The Disingenuity of our Government on Immigration

I believe that the future of Canada is in immigration. And not just some sort of namby-pamby utopian future vision, but the reality of just sustaining our economy and the standard of living we currently enjoy in this country. One only has to look across the ocean at the continuing economic meltdown in Europe to see the price countries pay for not continuing to develop and expand their economies.

Even in Canada we are already seeing major problems in some industries and areas. Have you tried to find a GP in Ontario recently?

The reality in Canada is that soon, without a real increase in immigration we will have some real economic problems. So it's more than a bit disheartening when on top of the roadblocks thrown up in front of immigrants when they arrive in Canada (and find that their skills and experience are worth far less than they are told before coming) our Federal government seems to be doing all it can to discourage immigrants from coming.

The most recent example is the story of funding cuts to settlement agencies in Ontario and British Columbia that broke just days before Christmas. (A bit of background here, settlement agencies are organizations that help newcomers adjust to life in Canada. They provide help in a variety of areas including: finding places to live, language and skills assessments and training, how to enter the Canadian job market.)

Now let me state clearly, I know that there are areas in which some settlement agencies could surely be more efficient and there is likely to be a good case that there are too many smaller agencies that would better serve their constituents if they were almagamated into larger organizations.

So, especially with the current, somewhat fragile state of the economy the idea of some cuts to funding and budgets for any group, including settlement agencies is not without merit. Sadly this sort of thinking wasn't the major reason put forward by CIC for the funding cuts and several elements of the way it has been handled in whole are at the very least eyebrow-raising. The most disturbing parts of the story are:

1. Lack of notification and dialogue - The agencies who did have their funding cut and/or dropped were informed by letter. There was no opportunity for discussion of what sorts of cuts would be needed for budget purposes, nor any discussion about what the needs "on the ground" actually are. There have been some vague claims by CIC that choices were made based on "number of clients served" but the actual objectives measured is not clear. It's frankly just arrogant to make choices of this nature without meaningful consultation with the groups and organizations who are actually on the front lines providing services.
2. The PR Spin Nonsense - The main excuse peddled for the cuts by Minister is that Ontario receives less immigrants than it used to so this money is being redistributed. There are multiple problems with statements like this but the primary one being that, everyone, including the Minister would be fully aware that (outside of Quebec) the place that immigrants settle is not necessarily the place that they first arrive. Newcomers are going to migrate to where the jobs and opportunities actually are in the country and not where the government might like them to be.
3. The Timing - There is a reason that these cuts were made in mid to late December and it isn't because CIC wanted to be known as the grinch who stole Christmas. The reason that these cuts were made when they were made is that late December is a good time to bury bad news. It's the one time of year when for many people it's hard to feel much outrage about any topic because we think of our friends, families, good times in the past and to come. Newspapers are filled with stories about kindness and generosity and there simply isn't much stomach for discussion of policies and serious plans. The fact is that if this story had broken in June you could expect to hear about it all summer but being that it was end of December it's almost dead and buried already.
4. The Follow Up - There has been little follow up from the CIC on any of this. Is this money going to be re-allocated as was implied by the Minister or is this just a straight cut? And if it will be re-allocated will it be to something sensible, like settlement agencies in other places or something irrational like more weapons for our borders to "protect" us from starving refugees? In what can only be described as sadly typical the only follow up from CIC thus far was a ham-handed attempt to stifle any further discussion of the cuts. This later turned out to be a "mistake" but either way doesn't really offer much hope when it comes to meaningful dialogue.

Again, I am not averse to budget cuts anywhere, including services for new immigrants even though I personally believe that these are pretty vital. But there is a big difference between that and an agenda of destroying settlement agencies and given the lack of honesty, and the heavy PR spin and timing used here it's hard to understand what other possible agenda there could be. Our government should be consulting and working with these agencies to help remove the obstacles from the paths of new immigrants. Our government should be open with its plan for sustaining the economy of this country either with or without more immigration.

It's really hard to see what the plan is here, or believe that the government is actually interested in any discussion of their plans or ideas or that they think there is any value in the experiences of those actually working with immigrants with these moves. I personally hope that the CIC takes some lessons from this episode and tries to be more proactive in engagement with those in the front lines although I'm sort of doubtful that will happen. But this behaviour is just short-sighted when it comes to the future of this country, and it's a little shameful as well.

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.

Networking: The Diversity Disadvantage

A question I have been asked, from the time of my Monster years through the present at TalentOyster is "Do job boards really work?" and my answer has always been "yes". Okay, I know, no earth-shattering surprise but there is more to it.

Yes I know that job boards do work, but I'll also be the first to tell you that no single job board, or single talent source in general is the best answer to all of your hiring needs.

If you use just once source, be it a mainstream job board, recruiting agencies, networking or the classic ads in newspapers you can probably still fill all your roles but... with the looming talent crisis that's unlikely to stay true. Moreover talent shortage or not, using one source is a guarantee that you aren't filling your roles with the best available talent. Of course you do want your organization to have the best people so that means you need a holistic approach to hiring and that means drawing from multiple sources for your talent.

So in short, yes you should be using job boards both mainstream (like Monster) and niche (like TalentOyster) but you should also be using networking and recruiting agencies and other means you can to get a strong flow of candidates to your careers. This idea leads to the next question which is "When is enough, enough?", in other words if your organization is already using two candidate sources have you done enough?

This question is more difficult to answer then a simple yes or no response because it depends on a combination of what methods you are using and the candidate audience you are trying to attract. Specifically if you want to draw applications from diverse candidates you need a niche diversity job board like TalentOyster.

Why?

I often talk about how the diverse audience is often missed by mainstream media. For example for the majority of first and second generation Canadians the main, trusted new source is not a mainstream one but one specific to their own culture. It's not just newcomers though. A similar tenet holds true for other diversity groups like aboriginals, persons with disabilities and LGBTQ. I think we also tend to forget that being outside the "mainstream" isn't just limited to a person's source of news but extends to the network of friends and colleagues they may have. That seems a simple and somewhat obvious point but the implications for the hiring cycle are huge. It means that there is a candidate pool that not only isn't part of the traditional mainstream in hearing about and applying for jobs but is also "outside" the traditional networking circle.

I actually think that you can make a strong case that being outside of mainstream networking circles is the biggest disadvantage that diverse candidates face. You use job boards to advertise your roles and the benefits of employment with your company but the reality we are all aware of is that the candidates most likely to be hired are those who have been networked in. Being that that is the case what does that say for the chances of someone, no matter how qualified or experienced they may be, in finding a suitable role if they simply aren't connected to the same network that you are in?

To return to the question posed earlier, "when is enough, enough?" what this means is that if you are really interested in hiring diverse candidates, if you realize that the future of your company depends on it, you need a comprehensive, holistic hiring strategy. Knowing that Canada's diverse pool of hidden talent isn't just hidden on or by mainstream job boards but also by personal networking and recruiting agencies connected to them means that your strategy must also include a niche diversity job board. Enough is a combination of mainstream job boards, niche ones, recruiting agencies and networking in the balance that works for you.

Only by understanding why and how you make your hiring strategy complete will you be able to not only fill your roles, but also know that you are filling them with the best possible candidates.

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.