A couple of weeks ago a study was released that revealed some shocking statistics on the potential for new immigrants to Canada and their descendents. In short what the study showed was that in spite of higher than average education levels, income and employment were both below average for second generation Canadians. That is Canadians, born, raised and educated in Canada but who are the sons and daughters of immigrants.
The difficulty of many immigrants in finding meaningful employment is well documented and is usually ascribed to such factors as language issues, difficulty in getting international education credentials recognized or just unfamiliarity with Canadian business culture. The darker and generally unspoken factors are items like ignorance or even outright bigotry and racism. We all want to believe that the latter is not true, that the first reasons, which are all somewhat pragmatic are the reasons immigrants struggle. The results of this study fairly clearly demonstrate that sadly this is not the real case.
We have long believed that building awareness of cultural barriers, the barriers that prevent true inclusiveness is a keystone to a successful diverse workforce strategy. This is in part because the recruiting and sourcing functions of any organization have far more cultural bias inherent in them and far more subjectivity in general then most of us want to ever acknowledge.
I've spoken before on the resume analogy but it remains a good one and so I'll recap it here. If you are a recruiter or screener and there is a position to fill, urgently as of course it almost always is, and you need to pull 10 resumes out of a stack of 100 which resumes and candidates end up being selected? Now we all know that those 100 aren't going to be great, not qualified, lacking experience or just a poorly written resume are all items that can, do and should put us off selecting a candidate. So for example let's say that reduces the list from 100 to 50, how do the final 10 make the cut from those? We can hope that it's for objective reasons but human experience, and the evidence shows that the process is highly subjective and relies foremost on the feeling of connection that you as the screener have for the person whose resume you are holding and cultural affinity, or the perception thereof plays a huge role in that.
The fact that this takes place should really in the end not be surprising, and to some degree at least the screeners and recruiters are not to blame. The process itself is to blame with an emphasis on metrics that do not encourage the treating of all candidates equally and the lack of recognition of the role that subjective analysis plays in the filling of roles. And lest you come away with the impression that it's only the screening process that's broken, it is not, each step in recruitment, candidate selection and hiring has these similar types of flaws, it just happens to be perhaps most blatant at the screening step.
So what can be done about this? I think three things.
Generate awareness. Diversity sensitivity training isn't just a nice thing to do, it really can have practical benefits. While affinity biases won't be eradicated over night sometimes just being aware of an issue, being aware of how an unknown bias is affecting their judgement can help people to re-evaluate some of their decisions in future.
Fix the process. A lot of time and money is spent by companies to metricize and evaluate their hiring and HR processes. It certainly can be said that fully objectifying the hiring process is one of the holy grails of the recruiting and HR worlds. Whether, practically speaking this can actually be accomplished is a matter of some debate but all the same it's worth noting that improvements to the process are going to help diverse candidates, perhaps more than anyone.
Diversify your recruiting, sourcing and HR teams. It almost shouldn't have to be said but one way to eliminate cultural bias towards any group is to include members of that group in the process making the decisions. Fixing the process and raising awareness are both good and noble ideas but can take time to implement and generate results. Making your “front line” hiring and HR functions more diverse will pay immediate dividends in removing these biases and prejudices from you process.
Let's always remember that a moral right or wrong isn't the reason to do any of this. We should feel a moral obligation to do something about the unfairness with a situation like that suggested by the study but that is not the reason to fix it. The reason that you must address the inequality is that until you do you simply aren't hiring all the best candidates. Because until the point that you are sure that you are actually looking at everyone you just won't know what you're missing.
Showing posts with label diversity in the workplace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversity in the workplace. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Stop using the economy as an excuse
It seems that organizations fall into three main groups on the workforce diversity spectrum. Some see the value and are truly committed, a tiny minority just don't care at all and then there's the majority of companies who fall somewhere in between these two categories.
It is hard to know sometimes where individual members of this middle group actually sit even though I engage with many of them on a fairly regular basis in my role as a diversity evangelizer. Almost all of these organizations do have one common attribute, they claim that diversity is important to them. They do see the value. They do care. But...
It's always a but.
One of the reasons I hear right now goes something like "*mumble* recession *mumble* hiring-freeze *mumble* global economic credit issues". On the face of it this seems like a reasonable excuse but here's the reality, Canada is not the U.S! The Canadian economy is not in the same shambles as our neighbours to the south and in fact some areas of Canada continue to experience labour shortages. Second we all know that for enterprise size organizations a "hiring freeze" is only a concept and not a reality. No enterprise level organization goes two years without hiring anybody. Even if hiring for expansion is curtailed, there will still be critical existing roles that will open up and require filling during that time.
More than any of that though is the fact that any excuse is, well, an excuse and it is telling of where your priorities with diversity really are. If your diversity strategy is a plan that is thrown away at the first excuse it's just not much of a strategy at all.
