey of 158 full- time managers from a variety of industries and organizations, we found that managers who experienced leader identity threats to a greater degree in the last year were more likely to experience psychological strain, form intentions to turnover, and self-report negative leader behaviors. Contrary to expectations, support from supervisors did not reduce the negative effects of leader identity threat; indeed, leader identity threat actually negated the positive effects of such support. A third survey employing a critical incidents technique led us to identify four response tactics that managers use to address leader identity threats, including derogating, confessing, teaching, and feedback-seeking. These inductively derived tactics were supplemented by four additional deductively derived responses (withdrawing, shifting, re-framing, and importance change). Finally, through content validation, EFA, and CFA, a scale was developed to measure these eight response tactics. We close by discussing the implications of these findings for organizations, and for future research furthering this line of inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Servant leadership, which prioritizes the interests of followers and other shareholders, is considered as a unique approach that offers much potential to enrich our understanding of leadership. Despite the robust findings on how servant leaders motivate their teams and employees to achieve better performance outcomes, what is much less often a research focus are the questions of what motivates leaders to demonstrate servant leadership and how servant leaders encourage followers' serving, prosocial behaviors that benefit people within and outside organizations. To extend our conceptual and empirical understanding of servant leadership, we offer five papers in this symposium that examine the causes and outcomes of servant leadership, highlighting how servant leadership can be developed through leaders' own experiences and how their servant behaviors can inspire followers to contribute to others at work and to the larger community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This symposium showcases recent work about the processes of stigmatization and potential for destigmatization in organizations. Five papers ranging from empirical to conceptual discuss how and why different types of employee identities and characteristics are stigmatized and the implications of that stigmatization. The papers investigate a diverse set of stigmas non-native accents, sexual minority status, mental illnesses, cumulative stigmas, and stigma by association and a diverse array of outcomes: entrepreneurial funding decisions, coworker treatment, trust, psychological outcomes, and hireability. Further, each paper provides insight what factors may increase or decrease these stigmatization processes. Together, the papers of this symposium fulfill two goals: 1) provide deeper explanations as to how and why stigmatization occurs; and 2) shed light on the role destigmatization can play in making organizations more inclusive. Effects of Disclosure on Evaluations of Nonnative Speakers and Entrepreneurial Investment Decisions Presenter: Regina Kim; IESEG School of Management Presenter: Rae Yunzi Tan; U. of Baltimore Heterosexual Employees' Identity Threat Responses to Gay/Lesbian Disclosure Presenter: Brent John Lyons; Schulich School of Business Presenter: John Lynch; U. of Illinois at Chicago Presenter: Tiffany Dawn Johnson; Georgia Institute of Technology A Continuum of Workplace Mental Health and Illness and its Relationship with Leader Trust Presenter: Amanda J. Hancock; Memorial U. of Newfoundland Presenter: Kara Anne Arnold; Memorial U. of Newfoundland Validation of a Stigma Load Instrument: Implications for Developing an Inclusive Organization Presenter: Roxanne Beard; McKendree U. Presenter: Robyn A. Berkley; Southern Illinois U., Edwardsville Presenter: Catherine Daus; Southern Illinois U., Edwardsville Destigmatization and Its Imbalanced Effects in Labor Markets Presenter: Giacomo Negro; Emory U. Presenter: Melissa J. Williams; Emory U. Presenter: Elizabeth Pontikes; UC Davis [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]