What does diversity mean to you?

Seems like a simple question doesn't it? But I think the answer can tell a lot about where an organization is on the diversity scale.

It starts with the "big four" groups inherited from the legal/equity perspective, visible minorities, aboriginal, women and persons with disabilities but in most cases diversity in a company means more than that. Other groups that are often part of it may include new immigrants, LGBT and older workers. But there are even more than that.

I recently came across a definition of diversity that included occupation types! The general idea is that when we talk about “uniting in diversity” we need to be including all the different groups that make up our organization, including groups that are not obvious at first glance. And when you think about it, the concept of inclusion does mean that different business function areas in your company should be working together just as different ages, races or genders are inside each one.

So is diversity really just another word for teamwork?

Someone once said that diversity isn't about the differences between us but about the uniqueness we all share. Isn't that also a good definition of good teamwork?

Successful teamwork takes the unique skills and strengths of individual members and uses them to achieve shared objectives that wouldn't otherwise be reachable on their own. I think you can say the same for successful diversity workforce initiatives. As an organization we source from a number of alternate sources, tapping unique skills and experience in order to best achieve the goal of hiring the best possible candidate.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, diversity isn't about accommodation or promoting the inferior, it's about the best talent you can find. The only way you can have the best talent is if you can find and hire it, and you can't do that unless you are looking at everyone. So I guess you might say that for me, diversity, in the employment sense is as simple as this, "look at everyone". I'm not sure it needs to be any more complicated really.

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.

Some (sort of) good news

With the holiday season approaching quickly I've been looking for a "good" topic to blog about. With various economists making wildly varying predictions for Canada's growth in 2011 and the ongoing problems in Europe it's been hard but a story in yesterday's Globe and Mail caught my eye.

The story in question reports that according to Statistics Canada Women's income has been growing faster than men's in Canada since 2000. The story goes on to report that between 2000 and 2008 average income for women rose 13% versus 7% for men which is a good thing. There is still though a wide gap in average incomes between men and women that see women make 71 cents for every dollar men make.

So while there is still a gap and thus room for improvement it's good to see that the gap in pay equity is shrinking. But it reminds me of a question I sometimes get on what TalentOyster can do for companies looking to shrink their own gender pay gap and the answer to that is truthfully not much.

Certainly we can help drive female candidates to your roles but addressing diversity related issues generally, and gender ones specifically in any organization starts with changing the culture of your organization. I previously wrote on how the compensation gap starts with the negotiation and hiring process and it's still a good example of where "everyday" biases, the kind of which we are not always aware of, contribute to the equity gap.

I often talk about the need to "make sure you are looking at everyone" but part of that means to be looking at everyone fairly. Do all the processes regarding hiring, compensation and career advancement at your organization really treat people equitably? Sometimes it's hard to recognize, mainly because a process "works" and has been in place for a long time that it's not actually fair. That the process "works" better for people who fit a certain image or in this case gender. I believe that a process that "works" but isn't looking at everyone makes for a process that actually doesn't work very well at all. When diversity in an organization works it works because it is an essential part of the organizations culture, not just a box we ticked off to make us feel better.

Stories like the one in the Globe show us that we are all making some progress and that is good, but they also show us we have a ways to go. As we approach a new year it would be my wish to see the progress continue so that the same story in December 2020 reports on how the pay equity gap in Canada has been closed. I don't know if that makes me too idealistic or not, but I think we can get there and I hope we will.

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.