Quotas : Where Utopia meets Reality

When I talk in public, to employers and others about diversity hiring and diversity in the workplace I often say that companies shouldn't be "holding" jobs for diverse persons. Instead I state that

"You should only hire the best candidate. But make sure you are looking at everyone."

I believe that this is true and that in most cases by simply making sure you are actually speaking to everyone, you will have a diverse talent source, and you will then be hiring diverse candidates. I think that this is a better approach than a "quota" style system for many reasons, not the least of which is that quota systems have negative connotations like promoting inferior candidates and being patronizing to the groups they are supposed to be helping.

I think it would be great if every company looked at every candidate and I know that diversity would be more represented at every level of the workforce. However, I also recognize that this is a future, utopian vision. There is a reality built into hiring practices across organizations, even progressive ones, that simply don't value diverse candidates as much as they should. It means that even when you have diverse candidates in your talent sourcing stream you may well not hire them even when their skills are equal to or better than that of other candidates.

Why is this?

The reality is that the hiring process is much more subjective than we'd all sometimes like to admit, and certainly more subjective than the utopian ideal. The result of this subjectivity is that candidates get filtered based on feelings of comfort and familiarity that one person has for unseen candidates. It's not an unnatural process but in fact a very human one, people are just going to feel more comfortable in feeling they *know* someone if they have a familiar name, work history and education but when that feeling dictates who is being offered work it no longer becomes "looking at everyone" despite best intentions.

This isn't a real big "secret" either, I find it interesting into talking with representatives from many diverse groups, for example aboriginal Canadians, just how many of these groups are very interested in jobs and opportunities that companies have identified as ideal for that group. I initially found such attitudes surprising because most of the time members of diverse groups want to be accepted as part of the "mainstream" but it has become clear to me that the reason groups actually want to be placed into silos, at least for employment purposes, is based on experience. These groups have felt and experienced the inherent biases of in existing hiring models, they know that their members often just don't get a "fair" opportunity in competing for jobs against non-diverse candidates.

So what's the answer? Should we just give up and use "quotas" as the only pragmatic solution to a real problem or should we strive for utopia? I think the answer is probably both.

Using quotas, or some sort of comparable type solution will cause more diversity integration into the workplace and in the long run will probably help. But we shouldn't ever lose sight of the utopian vision of a workplace that is diverse simply because we really are looking at and evaluating every candidate on an equal basis. I suggest that in practical terms "not losing sight of the vision" means that when you use quotas you should at least recognize that this is not the ideal. Recognize that quotas are a solution to a systemic problem in the way you are evaluating and hiring candidates and that's the real problem that you need to solve.

And if you do solve it please do let us all know. Turning the hiring process from a subjective one to an objective one is a common goal and not just one limited to diversity. I do know that it's hard but I think in the end it's achievable and more importantly the only realistic long terms solution to the problems of Canada's shrinking labour force.

Increasing your chances for success in finding and keeping Top Talent

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, Google is now in a Battle to Keep Talent. It's a pretty stunning state of affairs. Let's face it the economy in the U.S. is worse off currently than Canadas and this isn't just any "boring" old company we're talking about. It's Google, a company with a reptutation for attracting top talent simply on the strength of its name alone.

What does this mean for Canadian companies? Well we think it's a another sign that that finding and keeping top talent in Canada is going to be increasingly difficult. We're all at least somewhat familiar with the work done by Statistics Canada and the Conference Board of Canada that predicts a shortage of 350,00 skilled workers in Canada by 2015, this is a example of how that shortage isn't going to just suddenly appear. There simply won't be enough workers until midnight December 31st, 2014, followed by the vanishing of over 300,000 people. The labour shortage is a process that will be ongoing, and in many cases has already started.

So what can you do to make sure your company doesn't feel the pinch?

At TalentOyster we talk about Canada's Hidden Talent Pool, what that means and our access to it. In short there is a currently a candidate pool of nearly 5,000,000 Canadians who are seldom reached by "traditional" media. We connect with this pool using non-mainstream media like in-language, community or "ethnic" newspapers, websites and radio. It's a unique audience of virtually untapped sourcing potential.

We would be the first to agree that you should be posting on mainstream job boards like Monster, using talent and recruiting agencies for candidate intake and continuing to make efforts with your employment branding strategies. But you should also look to diversify your sourcing strategies to make sure you are including everyone, and we think TalentOyster helps you do exactly that. In the end we think having a sourcing strategy that is truly all-inclusive increases your chances for success in finding and retaining top talent. If you're not in a battle for talent yet the Google example should serve as a warning of what's to come.

Recruiter frustrations with candidates - not what you think

I have spent much of the last ten years working in the job board industry and working with recruiters and hiring managers. During that time I've heard just about every recruiting and hiring story there is. Good and bad, about candidates, interviews and hires, there's not much I haven't heard before. But a recent chat I had with a female recruiter made me stop and think.

During the course of our conversation she expressed the frustration she felt in hiring women and men into the same roles. Her company would go through the normal talent selection process and come out with great candidates of both sexes. She indicated that one off the most frustrating aspects of her job is the disparity she sees when it comes time to make candidates final offers.

Time after time when the final offers are made she watches as the men negotiate more money and into management training - and the women do not. More often then not, the women take the first offer and are just happy to get the job they wanted with a top employer.

This recruiter was torn between her loyalty to her employer (who was strategically putting a lesser offer in front of candidates in anticipation of negotiation) and her inner voice which was telling her she should advise the women to negotiate - just as the males offered the same role were doing.

It seems to me that in some cases equity in the workplace is hamstrung right from the very first step. And I wonder how much this negotiation gap between gender holds up for other sets of candidates. Like newcomers, or aboriginals, or persons with disabilities. Do all these groups tend to suffer from over-eagerness in accepting positions with top employers?

I also wonder what can be done to help resolve the issue. It would seem that it would take both candidate education but also progressive employers, being, well, progressive in how the process of negotiation and hiring works with diverse candidates, or at the very least the women of their workforce. Food for thought at least.

New Immigrants and the Culture of Innovation

According to Royal Bank of Canada president Gordon Nixon, newcomers are "one of Canada's great competitive advantages". Other speakers at the innovation conference held at the MaRS centre in Toronto last week agreed. And so do we.

Why is this? For one thing newcomers will have, wherever they have come from, a different point of view, ideas and opinions and this helps to break up the "group-think" that is so stifling to innovation. Even more as Mr Nixon went on to say "This is a country that to a large degree has been built by newcomers willing to take risks" and that's a very notable point to consider. Newcomers to Canada are people who were willing to bet on a better life in Canada. They are people used to examining pros and cons of large life decisions and willing to take risks for what they see as opportunities and that is simply a mindset that coalesces well with innovation.

It's just another example of how adding diversity to your workforce, including newcomers to Canada, isn't just about "doing the right thing". It's really about making your business stronger. Sourcing from the widest possible talent pool, adding diverse experiences and encouraging a culture of innovation are all items with real bottom line impact.