Last week I was doing some catch up reading on some back issues of HR Reporter when an article caught my eye and almost immediately it caused me to ask myself a question that I have been pondering since. The article was on the link between a good business culture and real business success. It reported that companies who were perceived, by outsiders to have the best culture were the most successful in Canada.
My question though was which of those come first? The article was at the very least trying to imply that culture comes first, that creating a positive, business culture is one of the things that leads to success. I think there is something to that but in reality I'm not sure that you can breed a positive culture without having success first.
We'd all like to think that while the culture of a business could be separated from the level of success, or lack thereof, that a business has, the reality is it cannot. When times are good employees are going to reflect this and so will the general business atmosphere and culture meanwhile when times are bad the inverse is equally true. Everybody would prefer to work for a “winner” and nobody wants to work in an environment where they are worried about the future, the viability of the company and their job security.
At the same time though it's important to recognize that cultures are not fixed forever. If your business is going through a downturn you are not “doomed” to a downward spiral of negative environment producing poor results. Every business will have its ups and downs and businesses do adapt and change all the time.
Now applying this to the diversity space, how does a company become diverse? Do you start by adding diverse candidates or do you need to incorporate diversity into your business culture first?
No real question here that you need diverse candidates, without making hires that reflect your commitment to diversity your plans are hollow but... if your business culture doesn't embrace diversity will top diverse talents stay with your organization?
Which all leads to the question of how you are supposed to incorporate diversity into a culture if you don't have any (or much) diversity yet. As my colleague John wrote earlier in the week organizations that are successful with diversity know that both a top-down and bottom-up strategy is needed and I think the same applies here. If you want a diverse culture you need to bring in diverse candidates of course, but you can't overlook making sure your culture reflects the diversity of where you really want to go.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Bottom up or top down?
Last week I was interested to read about a bit of a commotion in Germany regarding women in the workplace. It seems that women only make up 3.2% of the members of executive or advisory boards of Germany's top 200 companies. That's a bad number, what makes it even worse, and what the stories last week were about, is that it's a problem that German business has been trying to address for ten years.
Back in 2001 German companies introduced voluntary targets to raise the representation of women in executive or advisory roles. Chancellor Angela Merkel described the effect of these voluntary targets as "modest results" and said that more needs to be done. But really, if 3.2% represents "improvement" when a demographic number would suggest more in the range of 50% the situation really is quite bad.
An outcome of this is that the German Minister of Labour has threatened to impose mandatory quotas that businesses would have to achieve. The numbers being talked about are 30% by 2018, which would be a significant change. As expected, the threat to impose mandatory quotas is not without controversy of course, with companies who would be affected complaining about the possible interference in running strong businesses. In the end the government stated that businesses have 2 more years (till 2013) to triple the number of women in executive roles or the government would force business to address the issue.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, tripling the number in three years sounds very aggressive until you consider that's still only about 9.5%. It's also interesting to note the excuses and reasons given by these companies. As per usual they claim the results of their strategy simply aren't paying off yet, that they are integrating women into their corporate culture and promotion structure but it takes time to see the results of this at the very top.
No question, bottom up strategies have the largest potential benefit for all those involved. Companies get employees who are invested in the process and are well acclimated with the culture, needs and strategies of the business. But does it actually work?
Historically the conclusion would have to be no. Implementing diversity strategies with only a bottom-up approach seems to time and again to fail and there are good reasons for this.
In the German example we can see one of the reasons why, it takes so long to see results that it's difficult to know if it's working... or not. Now common sense would say that with only 3% it almost certainly is not working, but the businesses make the case that it's impossibly to tell yet and apparently in this case the government agrees that that might be true. True or not the point of difficulty in measuring success in intermediate terms is a problem here and when the success of a strategy is measured in decade cycles that's a real issue.
A second problem, but one I believe just as bad if not worse is that bottom-up strategies don't shock the culture into the change that is needed in order to make the strategy a success. When diverse employees (women or otherwise) look up the corporate ladder and only see white males in the top roles what sort of message do you think that sends to them? How motivational do you think that is? What kind of trust in your diversity strategy will employees who see this have?
Right about as much as you think. And the problem of leadership not reflecting your diversity goals extends to more than just if diverse employees believe you, it's also about the vision and direction of your organization as a whole. Executives in leadership roles are, well, leaders. A company can't really have an inclusive vision without inclusivity in its visionaries.
Don't get me wrong, as I said earlier bottom-up strategies do have long term benefits for companies, investing in top talent will in the long haul bring results. But a bottom-up strategy when it comes to making a company more diverse just doesn't work, on it's own. It's not a question of bottom-up or top-down, but recognizing that to have an effective strategy when it comes to diversity, you need a little bit of both.
Back in 2001 German companies introduced voluntary targets to raise the representation of women in executive or advisory roles. Chancellor Angela Merkel described the effect of these voluntary targets as "modest results" and said that more needs to be done. But really, if 3.2% represents "improvement" when a demographic number would suggest more in the range of 50% the situation really is quite bad.
An outcome of this is that the German Minister of Labour has threatened to impose mandatory quotas that businesses would have to achieve. The numbers being talked about are 30% by 2018, which would be a significant change. As expected, the threat to impose mandatory quotas is not without controversy of course, with companies who would be affected complaining about the possible interference in running strong businesses. In the end the government stated that businesses have 2 more years (till 2013) to triple the number of women in executive roles or the government would force business to address the issue.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, tripling the number in three years sounds very aggressive until you consider that's still only about 9.5%. It's also interesting to note the excuses and reasons given by these companies. As per usual they claim the results of their strategy simply aren't paying off yet, that they are integrating women into their corporate culture and promotion structure but it takes time to see the results of this at the very top.
No question, bottom up strategies have the largest potential benefit for all those involved. Companies get employees who are invested in the process and are well acclimated with the culture, needs and strategies of the business. But does it actually work?
Historically the conclusion would have to be no. Implementing diversity strategies with only a bottom-up approach seems to time and again to fail and there are good reasons for this.
In the German example we can see one of the reasons why, it takes so long to see results that it's difficult to know if it's working... or not. Now common sense would say that with only 3% it almost certainly is not working, but the businesses make the case that it's impossibly to tell yet and apparently in this case the government agrees that that might be true. True or not the point of difficulty in measuring success in intermediate terms is a problem here and when the success of a strategy is measured in decade cycles that's a real issue.
A second problem, but one I believe just as bad if not worse is that bottom-up strategies don't shock the culture into the change that is needed in order to make the strategy a success. When diverse employees (women or otherwise) look up the corporate ladder and only see white males in the top roles what sort of message do you think that sends to them? How motivational do you think that is? What kind of trust in your diversity strategy will employees who see this have?
Right about as much as you think. And the problem of leadership not reflecting your diversity goals extends to more than just if diverse employees believe you, it's also about the vision and direction of your organization as a whole. Executives in leadership roles are, well, leaders. A company can't really have an inclusive vision without inclusivity in its visionaries.
Don't get me wrong, as I said earlier bottom-up strategies do have long term benefits for companies, investing in top talent will in the long haul bring results. But a bottom-up strategy when it comes to making a company more diverse just doesn't work, on it's own. It's not a question of bottom-up or top-down, but recognizing that to have an effective strategy when it comes to diversity, you need a little bit of both.
Monday, March 28, 2011
LGBT - The forgotten diversity group
In some ways it seems like an odd thing to say that LGBT is the "forgotten" diversity group because, at least in Canada, alternative genders and lifestyles have become largely an accepted community (or at the very least a well known one) and yet I think when it comes to issues of employment there is an element of truth to it.
There are a couple of reasons for this, the first being that it's an example of the gap that can exist between "awareness" and "action" when it comes to any business culture changing initiatives, but of course specifically as we are most interested in, diversity ones. In short knowing that we should be doing something or aren't doing enough is better than not knowing, but it isn't the same as actually doing something.
Part of the issue here is that sometimes knowing that we should be doing something doesn't mean that we actually know what that something is. As a diversity group LGBT can fall into this category because for many organizations both knowing how to identify members of this group and what steps to take to make sure that they are incorporated as part of a diversity strategy are a bit tricky.
Like any successful corporate strategy it begins with clearly communicating objectives to all employees. Making sure that employees know what sorts of behaviour are acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to LGBT groups should be done just like any other diversity group. Even more fostering a culture of acceptance and inclusion starts with everyone understanding what the expectations are, and what the eventual goals are and those should be communicated clearly as well. When all the members of the team know what the goal is, that is having success by creating a diverse culture that is welcoming to the best candidates for all opportunities, you're more likely to reach that goal.
LGBT can also be difficult to address from the diversity standpoint because members of this group are more likely to be victims of quiet discrimination. The reality of the "old boys club" lives on and can exclude LGBT just like women, visible minorities and others. Sometimes members of diverse groups aren't being actively discriminated against but their opportunities for advancement in an organization are limited because they don't participate in the same social events or share the same interests that members of management might.
The second reason I think that LGBT can get overlooked has to do with cultural sensitivities and it's possibly even more of a problem. The fact is that there are many cultures and countries where LGBT personas are not seen as acceptable and/or wanted. Even in North America there are groups who would seek to persecute and discriminate against others on the basis of their sexual orientation and when it comes to opinions the world over this, sadly, counts as enlightened. It's a serious problem and its tentacles do extend into diversity initiatives here as well.
For example, with some cultural groups who historically and currently in their home countries suppress and/or discriminate against LGBT how can your organization be inclusive of both these groups? It almost seems impossible on the face of it, the existence of one group is offensive to another group so how can the two co-exist?
The fact of the matter is that while it does seem like a complication it is no different than the challenge of inclusion with any other diverse groups who might historically not get along. Ask yourself this question: how would you include both Arabs and Jews into your organization? What about Hindus and Muslims? You wouldn't think twice about encouraging groups to express themselves but at the same time setting clear boundaries on what sorts of behaviours are appropriate. The same standards should apply to LGBT.
It's not always about inclusion, it's often simply about making sure we're not allowing groups to be excluded and anyone who can be victimized on the basis of their race, religion, gender, background or sexual orientation deserves the same level of protection against exclusion.
There are a couple of reasons for this, the first being that it's an example of the gap that can exist between "awareness" and "action" when it comes to any business culture changing initiatives, but of course specifically as we are most interested in, diversity ones. In short knowing that we should be doing something or aren't doing enough is better than not knowing, but it isn't the same as actually doing something.
Part of the issue here is that sometimes knowing that we should be doing something doesn't mean that we actually know what that something is. As a diversity group LGBT can fall into this category because for many organizations both knowing how to identify members of this group and what steps to take to make sure that they are incorporated as part of a diversity strategy are a bit tricky.
Like any successful corporate strategy it begins with clearly communicating objectives to all employees. Making sure that employees know what sorts of behaviour are acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to LGBT groups should be done just like any other diversity group. Even more fostering a culture of acceptance and inclusion starts with everyone understanding what the expectations are, and what the eventual goals are and those should be communicated clearly as well. When all the members of the team know what the goal is, that is having success by creating a diverse culture that is welcoming to the best candidates for all opportunities, you're more likely to reach that goal.
LGBT can also be difficult to address from the diversity standpoint because members of this group are more likely to be victims of quiet discrimination. The reality of the "old boys club" lives on and can exclude LGBT just like women, visible minorities and others. Sometimes members of diverse groups aren't being actively discriminated against but their opportunities for advancement in an organization are limited because they don't participate in the same social events or share the same interests that members of management might.
The second reason I think that LGBT can get overlooked has to do with cultural sensitivities and it's possibly even more of a problem. The fact is that there are many cultures and countries where LGBT personas are not seen as acceptable and/or wanted. Even in North America there are groups who would seek to persecute and discriminate against others on the basis of their sexual orientation and when it comes to opinions the world over this, sadly, counts as enlightened. It's a serious problem and its tentacles do extend into diversity initiatives here as well.
