Category

Inclusion

How Companies Can Be Serious About Anti-Racism

Board walk rising out of fog

Everyone is talking about racism, or more importantly, the need for anti-racism. The talk has moved beyond person to person conversations, and we are now seeing companies and politicians join the chorus, calling for significant change. It’s a monumentally positive development, but the answer to that call – the change that is needed to combat racism – is complex: Changing attitudes is one thing, breaking down systems that have discriminated against some groups of people for generations while providing significant advantage to others, is quite another.

Companies are in a unique position to advance anti-racism and have a positive impact on the lives of their employees and customers, by focusing on diversity and inclusion within their workplaces. Not only is this the moral thing to do, it also has a strong business case: There is approximately 15 years’ worth of research clearly proving that diverse and inclusive companies do better. They are more innovative, and more agile – two attributes in very high demand right now. It involves work, but there are no business cases that say the status quo is a better option.

So, if your company is serious about advancing diversity and inclusion here are three areas for action:

  1. Education and Training
    Provide education and training – and value it. Make sure everyone in the company from C suite to intern takes part. But don’t stop there, look for D&I knowledge and awareness on resumes and applications. Build out your internal resources and develop a culture of learning. Set yourself up to have lasting impacts from education and training.
  2. Measure your Diversity
    Use data to see your strengths and weaknesses. Set goals and measure your successes and assess your progress frequently. Get access to the data that not only shows you what groups are employed at your company, but what groups are missing.
  3. Recruiting
    Target your recruiting to reach diverse candidates. Strengthen your management paths internally.

Collectively, we at Dignii have been advancing diversity and inclusion for decades. We are a mission driven company – we elevate dignity in the workplace. Our software solutions and professional services help companies to increase team performance and increase team innovation.

To start a conversation with Elisabeth about getting serious about anti-racism in your workplace, she can be reached at elisabeth@dignii.com.

Update: Diversity Reporting For Publicly Listed Companies In Canada – How To Do It

Laptop with Candle Stick Chart

Diversity has been building momentum in business for nearly 20 years. We have had significant changes in law that identify the importance of diversity and inclusion, for instance, the express inclusion of ‘gender identity and gender expression’ and Community Benefits Agreements in BC. Helping to fuel the enactment and compliance of that legislation has been 15 years’ worth of powerful business cases articulating the financial and cultural value of a diverse and inclusive workplace. Publicly listed companies in Canada are facing an increase in the legal requirements regarding reporting on diversity on boards and senior management. 

In late 2014, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) published “comply or explain” rules regarding women in director and executive officer positions in publicly listed companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). These requirements were codified in the National Instrument 58-101 (the Disclosure Requirements), thereby creating an annual positive duty for issuers in participating jurisdictions (all but BC and PEI) to disclose female representation. The requirements go a step further, requiring issuers to disclose if they have issued policies relating to female representation, term limits, and targets and mechanisms to address female representation in director and executive officer roles. If issuers do not adopt any such mechanisms or consider female representation more broadly, they must explain their reasons for doing so, thus creating a “comply or explain” rule. 

More recently, the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) published a notice and request for comments asking for comment on the gender diversity Disclosure Requirement in NI 58-101. Notably, BC based TSX-listed and other non-venture issuers must comply with the Disclosure Requirements as they do report in at least one of the Participating Jurisdictions (i.e. all but PEI).

The BCSC’s request for comment on gender diversity tells us one thing – the Commission is focusing on how the disclosure process can be improved and what mechanisms and governance policies are satisfactory to demonstrate gender diversity on publicly listed companies on the TSX.

New Reporting Changes as of January 2020

As of 1 January 2020, Canada became the first jurisdiction in the world to require the disclosure of diversity beyond gender. Currently, all federally incorporated public companies in Canada must report on their policies and practices relating to board of directors and senior management, and, going a step further, they must include the percentage of people in those roles who are women, Aboriginal persons, members of visible minorities, and persons with disabilities. 

How to Measure and Report on Diversity

This is where we can help. Our products help you to measure diversity and improve inclusion.  We safely and securely measure data using evidence-based research to get a real picture of diversity and employee engagement. Essentially, act as the ‘go between’ – a trusted third party for employers and employees. Companies face significant challenges trying to gather this data on their own, including: compliance issues, data security, and expertise in diversity and inclusion. Not to mention the fact that employees can be reluctant to share that information with their employers! We go a step further than other companies and help you identify problems and create real solutions that help your company reach your diversity goals. We also use Canadian servers and comply with all Canadian privacy legislation and global best practices. 

