The Difference an "x" Can Make 10/14/2011
Last month Australia made a significant change on their passport application forms; there are now three options for “gender” – M, F and X. When your passport doesn’t reflect what you look like – when your listed gender doesn’t match who you are – it can be, in the words of Senator Louise Pratt, “very distressing, highly inconvenient and frankly sometimes dangerous.” This is a human rights victory for transgender and intersex individuals in Australia, even moreso because sex reassignment surgery is not required to use the “x” option. Imagine the relief of being able to mark X and being able to move through customs like everyone else instead of being grilled about why your passport says you are male, but you look female (or vice versa). For people who have experienced greater scrutiny at customs for other reasons (like race, or real/perceived ethnic origin or religion for example – especially since 9/11) you will understand what this can mean. Hooray for Australia! Change happens when people start to “get it” – and even moreso (and faster) when people in power “get it”. Senator Louise Pratt’s partner is transgender. This gives her an inside view into the barriers that transgender and intersex individuals face – barriers that those of us who are not transgender or intersex may have no idea even exist. Because of her experience, her position and her conviction, Australia has change! It’s a small change, one that doesn’t impact cisgender people at all. There is still an “M” and an “F” to choose from. Australia has simply added another option – to recognize that not all realities are the same, and to make travelling more equitable and safe. See more. Copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder author, speaker and facilitator on issues of diversity and inclusion Add Comment The 3rd Alternative 10/12/2011
The 3rd Alternative 10/12/2011
Stephen R. Covey has come out with a new book. It’s called The 3rd Alternative. I read about it in the Globe and Mail last week and it’s on my list of books to acquire. I think it would make a great read for any organization committed to diversity and inclusion. Here’s why: One of the barriers to inclusion is the resistance to change. Organizations look for the best and brightest when they hire, only to often stifle the very talent they were seeking by being set in their ways, and refusing to see the value in “out of their box” thinking. And it’s not just in organizations! As human beings we often mix up “I have always done it this way” with “my way is the best way to do it” or even worse “my way the only way to do it”. Diversity brings new ideas, perspectives, needs and realities – all of which can create conflict. Stephen Covey’s 3rd alternative is about dealing with conflict in a way that is truly win-win. Harvey Schachter’s article in the Globe and Mail summarizes it well: The 3rd alternative, he writes, is “not a compromise, but a whole new approach that combines the best of both sides.” The article lists the 4 steps that Covey outlines in his book as:
I’m smiling just re-reading the article, and I’m looking forward to the book! I can’t help but wonder what great things we could achieve if we didn’t dig in our heels out of fear or a need to be right. What if we asked the third alternative question and were open to seeing where our collective genius could take us – in organizations, in communities, in families… and globally! See more. copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder Learning in a Second Language 10/06/2011
I’m in New Brunswick today! This afternoon my colleague and I will deliver Diversity and Inclusion workshops. I love to facilitate, and D&I is “my thing”. What makes this experience a little different, however, is that this part of New Brunswick is very French. Which makes me wonder…do I tell them I speak French (albeit it’s rusty) or keep my mouth shut? It’s an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, my fear is that I’ll open myself up for a challenge that, in an already tight schedule, may not be wise. But on the other, it allows me to show up as more of who I am (a Montreal-born formerly bilingual now Torontonian with excellent comprehension and not so excellent spoken French). More importantly, it may also make a difference to some workshop participants. Although I can’t promise to answer their questions in French, maybe having the option of asking in French will be appreciated. Which leads me to my point. There are many Canadians for whom English (or French, depending on where you are) is not their first language. No matter how fluent you are in a second language, it’s often still easier to express yourself in your first language. And often “native speakers” speak quickly and we don’t catch everything. Sometimes we ask. Sometimes we may just nod and hope we get the general idea and that no one will notice. It can be an invisible disadvantage. It makes me wonder how much we may be missing when people don’t have the option to share their ideas or ask questions in their first language, regardless of how fluent they are in the second (or third). So today, I’m going to be brave and offer the option of asking questions in French, if that’s easier. I may not be able to answer in French, but if they are willing to be patient, I’m willing to try. I’m hoping it will make the time we have together a little more inclusive. See more. copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder What we can learn from Google 10/04/2011
I have recently been reading about Google and their commitment to diversity and inclusion. Some of the things I’ve been reading make my heart sing, so I thought I’d share. Google has Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) for different communities (Asian, Black, LGBT, Latin American, employees with disabilities and women). The great thing about these ERGs is that they provide a place for employees who share an identity to come together to talk, learn and support each other, as well as creating magic internally and externally like: - community-specific outreach - speakers series to empower and inspire employees - internal education and awareness - helping shape company policy - building external presence - input on products and workplace issues - supporting education initiatives What strikes me most is the encouragement of employees to come up with ways Google can make a difference in communities, and their understanding that their staff help them to understand their customers better. Google’s revenue continues to increase. What does that tell you? But that’s largely external. Often companies start on the outside, and their internal environment isn’t part of the vision. Well, when I read: “At Google, being yourself is a job requirement”, I almost wept. Sounds like they “get it”. How would a culture like this transform your organization? Who could you be at work, if you worked for a company like Google? See more. copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder This week I was forwarded the list of Canada’s 50 Best Corporate Citizens (2011). It’s a list that Corporate Knights (“the Magazine for Clean Capitalism”) started about 10 years ago. Who knew there was such a list? I was amazed! I discovered through Madelaine Drohan’s article in the report (entitled Big country, small steps) that corporate social responsibility can mean very different things; from making sure child labour isn’t used in the supply chain, to building schools in Africa, to preventing high school drop outs right here at home. Not bad, I thought. Good to know that there are large companies that are looking at more than profits. Hooray! Further into the report, I came across a scorecard which tracks “the environmental, social and governance performance of the S&P/TSX60 Companies on the 2011 Best 50 Corporate Citizens in Canada. I thought I would find some great stats about what these companies are doing internally as well, to match their social responsibility externally. I was disappointed. A few things stand out in particular among these stats about corporate citizens who are up to some great things:
I’m not sure why I’m surprised. I often see companies making efforts in diversity and inclusion outside their walls (arguably where it looks good and they get kudos) before tackling any change inside. I guess I thought that with the corporate halo shining brightly for these 50 companies, that maybe, just maybe, they would be different. I know it’s just a graph and I don’t have the whole story by far, but it suggests a lot. Would it be great if corporate social responsibility included creating an inclusive, welcoming workplace that valued diversity and inclusion – with representation at all levels and smaller pay gaps (for example) to prove it? See more. Copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder Supplier Diversity 09/27/2011
Supplier Diversity 09/27/2011
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 | ArchivesNovember 2011 Have new posts delivered to your inbox! Subscribe to this blog at: http://beingdiverse.wordpress.com/
CategoriesAll |
RSS Feed