For example, with some cultural groups who historically and currently in their home countries suppress and/or discriminate against LGBT how can your organization be inclusive of both these groups? It almost seems impossible on the face of it, the existence of one group is offensive to another group so how can the two co-exist?
The fact of the matter is that while it does seem like a complication it is no different than the challenge of inclusion with any other diverse groups who might historically not get along. Ask yourself this question: how would you include both Arabs and Jews into your organization? What about Hindus and Muslims? You wouldn't think twice about encouraging groups to express themselves but at the same time setting clear boundaries on what sorts of behaviours are appropriate. The same standards should apply to LGBT.
It's not always about inclusion, it's often simply about making sure we're not allowing groups to be excluded and anyone who can be victimized on the basis of their race, religion, gender, background or sexual orientation deserves the same level of protection against exclusion.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The TalentOyster Network : a combined approach to diversity talent sourcing
Even though (or perhaps because of) we work in the field, we can tell you that driving diverse candidate traffic is not an easy thing. The short answer as to why is the amount of market fragmentation that exists. There are many, many, many diverse communities and markets in Canada but most of them are, relatively speaking, quite small. It's only in combining them that a candidate flow strategy can really make sense which is one of the reasons we call it Canada's Hidden Talent Pool.
The creation of TalentOyster was based on the principle of funnelling candidates from these fragmented markets into one collective pool from the perspective of companies looking to hire. TalentOyster is different because it is the only diversity related employment portal that was built around a traffic strategy first and the only one deeply connected to the existing multi-cultural media community in Canada.
In this line, right from the start TalentOyster has been connected to diverse cultural communities across Canada through the media partner network of our parent publishing company. This has given us a great start when it comes to candidate flow but as we have learned a strategy more proactive than advertisements and editorial content in newsmedia publications is required. We initially moved on this strategy by being leading edge in leveraging social media with programs like our Tweeting of Jobs and pushing updates to candidates via email, RSS and SMS. But we realized that these aren't always enough either so enter the TalentOyster Network.
The TalentOyster Network is a network of white-label sites built on the TalentOyster platform and sites using the TalentOyster API.
Our White-Label sites leverage the trust candidates have in an existing community/media brand by wrapping a custom branded job-board solution built on TalentOyster and featuring the opportunity and employment content of our site for some of the affinity groups and communities we work with. Without all the buzzwords what does that mean? Well check out EpochJobs.ca, a Chinese language website, managed by a community trusted newsmedia publisher (EpochTimes) that features TalentOyster content. It's just one example of how we are expanding the funnel concept through our white-label network and we're adding more trusted partners in more affinity groups all the time, including Hispanic, South Asian, Aboriginal and LGBT.
The second and even newer way we are being more proactive in increasing our candidate flow is via OCEAN, a REST API for TalentOyster. OCEAN lets anyone interested to embed job search functionality and content from TalentOyster right into their own website. Sites can execute searches for job on TalentOyster, get results and then format and display them, however they like, to their own visitors. In some ways you can think of it is as a White-Label "lite".
Either way we're excited about our new funnel concept. We think by remaining the only diversity job board with a candidate traffic first vision we will continue to improve upon what is already the best streams of diversity candidate flow in the country. Because the more great candidates are connected to great employers the more everyone gains.
The creation of TalentOyster was based on the principle of funnelling candidates from these fragmented markets into one collective pool from the perspective of companies looking to hire. TalentOyster is different because it is the only diversity related employment portal that was built around a traffic strategy first and the only one deeply connected to the existing multi-cultural media community in Canada.
In this line, right from the start TalentOyster has been connected to diverse cultural communities across Canada through the media partner network of our parent publishing company. This has given us a great start when it comes to candidate flow but as we have learned a strategy more proactive than advertisements and editorial content in newsmedia publications is required. We initially moved on this strategy by being leading edge in leveraging social media with programs like our Tweeting of Jobs and pushing updates to candidates via email, RSS and SMS. But we realized that these aren't always enough either so enter the TalentOyster Network.