When it comes to reporting on diversity we can provide you with the most robust data points you need for reporting and help you build the map to achieve your goals for the future. 

Elisabeth can be reached at elisabeth@dignii.com

The Link Between Inclusion & Engagement

People staircase

In Dignii’s last blog post, Elisabeth, the Co-founder of Dignii, talked about extending the discussion around Diversity & Inclusion in the workplace to include “elevating the dignity of the individual”  – which is Dignii’s purpose! – by respecting and valuing each employee fully for who they are. Elisabeth expounds that this requires embracing diversity in all its shapes and forms and recognizing the myriad intersections that represent the sum total of each of us, who we are physically, emotionally, psychologically, socially, and based on our life experience. 

This week I’m writing about the link between employee engagement – Dignii’s core product focus – and Diversity & Inclusion.

To me, the intuitive link is clear: from my experience as an employee, it is when I feel respected and valued at work that I am the most engaged. My best experience of engagement was when the owners of a consultancy trusted me to handle their biggest client; I was incredibly motivated and put in 50 to 60 hour weeks fully absorbed in my work.

The opposite is also very familiar: there were instances of jobs where I lost sight of how my role contributed to the mission, goals, and objectives of the organization and essentially felt left out and not valued. The result was that even my normally good work ethic was ground down and I gradually burned out and left. Unfortunately, we all have similar stories.

Let’s move from the personal intuitive understanding of employee engagement to examine the science behind it.

What is Employee Engagement? A Positive Occupational Health Psychology Perspective 

According to Professor Schaufeli*, one of the World’s leading authorities on employee engagement, employee engagement is: “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption; [whereby vigor refers to] high levels of energy and mental resilience; [dedication refers to] being strongly involved in one’s work [and] experiencing a sense of significance; [and absorption refers to] being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work.” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker, 2002: 74)

Professor Schaufeli developed this definition of engagement based on engagement being defined as the opposite of burnout in certain psychological models. For example, according to the Massachusetts General Hospital Handbook of General Hospital Psychiatry (6th Edition): “Burnout is a pathologic syndrome in which prolonged occupational stress leads to emotional and physical depletion and ultimately to the development of maladaptive behaviors (e.g., cynicism, depersonalization, hostility, detachment).” We can see that “depletion” is the opposite of “vigor”, and that “depersonalization, hostility, detachment” are the opposite of dedication. 

For a more nuanced understanding of engagement vs. burnout and engagement vs. satisfaction, it is instructive to refer back to the foundational Circumplex Model of human emotion by James Russell which maps human emotions on the dimensions of “valence” (pleasure/pleasantness) and “arousal” (activation/energy).

3: Typical circumplex model. Adapted from Feldman Barrett & Russell (1998).

Reviewing the top right quadrant which represent states of high valence and high activation: “work engagement” occurs when employees are experiencing a state of “excitement” and “elation”. The direct opposite of “work engagement” is “burnout,” which occurs when employees feel “depressed” and “lethargic” (bottom left quadrant; states of low valence and low activation). 

Interestingly, the history of engagement surveys has tended to measure more the “valence/satisfaction” dimension than the “activation/energy”. Gallup was instrumental in bringing engagement to the forefront of workplace discussions but their initial surveys were more a one dimensional measure of satisfaction. The danger of measuring only the valence dimension is that you cannot distinguish between engaged employees (top right) and employees who are satisfied but much less constructive in their workplace than they could be (bottom right).  Unfortunately, many organizations are not providing the right resources to the employee relative to the demands of the job leading to stress and burnout instead of engagement.

Now that we have an intuitive and academic definition of employee engagement let’s make the link between inclusion and engagement.

*Dignii is a licensed vendor of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale survey, developed by Professor Schaufeli.

The Link Between Employee Engagement and Inclusion 

One framework to apply is to think of ‘inclusion’ as valuing others, and ‘engagement’ as involving others. However, in my opinion, this is somewhat reductive. A more comprehensive definition of inclusion by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is “the achievement of a work environment in which all individuals are treated fairly and respectfully, have equal access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute fully to the organization’s success.” This definition of inclusion comprises both valuing others (treat individuals fairly and with respect) and involving others (employees have equal access to opportunities and can contribute fully). To me, the broader definition of inclusion includes a precondition of engagement, which is ensuring employees can contribute fully, since contributing fully necessarily involves “vigor”, “dedication”, and “absorption”.

