When it comes to actually creating a diverse workforce I have often talked about how it is as simple as making sure that you are looking at everyone. Meanwhile I have written here before about how sometimes that isn't really enough. In the previous context it's because sometimes you need quotas to break the non-diverse culture of an organization.
But I have become more aware of another reason to implement quotas. To actually attract diverse candidates.
Now this isn't applicable to all of our affinity groups, but for some at least the existence of quotas, either formally or informally, actually encourages applicants. To be blunt telling an affinity group that a specific job is going to be filled by someone from their group can, in some cases, make a huge difference in attracting candidates to the role.
On the face of it this flies in the face of my statement that you simply need to look at everyone but I'm not sure that it really does. At the end of the day you can't see all candidates if they are not visible to you and this is really about just making sure that those candidates are visible to you, or in other words making sure that candidates from the different groups are actually applying to your job.
But doesn't encouraging one group to apply in this way actually discourage other groups. Quite possibly yes but again I think that to effect change in the reality of your workforce and hiring cultures you sometimes have to break existing patterns even if it seems somewhat counter-intuitive. I think it helps to take a step back and examine why candidates would be more likely to apply to a job that is being held out for a certain quota.
There is an obvious answer that it seems like less competition. If I as a candidate feel that the number of candidates will be restricted artificially it means a better chance for me to land the job even if I am not the most qualified. This is a point that while cynical has some truth to it but there is a second answer that has more of an impact. For some affinity groups the experience is that even when they are more qualified then other candidates they will be passed over for opportunities. I have talked before about the ways, both passive and active in which this happens but the fact is that either way it does happen. Just because we don't want this experience to be true for diverse candidates doesn't mean that many don't actually have this experience.
In any case though it's a tricky subject to navigate. Do you make it clear that certain roles will only be filled by diverse candidates or do you just rely on your employment brand as a diverse employer to make the difference? We'd all like it to be just the second but again the reality is that for some affinity groups this simply isn't enough.
I don't have an answer to the above questions, although to be honest I don't think that anyone really does. I do think though that if your goal is a truly diverse workplace I'm not sure organizations have any choice but to implement policies, at least in the short-term, like quotas in order to demonstrate to candidates that they are truly committed to a fully inclusive workplace.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Employee Groups : Community Building or Ghettoizing
I had a discussion recently with some HR team members at a large financial institution who have Canadian operations but are mainly in the U.S. and the issues surrounding employee groups for affinity groups came up. If you're not clear what I mean by that many organizations sponsor, support or promote "diversity groups" of their employees. So for example you might have an "African-American" employee group, or an "Aboriginal Employee Support Group" or a "LGBT in the workplace group".
Now again these sorts of groups or employee organizations do exist on both sides of the border although they tend to be more popular south of the border. Why is that? Well for one thing, at least in Canada, there are mixed views on the subject.
The two main schools of thought on this are that either it's a great idea that fosters a sense of community spirit and belonging within a group of employees or it's a terrible idea that creates "ghettos" of employee cliques arranged along lines of ethnicity, skin colour or other groups.
While I can see how, to a certain extent, groups that are by definition exclusive do seem to detract from the goal of inclusion I think that seeing these groups in a very negative light is to miss the point. Employee engagement has become such a "hot" topic, especially in light of the economically uncertain times of late when there is plenty to distract employees, and yet engagement of diverse employees is for many simply an afterthought.
The disconnect that employees can feel from their place of employment is magnified very much for many diverse individuals because, on top of the regular issues, they can feel like "outsiders" at their place of work. In this line anything that an employer can do to make their employees feel more at home in the workplace is going to lead to higher engagement and better productivity.
And at heart that's what these groups are about. Building communities, even smaller ones that may be in some ways exclusionary is an important step in making employees feel at home in an organization.
It's interesting to note that the companies who really "get it", those that engage with all diverse employment groups and not those just covered by legislation, are far more likely to have these groups and tend to do more work to encourage their creation. It speaks I think both to the reality of these groups as a vital part of an effective diversity strategy and the bottom-line fact that diversity inclusion has a positive effect on the success vector of a business.
The idea of embracing diversity in an inclusive way is important, and we should not lose sight of that. But encouraging groups to celebrate their differences with each other isn't harmful to that cause, in fact, in the end it brings us much closer to that goal.
Now again these sorts of groups or employee organizations do exist on both sides of the border although they tend to be more popular south of the border. Why is that? Well for one thing, at least in Canada, there are mixed views on the subject.
The two main schools of thought on this are that either it's a great idea that fosters a sense of community spirit and belonging within a group of employees or it's a terrible idea that creates "ghettos" of employee cliques arranged along lines of ethnicity, skin colour or other groups.
While I can see how, to a certain extent, groups that are by definition exclusive do seem to detract from the goal of inclusion I think that seeing these groups in a very negative light is to miss the point. Employee engagement has become such a "hot" topic, especially in light of the economically uncertain times of late when there is plenty to distract employees, and yet engagement of diverse employees is for many simply an afterthought.
The disconnect that employees can feel from their place of employment is magnified very much for many diverse individuals because, on top of the regular issues, they can feel like "outsiders" at their place of work. In this line anything that an employer can do to make their employees feel more at home in the workplace is going to lead to higher engagement and better productivity.
And at heart that's what these groups are about. Building communities, even smaller ones that may be in some ways exclusionary is an important step in making employees feel at home in an organization.
It's interesting to note that the companies who really "get it", those that engage with all diverse employment groups and not those just covered by legislation, are far more likely to have these groups and tend to do more work to encourage their creation. It speaks I think both to the reality of these groups as a vital part of an effective diversity strategy and the bottom-line fact that diversity inclusion has a positive effect on the success vector of a business.
The idea of embracing diversity in an inclusive way is important, and we should not lose sight of that. But encouraging groups to celebrate their differences with each other isn't harmful to that cause, in fact, in the end it brings us much closer to that goal.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Why Pride at Work is important to me
Last week an event was held at KPMG in Toronto to launch a new job board for Pride at Work Canada. This new board, powered by the TalentOyster Diversity Network, can be found at http://Careers.PrideAtWork.ca
As part of this event I had the pleasure of speaking for a few minutes and I'd like to share the content of part of my talk here. This isn't the full text because at the end I spoke to the various organizations who attended the event about some technical information on how this new site can interact with their existing career sites. Which if you are a programmer or hiring manager is exciting (maybe) but if you're not is a bit dry so we'll just leave that part out. I think the rest of the story is worth sharing though and here it is.
***
Good evening everyone. My name is Max Stocker and I am the Director of Technology for TalentOyster and I am here tonight to talk to you about the new Pride At Work Canada career site and my dad.
My dad is an immigrant, born in the UK, but raised and educated, including multiple universiy degrees here in Canada. My dad is also transgendered.
For many years she worked, in technology related fields for an enterprise level company. Then she worked as a contractor for several other large organizations but to conclude a long period of soul searching, about 5 years ago she went to Thailand and had a full sex change operation and hasn't had a real job since.
She still does work, on a volunteer basis for her church and for a local LGBT history organization but in terms of meaningful paid employment there is none.
To be honest there are many factors to why this is, but there is no doubt in my mind that the main reason that a highly educated, skilled and experienced person like my dad is not working is because of the way she looks.
At TalentOyster our diversity mandate covers many groups. Aboriginals, visible minorities, new immigrants, persons with disabilities and now, with Pride at Work Canada, LGBT. To us all of these groups, as different as they are all share a too common experience of bias and prejedice based ultimatley on who they are.
Defining terms like diversity or inclusion can be a navel gazing excercise but if I may define inclusion all the same I would say it is an environment in which nobody is being asked to, or forced to, leave part of their identity at home.
We don't ask people who have a different skin colour to leave that at home, or tell persons with disabilities that that's fine but leave it in the privacy of your own home. Things shouldn't be any different for LGBT.
I'd love to see, as Michael Bach was recently quoted as saying, our society move past tolerance in to acceptance but I don't think it will happen over night. What I do think though is that efforts by organizations like Pride at Work, and tonight specifically with this career site we can start to change these attitudes and encourage the formation of working environments, and, even a society that is truly inclusive of everyone. Including my dad.
As part of this event I had the pleasure of speaking for a few minutes and I'd like to share the content of part of my talk here. This isn't the full text because at the end I spoke to the various organizations who attended the event about some technical information on how this new site can interact with their existing career sites. Which if you are a programmer or hiring manager is exciting (maybe) but if you're not is a bit dry so we'll just leave that part out. I think the rest of the story is worth sharing though and here it is.
***
Good evening everyone. My name is Max Stocker and I am the Director of Technology for TalentOyster and I am here tonight to talk to you about the new Pride At Work Canada career site and my dad.
My dad is an immigrant, born in the UK, but raised and educated, including multiple universiy degrees here in Canada. My dad is also transgendered.
For many years she worked, in technology related fields for an enterprise level company. Then she worked as a contractor for several other large organizations but to conclude a long period of soul searching, about 5 years ago she went to Thailand and had a full sex change operation and hasn't had a real job since.