The TalentOyster Network is a network of white-label sites built on the TalentOyster platform and sites using the TalentOyster API.
Our White-Label sites leverage the trust candidates have in an existing community/media brand by wrapping a custom branded job-board solution built on TalentOyster and featuring the opportunity and employment content of our site for some of the affinity groups and communities we work with. Without all the buzzwords what does that mean? Well check out EpochJobs.ca, a Chinese language website, managed by a community trusted newsmedia publisher (EpochTimes) that features TalentOyster content. It's just one example of how we are expanding the funnel concept through our white-label network and we're adding more trusted partners in more affinity groups all the time, including Hispanic, South Asian, Aboriginal and LGBT.
The second and even newer way we are being more proactive in increasing our candidate flow is via OCEAN, a REST API for TalentOyster. OCEAN lets anyone interested to embed job search functionality and content from TalentOyster right into their own website. Sites can execute searches for job on TalentOyster, get results and then format and display them, however they like, to their own visitors. In some ways you can think of it is as a White-Label "lite".
Either way we're excited about our new funnel concept. We think by remaining the only diversity job board with a candidate traffic first vision we will continue to improve upon what is already the best streams of diversity candidate flow in the country. Because the more great candidates are connected to great employers the more everyone gains.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Job boards and the problem of metrics
A well known technique of successful businesses is to constantly be collecting, measuring, analyzing and applying data and results. Metrics. They're great and I mean that. If you're not measuring some fundamentals about your business then how do you know what success actually looks like?
When it comes to job boards it's no different, the concept of using metrics to evaluate performance still applies, although over time what is being measured has in some cases changed. Originally it was only the number of applications that was counted and for some organizations this is still all that is measured. For other, highly metric focused organizations, this expanded to measuring number of "quality" or "qualified" candidates and some even further to encompassing "quality of hire". At the same time some organizations have gone the other way and are only counting the actual number of views per job as their job board measuring metric.
So who or what is right?
No doubt the idea behind measuring "quality of hire" is a good one but I don't fundamentally believe it's very fair because there are so many other, far more important factors that come into account. Let's look at the TalentOyster example. A company uses TalentOyster but discovers their rate of quality hires is less than they mainstream sourcing solution they already use. Is that difference really due to TalentOyster or something more? Is the culture of the organization actually diversity friendly? Is the organization actually making diversity hires in the first place? These are pretty vital factors that have nothing to do with the job board itself and yet are reflected in that metric.
Qualified applicants seems like a better measure, and it probably is in most cases although it still can be a victim of bias. And measuring all applications is simply too broad a number to be useful so what can you use?
I believe the answer, for multiple reasons is to use view as your only real job board measuring metric. I know, I know views are a measurement even more broad than applications, but really I believe the only metric that can be usefully measured. Really what job boards are about is advertising your employment brand and the kinds of jobs your organization has to the widest possible audience. The deeper your candidate pool is the more likely you will be able to hire the best candidates for your positions and so reaching the larges audience you can should be your goal. A job board isn't a replacement for your interview, resume screening and hiring processes; it's simply another medium for you expose your employment message on.
I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. Yes, we all want to measure ROI, but you don't measure the ROI of marketing or advertising campaigns on the basis of what happens today. It's about the brand knowledge and loyalty you build that will influence the customers decision process when it comes to making a purchase. Likewise with job boards you want to "plant the seeds" with prospective candidates, so that they think of what a career with your organization might be like, so that they think of you first when looking for something new and/or better or in the best case scenario so that working at your organization becomes internalized as a career ideal.
It turns out these ideas hold even truer for diversity groups, especially for some specific cultures. For example did you know that 1st and 2nd generation South Asians are 60% more likely to look at job boards at least once a week even when not actively looking for work? It's the kind of demographic that makes you rethink what the term passive candidate really means.
I am not saying don't use metrics. Obviously they help keep many companies on the success vector, but when it comes to job boards I do think you should be carefully evaluating what you are measuring and why.
