One aspect of diversity we are not talking much about in Canada is Supplier Diversity. Growing in popularity in the USA and UK, Supplier Diversity is another way for a company to exercise their diversity and inclusion commitments.

Supplier Diversity is simple: it requires companies to take a look at the businesses they use as suppliers, and make conscious decisions to broaden the pool by using qualified minority-owned businesses.

I can already hear the arguments about preferential treatment, quotas and “needing to hire the best company for the job” (sound familiar?).  It begs the question: how are companies picking their suppliers now? Could it be that they are choosing suppliers that they have done business with for years, companies they know, or a company they own themselves…?

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like preferential treatment to me,  and not the meritocracy often used as an argument against diversity.  

Suppliers are at the mercy of “the Old Boys Network” just as new hires and employees up for promotion – it’s not just what you know, but who you know. Supplier Diversity shines a light on this and asks companies to take a look at how they can contribute to diversifying their pool of suppliers – essentially giving companies owned by women, visible minorities, aboriginal people, people with disabilities and youth a foot in the door in a system that can be just as exclusive as hiring and promotion (both intentionally, and unintentionally).

Just like commitments to diversity and inclusion internally (hiring, mentorship, sponsorship, etc) supplier diversity brings opportunities for innovation, competitiveness and market knowledge.

Think of what you could be missing.

See more.

Copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder
author, speaker and facilitator on issues of diversity and inclusion

For more information, check out: Diversity Business Network , WEConnect and the Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council.

Thanks to the politicians, the debate rages - is it a hand-out or is it increasing access? (and don't get me started on the difference between "foreign workers" a la Tim Hudak and immigrants looking for work).

Listening to Q this morning on CBC, I heard an interesting interview with 2 successful business owners, who also happen to be immigrants to Canada. Because I was driving, I couldn't write down their names and the podcast isn't available yet - but I'll attach it next time. Both guests had different perspectives, but both agreed that any program must focus on helping new immigrants get their first job in their field.

Where they differed greatly was on whether business incentives were reducing barriers or giving an unfair advantage. What it came down to was stigma versus equity. One perspective suggested being seen as having been given the job because of the incentive only (which was referred to as a quota system); the other suggested the incentive was acknowledging and reducing the barriers that immigrants face in being able to work in their field.

I can see both sides of the arguement - what it comes down to, for me, is how any program is set up.

Quotas for the sake of quotas are a bad idea. Always. They breed resentment and can compromise the quality of work. But leveling the playing field? That's different. If you put a program in place (as one of the gentlemen suggested) that provides incentives for companies to hire qualified (that's the key word) new immigrants for a first job in their field that they may otherwise not get for reasons of bias, discrimination, or just plain ignorance - well, that's not a quota system to me. That is an effort to cut through the systemic discrimination that continues to take care of the dominant group, and keeps qualified people from work they can do well.

It's amazing to me how quickly we bristle at the thought that the system, as it is now, may be unfair.

See more.

copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder

We haven’t come as far as we think.
Although there are many more women in the workforce than in 1987 when the Conference Board of Canada started their study, the number of women in middle and senior management has flat-lined.

Men are still twice as likely to be in management positions as women. This probably comes as no surprise to many of you, but it’s something that we should not be complacent about.

Yesterday on Metro Morning, Matt Galloway spoke with Anne Golden, CEO of the Conference Board of Canada about the study they have just released (spanning 22 years: 1987 – 2009) that shows these numbers. She also asserts that studies show that companies who have women in senior management positions do better.

So, what’s up?

It’s the same old story: “the way it is” is powerful, so firstly, we often don’t even imagine a change, and often don’t notice who is missing from these positions since we are so used to seeing the same old guard. Plus, challenging our ideas of what a CEO or VP or Senior Executive looks like (not just regarding gender, but skin colour, cultural background, age, ability….) is difficult and often not comfortable. Challenging the status quo is difficult work, but worthwhile work.

Next week I’ll write about some of the ways companies can create change in this area.

In the meantime – take a look around.
Who are you seeing in positions of power? Who is missing in your organization?
Let me know! Add a comment and let’s start a conversation!

See more.

copyright 2o11 Annemarie Shrouder


Share this:

• Email
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Print

This past weekend I caught a brief story on CBC news about how David Cameron is considering assistance from New York Police Commissioner and Los Angeles police chief Bill Bratton to help address the violence that has shaken cities in England this month.

Whether this partnership proceeds or not, or the merit of it, is not what struck me as I listened to the news. What caught my attention was the short clip of David Cameron, where he said that this was about "dealing with people that we have ignored for too long." That caught my attention.

Think about it: people who feel valued and acknolwedged, have enough to eat, have meaningful work, and feel a sense of agency and hope don't riot.

It was refreshing to hear the Prime Minister of a country recognize the impact of marginalization. It shows recognition and thoughtfulness about the existence and impact of systemic discrimination.

It's an important place to start. I hope that David Cameron can lead his party and country to look inward, and reach out to communities to hear their realities - in order to find the sources of marginalization and the systemic remedies that will help communities not only heal, but see and experience a brighter future where their cultural & ethnic origins, skin colour, or faith don't stack against them.

We could learn a thing or two here in Canada, just from his comment alone.

See more.

copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder