I also connected this to what I see in popular culture and social media. A lot of online “allyship” looks loud and performative, but not always relational. Sue et al.’s point about microinterventions being about reassurance and not leaving someone alone in their experience feels very different from posting something just to be seen as on the right side. It makes me think about how real resistance happens in everyday moments, not just big statements.

One big connection I’m making is personal. Reading about microaffirmations reminded me of times when someone didn’t directly “fix” a situation, but still made me feel seen. Rolón-Dow’s idea that affirmation can be as simple as listening well really stuck with me. I’ve noticed that when people actually pause, ask follow-up questions, and don’t rush to give advice, it feels way more supportive than someone jumping in with a solution.

In Rolón-Dow’s microaffirmations typology, especially in the category about listening and validating lived experiences, how do we tell the difference between genuinely affirming someone and unintentionally centering ourselves as the helper?

The section on microinterventions and microresistance makes me think about how public figures on social media call out subtle bias and offer support to targets of discrimination. On platforms like TikTok or Twitter, small acts like explaining why a comment hurts — even to strangers — can have a ripple effect, encouraging others to rethink their words. It connects the chapter’s leadership concepts to real-world interpersonal influences in everyday life, showing that leadership isn’t just formal authority but also everyday relational action.

As I read the chapter’s explanation of microaggressions as “death by a thousand cuts,” I immediately connected it to moments in my own life where small comments about my identity, even when not intended to hurt, accumulated and felt emotionally heavy. Academically, it reminded me of class discussions on implicit bias and how subtle everyday interactions can reinforce stereotypes or exclusion without overt hostility. Recognizing these patterns helps me see why leaders must intentionally disrupt them rather than assume people get it.

Do you think changing the language (e.g., abuse, subtle acts of exclusion) might help groups take interpersonal bias more seriously?

How might a leader use informational or referent power differently to interrupt everyday microaggressions in a group setting?

The 7E model shows that change starts with personal reflection and grows into how we interact with others and challenge systems. Instead of treating growth like a checklist, the model recognizes that learning is messy, ongoing, and not linear. That’s why it uses the word “experience” instead of “step.” We move through these experiences in different orders and often revisit them over time. Cultural humility isn’t something you complete — it’s something you keep practicing.

I thought this was a good example and it had me thinking that people usually don't think this way, that one answer will solve everyones problem. Do you think we do a good job of doing this at Baylor for the students? What are some ways that learning techniques are different for different teachers and students?