Sourcing and hiring aren't about "quick fixes", they're about long term success strategies and they should be measured as such. How many more people know about your company as an employment brand and think positively about it? That's what you should be measuring when it comes to job boards. Even if it can be harder to measure than what you are currently it is after all a measurement that's more reflective of the longer term nature of your sourcing and hiring strategies.
When it comes to job boards it's no different, the concept of using metrics to evaluate performance still applies, although over time what is being measured has in some cases changed. Originally it was only the number of applications that was counted and for some organizations this is still all that is measured. For other, highly metric focused organizations, this expanded to measuring number of "quality" or "qualified" candidates and some even further to encompassing "quality of hire". At the same time some organizations have gone the other way and are only counting the actual number of views per job as their job board measuring metric.
So who or what is right?
No doubt the idea behind measuring "quality of hire" is a good one but I don't fundamentally believe it's very fair because there are so many other, far more important factors that come into account. Let's look at the TalentOyster example. A company uses TalentOyster but discovers their rate of quality hires is less than they mainstream sourcing solution they already use. Is that difference really due to TalentOyster or something more? Is the culture of the organization actually diversity friendly? Is the organization actually making diversity hires in the first place? These are pretty vital factors that have nothing to do with the job board itself and yet are reflected in that metric.
Qualified applicants seems like a better measure, and it probably is in most cases although it still can be a victim of bias. And measuring all applications is simply too broad a number to be useful so what can you use?
I believe the answer, for multiple reasons is to use view as your only real job board measuring metric. I know, I know views are a measurement even more broad than applications, but really I believe the only metric that can be usefully measured. Really what job boards are about is advertising your employment brand and the kinds of jobs your organization has to the widest possible audience. The deeper your candidate pool is the more likely you will be able to hire the best candidates for your positions and so reaching the larges audience you can should be your goal. A job board isn't a replacement for your interview, resume screening and hiring processes; it's simply another medium for you expose your employment message on.
I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. Yes, we all want to measure ROI, but you don't measure the ROI of marketing or advertising campaigns on the basis of what happens today. It's about the brand knowledge and loyalty you build that will influence the customers decision process when it comes to making a purchase. Likewise with job boards you want to "plant the seeds" with prospective candidates, so that they think of what a career with your organization might be like, so that they think of you first when looking for something new and/or better or in the best case scenario so that working at your organization becomes internalized as a career ideal.
It turns out these ideas hold even truer for diversity groups, especially for some specific cultures. For example did you know that 1st and 2nd generation South Asians are 60% more likely to look at job boards at least once a week even when not actively looking for work? It's the kind of demographic that makes you rethink what the term passive candidate really means.
I am not saying don't use metrics. Obviously they help keep many companies on the success vector, but when it comes to job boards I do think you should be carefully evaluating what you are measuring and why.
Sourcing and hiring aren't about "quick fixes", they're about long term success strategies and they should be measured as such. How many more people know about your company as an employment brand and think positively about it? That's what you should be measuring when it comes to job boards. Even if it can be harder to measure than what you are currently it is after all a measurement that's more reflective of the longer term nature of your sourcing and hiring strategies.
Friday, March 4, 2011
B2B, Pan Am Games and Diversity
This past week the 2015 Pan Am Games (to be held in Toronto) organizers announced that bidders for contracts for the games (from construction to concessions and everything in between) will be required to demonstrate that they will involve businesses and employees from traditionally under-represented ethnic communities. Read more about the story in the Globe and Mail here.
This isn't actually a new idea, although extending such a plan to all bidders is new. Following on the trend of such international events requiring bidders and contracts to be awarded with marks for environmental sustainability (such as those for the Vancouver Olympics) the trend of supporting "minorities" or other diverse groups is growing. The London Olympics has a diversity strategy when it comes to supply chain and now the next logical step is being taken by Toronto's Pan Am Games organizers.
But is this a good thing? Will the imposition of "quotas" on contract bidders actually support diversity or simply support less capable vendors/companies?