She still does work, on a volunteer basis for her church and for a local LGBT history organization but in terms of meaningful paid employment there is none.
To be honest there are many factors to why this is, but there is no doubt in my mind that the main reason that a highly educated, skilled and experienced person like my dad is not working is because of the way she looks.
At TalentOyster our diversity mandate covers many groups. Aboriginals, visible minorities, new immigrants, persons with disabilities and now, with Pride at Work Canada, LGBT. To us all of these groups, as different as they are all share a too common experience of bias and prejedice based ultimatley on who they are.
Defining terms like diversity or inclusion can be a navel gazing excercise but if I may define inclusion all the same I would say it is an environment in which nobody is being asked to, or forced to, leave part of their identity at home.
We don't ask people who have a different skin colour to leave that at home, or tell persons with disabilities that that's fine but leave it in the privacy of your own home. Things shouldn't be any different for LGBT.
I'd love to see, as Michael Bach was recently quoted as saying, our society move past tolerance in to acceptance but I don't think it will happen over night. What I do think though is that efforts by organizations like Pride at Work, and tonight specifically with this career site we can start to change these attitudes and encourage the formation of working environments, and, even a society that is truly inclusive of everyone. Including my dad.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
We need to be doing so much more
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Diversity and Pride
Back in May an interesting diversity in the workplace story broke and quickly slipped beneath the waves but it's relevant to pride week and so I thought I'd share my thoughts on it now.
The story was about Rick Welts, the CEO of the Phoenix Suns, a professional basketball team playing in the NBA who "came out" as gay in an interview with the New York Times.
It's an interesting story for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that, as is well known, and as I have personally experienced, team sports at a high competitive or professional level are environments have historically been quite hostile to LGBT persons both individually and collectively. Mr. Welts was quoted in the story saying that "This is one of the last industries where the subject is off limits. Nobody’s comfortable in engaging in a conversation.", and I think that's pretty true. So from simply the aspect of breaking down a barrier it's a pretty significant moment.
But I think there's a more significant aspect to this story then the sports angle and that's the executive angle.
One of the discussions I often have with employers around diversity is on the importance of mentoring programs and there's a good reason for this. You can give your current employees diversity training, you can make sure you are looking at including different groups in your sourcing strategy but if your diverse employees, whatever their affinity group, don't feel that there are roles and a place for them in your company you're simply not getting all that you could be from your diversity strategy.
Now the ideal is of course close mentorships or internships but both of those can require a major investment of time that you simply might not have. That's okay. Even providing example role models for candidates can be helpful. Having diverse individuals at every level of your organization sends a clear message to candidates and employees alike, "there is a place here for you". We're not talking about tokenism here, having two diverse VPs but no diverse people in middle management fools nobody, but when your organizational structure is inclusive all the way through it can inspire and motivate your diverse candidates and employees.
Now having said all that, how does LGBT fit into it? I had an interesting discussion a few months ago with Brent Chamberlain, Executive Director of Pride At Work Canada who made me more aware of how strong some of the stereotypes surrounding LGBT and work can be. For example, there are many young gay men who actually feel that careers as hairdressers, in fashion or as graphic designers are all the opportunities that are open to them. And while any of those careers can be fine it's sad if you think that on the basis of your sexuality you're restricted to them. So in this line one of the programs that Pride at Work talks about is, just like it is for other diversity affinity groups, mentoring. Letting affinity group members know that every opportunity is open to them is an important step.
So back to the story, I think that more than the sports part of it (which I think could be valuable as well), there is the part of being a CEO that I suspect may have more of an impact. The fact Mr. Welts is a CEO of a sports team is no doubt why the story was even covered but the fact he is a CEO may provide inspiration, hope and widening of potential opportunities for young LGBT people no matter what industry they are in.
Or so I would hope.
It's hard to say, or measure, the impact of stories like this on groups as a whole. Is it as impactful as someone working in the same organization as the diverse, or in this case LGBT, candidate? Almost certainly not. But I think it can have some positive impact and that's a start and in this case a good reminder of how far we have come and how far there is in fact to go when we all celebrate the pride events of this week.
The story was about Rick Welts, the CEO of the Phoenix Suns, a professional basketball team playing in the NBA who "came out" as gay in an interview with the New York Times.
It's an interesting story for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that, as is well known, and as I have personally experienced, team sports at a high competitive or professional level are environments have historically been quite hostile to LGBT persons both individually and collectively. Mr. Welts was quoted in the story saying that "This is one of the last industries where the subject is off limits. Nobody’s comfortable in engaging in a conversation.", and I think that's pretty true. So from simply the aspect of breaking down a barrier it's a pretty significant moment.