Engagement is a state of emotional well being that is a result of inclusion in action at the workplace. Employees need to feel trusted, and to trust in their organization, before they feel connected as a whole. Employees feel trusted when they are given a high degree of autonomy, which is one of the three intrinsic motivators of engaged employees alongside mastery, and purpose, according to Daniel Pink.

When framed this way, the overlapping drivers of engagement and inclusion are clear to see, and it is not surprising to find studies that confirm a high correlation between the two states. A study by The Winters Group found .78 correlation between inclusion and engagement. An earlier study by Gallup in 2005, found that 60% percent of respondents with the highest scores on diversity and inclusion questions were engaged whereas only 11% of those with the lowest scores in diversity and inclusion items were engaged.

Therefore, feeling trusted and valued (employee inclusion) is a necessary precondition for employee engagement. An engaged employee is

“a person who shows up to work each day as their best self by passionately adding value, and proactively seeking to achieve their company’s mission. Engaged employees demonstrate this through their interactions with coworkers, their attitude, and of course, their work.”

Finally, I share some additional resource on work engagement and inclusion:

The History of Work Engagement by Professor Schaufeli

How Diversity and Inclusion Drive Employee Engagement

Compilation of Diversity & Inclusion “Business Case” Research Data

Dignity in the Workplace

Lightbulbs

Half way through 2019 and the conversation about “diversity” and “inclusion” continues to build momentum. These terms have been drawing attention for over a hundred years. Different groups throughout history have worked to define these terms and give them a life of their own in the hopes of fostering change. Important work has been done to encourage people shift perspectives and recognize marginalized groups: the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, marriage equality, and Truth and Reconciliation. Thanks primarily to changes in law, the work needed to create diverse environments has become a priority for companies and organizations.

 

It has been established in research that diverse workplaces that are often, by their nature inclusive – when employees feel valued and respected, they demonstrate higher levels of employee engagement and have better outcomes for the organization (Swiegers & Toohey, 2012).

 

But we’ve been talking about it for so long – why haven’t we achieved ‘diversity and inclusion’? Why is it still necessary to advocate for equal pay and equal representation on boards? Why are people afraid to ‘come out’? And why do we still see bias and discrimination in the workplace?

 

We need to remember that ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ are not synonymous. The term ‘diversity’ refers to the fact that people are inherently different from one another, and that each of us is unique in our own way despite some shared experiences. Whereas the term ‘inclusion’ means that within a group of people everyone feels valued and respected, and that the “mix” of differences is working well together.

 

There is a piece of the ‘diversity and inclusion’ conversation that is missing. Recognizing that we are all individually different, and having different groups of people feel acknowledged and working well together is great, but currently the conversation around inclusion exists as a repetitive cycle of introductions where we are constantly recognizing “new” underrepresented groups or minorities.

 

We currently approach inclusion as a concept that applies only to minority groups, but that still leaves some people missing. If the premise is that everyone is diverse by the mere nature of their origins, experiences, and expressions, then the solution must include everyone.

 

The concept that is missing here is dignity. If we focus on human dignity: the right of every person to be valued and respected, being truly inclusive follows. The origin of human rights is the recognition of a person’s dignity, and every human rights “movement” is a move toward having this dignity reflected in our laws and shared notions of equity, diversity and inclusion. “Dignity” is what people are trying to achieve when they talk about fostering inclusion, and if we shift our thinking toward acknowledging the dignity of every human being, we bring ourselves closer to creating an inclusive world.

 

Using the lens of ‘diversity and inclusion’ is not enough. If we begin with recognizing the right of each person to be valued and respected, we are essentially elevating dignity in the workplace.  Elevating dignity creates inclusive workplaces and increases employee engagement in the way we’ve been aiming for over the past century.

 

 

Swiegers, G., & Toohey, K. (2012), “Waiter, is that inclusion in my soup? A new recipe to improve business performance.” Research Report. Deloitte Australia and the Victoria Opportunity & Human Rights Commission.

My Peace with Diversity and Inclusion

Train passengers
Train passengers

My Peace With Diversity And Inclusion

This blog post is a response to a post by Chin Hing Chang titled “My Beef with Diversity & Inclusion.” Chin is an amazing tech start-up community enabler both in his role at Spring as well as outside. Chin has recently started a project called Value Hiring, which is a job board for mission and value aligned opportunities. Chin notes that his post was written in stream of consciousness style; my response to his post is stream of consciousness style as well. For context, I suggest that you please read Chin’s post first before reading my response.