Ian Troop, CEO of the Toronto Pan Am Games made some comments addressing this which I found striking. He said,
Hey, that sounds kind of familiar to me! As I have said many times before, "You should only hire the best candidate. But make sure you are looking at everyone". I am glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way.
Diversity strategies aren't about doing what is "right" or what is "politically correct", they are about doing what is actually best from a pure business standpoint. Quotas aren't about promoting inferior candidates or in the Pan Am Games example inferior companies, past their competency. Quotas or requirements are about making sure that diverse candidates or organizations aren't being cut out of the process due to inherent biases in it. If all contracts are awarded and hires are made simply on the basis of who has done it before, who is best connected with my network or who I feel I personally relate to the most, you will be leaving large groups of possible candidates and companies out in the cold. The result of that being that what you are ending up with right now is inferior to what you could have.
Companies who "get it" when it comes to diversity already know this. It's why they are committed to a diversity strategy that embraces the full process, from employment branding, to candidate sourcing, to hiring and onboarding. But this story is about an even more immediate reward for companies still on the fence, namely that by increasing the diversity of your organization you can win more business.
As someone as familiar with the sales process as I am I can tell you that any advantage you have over your competition when it comes to selling your company is a good thing. The inverse is also true; lacking an advantage a competitor has can put you at a severe disadvantage. The growing amount of RFPs and bidding outlines with diversity as an integral component of the process mean that if you don't have a diversity strategy for your organization you're being left behind.
This isn't actually a new idea, although extending such a plan to all bidders is new. Following on the trend of such international events requiring bidders and contracts to be awarded with marks for environmental sustainability (such as those for the Vancouver Olympics) the trend of supporting "minorities" or other diverse groups is growing. The London Olympics has a diversity strategy when it comes to supply chain and now the next logical step is being taken by Toronto's Pan Am Games organizers.
But is this a good thing? Will the imposition of "quotas" on contract bidders actually support diversity or simply support less capable vendors/companies?
Ian Troop, CEO of the Toronto Pan Am Games made some comments addressing this which I found striking. He said,
We’re not showing any favouritism to anybody. We’re saying to employers, "Recognize the reality of the marketplace and community we live in... This is a level playing field and a meritocracy. The cream will rise to the top."
Hey, that sounds kind of familiar to me! As I have said many times before, "You should only hire the best candidate. But make sure you are looking at everyone". I am glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way.
Diversity strategies aren't about doing what is "right" or what is "politically correct", they are about doing what is actually best from a pure business standpoint. Quotas aren't about promoting inferior candidates or in the Pan Am Games example inferior companies, past their competency. Quotas or requirements are about making sure that diverse candidates or organizations aren't being cut out of the process due to inherent biases in it. If all contracts are awarded and hires are made simply on the basis of who has done it before, who is best connected with my network or who I feel I personally relate to the most, you will be leaving large groups of possible candidates and companies out in the cold. The result of that being that what you are ending up with right now is inferior to what you could have.
Companies who "get it" when it comes to diversity already know this. It's why they are committed to a diversity strategy that embraces the full process, from employment branding, to candidate sourcing, to hiring and onboarding. But this story is about an even more immediate reward for companies still on the fence, namely that by increasing the diversity of your organization you can win more business.
As someone as familiar with the sales process as I am I can tell you that any advantage you have over your competition when it comes to selling your company is a good thing. The inverse is also true; lacking an advantage a competitor has can put you at a severe disadvantage. The growing amount of RFPs and bidding outlines with diversity as an integral component of the process mean that if you don't have a diversity strategy for your organization you're being left behind.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Furthering the diversity business case
Yesterday the Globe and Mail ran a story titled Ethnic consumer the goal for new Loblaw president, that is interesting for multiple reasons. The article speaks to the issues, challenges and solutions that Loblaw, as a major retailer faces when it come to the "ethnic" or diversity market.