But I think there's a more significant aspect to this story then the sports angle and that's the executive angle.
One of the discussions I often have with employers around diversity is on the importance of mentoring programs and there's a good reason for this. You can give your current employees diversity training, you can make sure you are looking at including different groups in your sourcing strategy but if your diverse employees, whatever their affinity group, don't feel that there are roles and a place for them in your company you're simply not getting all that you could be from your diversity strategy.
Now the ideal is of course close mentorships or internships but both of those can require a major investment of time that you simply might not have. That's okay. Even providing example role models for candidates can be helpful. Having diverse individuals at every level of your organization sends a clear message to candidates and employees alike, "there is a place here for you". We're not talking about tokenism here, having two diverse VPs but no diverse people in middle management fools nobody, but when your organizational structure is inclusive all the way through it can inspire and motivate your diverse candidates and employees.
Now having said all that, how does LGBT fit into it? I had an interesting discussion a few months ago with Brent Chamberlain, Executive Director of Pride At Work Canada who made me more aware of how strong some of the stereotypes surrounding LGBT and work can be. For example, there are many young gay men who actually feel that careers as hairdressers, in fashion or as graphic designers are all the opportunities that are open to them. And while any of those careers can be fine it's sad if you think that on the basis of your sexuality you're restricted to them. So in this line one of the programs that Pride at Work talks about is, just like it is for other diversity affinity groups, mentoring. Letting affinity group members know that every opportunity is open to them is an important step.
So back to the story, I think that more than the sports part of it (which I think could be valuable as well), there is the part of being a CEO that I suspect may have more of an impact. The fact Mr. Welts is a CEO of a sports team is no doubt why the story was even covered but the fact he is a CEO may provide inspiration, hope and widening of potential opportunities for young LGBT people no matter what industry they are in.
Or so I would hope.
It's hard to say, or measure, the impact of stories like this on groups as a whole. Is it as impactful as someone working in the same organization as the diverse, or in this case LGBT, candidate? Almost certainly not. But I think it can have some positive impact and that's a start and in this case a good reminder of how far we have come and how far there is in fact to go when we all celebrate the pride events of this week.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Busy of late but a few updates
John and I haven't been doing as much blogging as of late, mainly because this has been a very busy spring (and early summer) for both of us. I know John has a new post he's been working on coming later this week but I thought I would share a few of the updates, features and changes we've been working on the last while since really the TalentOyster from January is already quite different from the TalentOyster of today.
Improved Usability
Over the past few months we've rolled out a number of usability updates for our job-seekers and especially our employers. Better paging of previously posted jobs, a simpler step-by-step wizard for resume searching are just a couple of the improvements we made for our employer users. Based on feedback these features are now easier to navigate and use by normal users than previously.
New Employers
We've added a number of really great, enterprise level employers from across Canada in the last few months including Trillium Health Center, the CBC, Georgian College and most recently Accenture.
TalentOyster Network
Along with the existing EpochJobs.ca (Chinese) white-label site, March saw the launch of our Spanish white label Correo Jobs. We are currently finishing development on two other white labels, one which will launch later this week, and another two are starting development soon. All in all, by the start of the fall we expect the TalentOyster white-label to make up at least 5 different sites and that's not including the sites and organizations who are using OCEAN, the TalentOyster API we launched in March. The TalentOyster Network is already Canada's largest, in real traffic terms, employment focused, network of diverse online diverse properties in Canada and we see continued growth on the horizon.
Improved Usability
Over the past few months we've rolled out a number of usability updates for our job-seekers and especially our employers. Better paging of previously posted jobs, a simpler step-by-step wizard for resume searching are just a couple of the improvements we made for our employer users. Based on feedback these features are now easier to navigate and use by normal users than previously.
New Employers
We've added a number of really great, enterprise level employers from across Canada in the last few months including Trillium Health Center, the CBC, Georgian College and most recently Accenture.
TalentOyster Network
Along with the existing EpochJobs.ca (Chinese) white-label site, March saw the launch of our Spanish white label Correo Jobs. We are currently finishing development on two other white labels, one which will launch later this week, and another two are starting development soon. All in all, by the start of the fall we expect the TalentOyster white-label to make up at least 5 different sites and that's not including the sites and organizations who are using OCEAN, the TalentOyster API we launched in March. The TalentOyster Network is already Canada's largest, in real traffic terms, employment focused, network of diverse online diverse properties in Canada and we see continued growth on the horizon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)