This is the fundamental reason that the organizations that have success with diversity are the ones doing "it" right now. Because the companies who are doing it now are the ones whose strategy is founded on real commitment and that's reflected in their employment brand and the types of candidates available to them. Remember that at the end of the day your employment brand isn't a nice-looking poster or a hilarious viral video but a reflection of the way your organization actually deals with its employees.
Just think about it. If you were a diverse candidate would you want to work for a company that was known for its commitment to diversity? Or the company that had a reputation for being fickle on the issue?
So the next time you find yourself putting off your diversity initiatives because of the economy or any other reason really, ask yourself the questions above. Just know that a diverse candidate is going to answer them in the exact same way that you would.
It is hard to know sometimes where individual members of this middle group actually sit even though I engage with many of them on a fairly regular basis in my role as a diversity evangelizer. Almost all of these organizations do have one common attribute, they claim that diversity is important to them. They do see the value. They do care. But...
It's always a but.
One of the reasons I hear right now goes something like "*mumble* recession *mumble* hiring-freeze *mumble* global economic credit issues". On the face of it this seems like a reasonable excuse but here's the reality, Canada is not the U.S! The Canadian economy is not in the same shambles as our neighbours to the south and in fact some areas of Canada continue to experience labour shortages. Second we all know that for enterprise size organizations a "hiring freeze" is only a concept and not a reality. No enterprise level organization goes two years without hiring anybody. Even if hiring for expansion is curtailed, there will still be critical existing roles that will open up and require filling during that time.
More than any of that though is the fact that any excuse is, well, an excuse and it is telling of where your priorities with diversity really are. If your diversity strategy is a plan that is thrown away at the first excuse it's just not much of a strategy at all.
This is the fundamental reason that the organizations that have success with diversity are the ones doing "it" right now. Because the companies who are doing it now are the ones whose strategy is founded on real commitment and that's reflected in their employment brand and the types of candidates available to them. Remember that at the end of the day your employment brand isn't a nice-looking poster or a hilarious viral video but a reflection of the way your organization actually deals with its employees.
Just think about it. If you were a diverse candidate would you want to work for a company that was known for its commitment to diversity? Or the company that had a reputation for being fickle on the issue?
So the next time you find yourself putting off your diversity initiatives because of the economy or any other reason really, ask yourself the questions above. Just know that a diverse candidate is going to answer them in the exact same way that you would.
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.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
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
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.
"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.
Monday, November 8, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 1, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Diversity Resources for Employers
There are many resources for employers looking to increase the diversity of their workforce but one can argue that there are so many that it can be overwhelming to know what services you actually need or who to actually speak to about it.
This is where the TalentOyster Partner Network comes in. Our partners range from settlement and training agencies to law firms and recruiting agencies and everything in between, the common element is that they are all groups and/or organizations who work with or help support the various diversity affiliate groups that TalentOyster reaches and that companies like yours may be interested in.
Here are a look at a few of our partners that provide services and/or information as resources for employers.
There are other partners that you can find on our site but these are the ones who tend to be most employer facing. If you know of another great employer resource that we haven't mentioned here be sure to leave a comment and let us know.
This is where the TalentOyster Partner Network comes in. Our partners range from settlement and training agencies to law firms and recruiting agencies and everything in between, the common element is that they are all groups and/or organizations who work with or help support the various diversity affiliate groups that TalentOyster reaches and that companies like yours may be interested in.
Here are a look at a few of our partners that provide services and/or information as resources for employers.
- Settlement Agencies - Settlement agencies work directly with newcomers to Canada on skills and language assessment and when required Canadian workforce training, interview preparation and language training. These agencies also provide services in the areas like diversity and sensitivity training and recruiting/hiring for diversity for progressive companies interested in increasing their diversity. On TalentOyster these agencies, who support different geographic areas, include Skills for Change, The Newcomer Centre of Peel and COSTI immigrant services.
- Business and Diversity Thought Leadership - There are a couple of companies who provide consulting and/or other services regarding recruiting, hiring and expanding your workforce through diversity. For example Head2Head is a TalentOyster partner who provides Canadian based organizations of all sizes with traditional and non-traditional recruiting services and consulting. Leadership Reframed provides consulting and additional services to companies looking to improve their leadership and mentoring capabilities, especially when it comes to recruiting young people, including recent graduates into their workforce.
- Information, News and Topical Issues - Diversity in the workplace is Canada's only, online publication dedicated to diversity in the workplace. Each month their newsletter features relevant news and information about diversity in the workplace as well as ideas, tips and suggestions from industry leaders. It's a great way to stay on top of the latest trends and topics when it comes to diverse workforces in Canada.
There are other partners that you can find on our site but these are the ones who tend to be most employer facing. If you know of another great employer resource that we haven't mentioned here be sure to leave a comment and let us know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)