Loblaw is a TalentOyster employer and was recently named as one of Canada's best diversity employers and it is not a coincidence that a retail organization would be so interested in diversity. In what is perhaps most succinct business case for adding diversity at any level to any organization the article says:
That's a pretty stunning number when you stop and think about it. What are your sales growth projections for the next 10 years? Are you making efforts to reach a diverse audience? If not you can cut those projections right now by two-thirds and that's only if you're lucky! The fact is that diversity isn't just a "nice to have" any more for business, it's now a "must have to survive".
This is the other, I think, compelling reason for why your diversity employment strategy must be strong. (The first reason being actually hiring good candidates which sure does seem like the kind of thing a company looking to be successful would want to do...) A more diverse workforce gives you better access to more diverse markets.
Ironically it's many of the same causes that push diverse candidates aside; comfort with "hidden" cultural references, networks of like minded people and the trust that comes in doing business with "someone like me" that will keep your business from growing in diverse markets. If you don't have representatives from the communities you are trying to reach on your payroll how can you possibly expect to build the same level of branding, trust, communication and user experience with those communities? You simply can't.
"But, this is retail", you say "this won't actually my B2B based business".
Oh really?
Yes it is retail, but let's remember that when it comes to consumer trends, in retail you're either first or dead. In other words retail may be setting the trend but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be closely following. The fact is that the size of diverse markets are growing and as retail operations reflect that it will increase the expectations for everyone about what a company should "look like". A company with a diverse, integrated workforce is clearly, demonstrably reflective of it's interest and commitment to diversity.
Diverse companies are going to seek out and prefer other diverse companies, because they clearly share some core business priorities, values and strategies. You clearly don't want to be the non-diverse company in this landscape and if, as the article shows, major retailers are diving into the diversity space then you need to make sure you are or will be soon.
And that means a real diversity strategy. Not just slapping a picture of a new immigrant and a woman in wheelchair on your website. Not just printing up your brochures in Mandarin Chinese. A real strategy starts internally and it begins with your workforce.
Loblaw is a TalentOyster employer and was recently named as one of Canada's best diversity employers and it is not a coincidence that a retail organization would be so interested in diversity. In what is perhaps most succinct business case for adding diversity at any level to any organization the article says:
"About 70 per cent of spending growth in the next decade will come from visible minority groups, according [to] CIBC World Markets."
That's a pretty stunning number when you stop and think about it. What are your sales growth projections for the next 10 years? Are you making efforts to reach a diverse audience? If not you can cut those projections right now by two-thirds and that's only if you're lucky! The fact is that diversity isn't just a "nice to have" any more for business, it's now a "must have to survive".
This is the other, I think, compelling reason for why your diversity employment strategy must be strong. (The first reason being actually hiring good candidates which sure does seem like the kind of thing a company looking to be successful would want to do...) A more diverse workforce gives you better access to more diverse markets.
Ironically it's many of the same causes that push diverse candidates aside; comfort with "hidden" cultural references, networks of like minded people and the trust that comes in doing business with "someone like me" that will keep your business from growing in diverse markets. If you don't have representatives from the communities you are trying to reach on your payroll how can you possibly expect to build the same level of branding, trust, communication and user experience with those communities? You simply can't.
"But, this is retail", you say "this won't actually my B2B based business".
Oh really?
Yes it is retail, but let's remember that when it comes to consumer trends, in retail you're either first or dead. In other words retail may be setting the trend but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be closely following. The fact is that the size of diverse markets are growing and as retail operations reflect that it will increase the expectations for everyone about what a company should "look like". A company with a diverse, integrated workforce is clearly, demonstrably reflective of it's interest and commitment to diversity.
Diverse companies are going to seek out and prefer other diverse companies, because they clearly share some core business priorities, values and strategies. You clearly don't want to be the non-diverse company in this landscape and if, as the article shows, major retailers are diving into the diversity space then you need to make sure you are or will be soon.
And that means a real diversity strategy. Not just slapping a picture of a new immigrant and a woman in wheelchair on your website. Not just printing up your brochures in Mandarin Chinese. A real strategy starts internally and it begins with your workforce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)