First, a big thank you to Chin for sharing and starting a conversation around Diversity and Inclusion (“D&I”). Conversations around D&I are important even if some topics are awkward, sensitive, or challenging to talk about. A terrible outcome is people being too scared to voice views out of fear of not being PC or fear of being called out for being ignorant or ill-informed. Given that oppression in all its shapes and forms has not ended means we are all learning about D&I – I certainly am! – and will be for a very, very long time. Learning together means creating a safe space to voice views, fully or partially formed, well structured and reasoned or stream of consciousness style. Conversation is the most human activity; even if we may not agree, considering other points of view shape and refine our own. Most of all, awareness of other points of view and why they are held builds compassion and empathy.

 

D&I is complex especially when considered through an intersectional lens. Chin, by writing his post, and me by writing a response, run the risk of potentially oversimplifying complex ideas, glossing over or omitting various factors, and even speaking from relative ignorance or misunderstanding about others. Please do comment to fill in gaps and call us out if need be. I believe both of us have written about D&I because the topic is so important.

“I don’t see colour”

When someone says, “I don’t see colour,” should they be shut down?

 

I do see colour. I was conditioned to see colour. I am a Sri Lankan of mixed race. As a child, I was featured in a book on Sri Lanka as representative of the Burgher community. In my career, I was discriminated against because of my race/nationality, but I also enjoyed privilege because I was relatively fair and had a European given name (“Adrian”) and a Dutch surname (“Jonklaas”).

 

My wife doesn’t see colour. It’s wonderful that, by default, some people see and treat all humans the same irrespective of colour. However, each of us must always be aware that race does impact the lives of everyone who happens to not be the majority in their local context. This can result in minor inconveniences (e.g., a person from the majority race cuts in line ahead of you, as I have experienced) or lead to much more serious consequences, such as social exclusion, public demeaning, and even violence.

 

If I heard someone say, “I don’t see colour,” I probably would use it as a conversation starter to dig deeper into their experience and the experience of racial minorities living in their communities. Even in Vancouver, one of the most aware and progressive cities in the world, I have heard a Chinese immigrant describe feeling inferior because cars would not stop for him crossing the road while they would for a non-Asian. While we shouldn’t necessarily shut down anyone who says they don’t see colour, we should ensure that when they say it, they are not inadvertently downplaying or erasing the very real – and often terrible – experience of those from minority racial groups.

“D&I for the sake of D&I”

I agree with Chin. Diversity for the sake of diversity becomes a box-ticking exercise and misses out on the biggest opportunity – “inclusion.” The phrase – credited to Verna Meyers – “diversity is being invited to the party, but inclusion is being invited to dance” drove the point home for me.

 

In the workplace, inclusion is when everybody has equal access and opportunity to participate in meetings, decisions, mentorship and training, activities, etc. (within the context of their role). This means admin tasks aren’t loaded onto someone from a minority, which takes away time and opportunity from being involved in other higher value-creating processes. This means when strategy is discussed and formulated broad perspectives and cognitive diversity are brought to bear.

 

The Holy Grail of inclusiveness is when each of us can bring the best version of ourselves to work and be that best version with everyone in the organization. When diversity (representation) is mandated and doesn’t treat the causes (surfacing biases and mindsets), which prevented diversity in the first place, there is a failure. Where I disagree with Chin is that inclusion can never be mandated…it has to be cultivated (according to Janet Stovall in her brilliant TED Talk) which takes considerable time and effort to do so. But so worth it – see links at the bottom!

 

“We’ve explored a fundraising training program specific to supporting female entrepreneurs/immigrant entrepreneurs.” Regarding affirmative action, I understand Chin’s mixed feelings. As a high school student in India, I too had mixed feelings regarding affirmative action where a certain percentage of seats in universities were reserved for members of minority groups (called scheduled castes and scheduled tribes). Many of the admitted students from the minority group had lower scores than students who may otherwise have been admitted. Believing in meritocracy, I felt that it was unfair that some minority students were keeping out other qualified students who had devoted years of hard work to their studies. However, over time I have understood and accepted that affirmative action is often necessary to address the disadvantage of systemic and generational oppression. The majority of students from scheduled tribes and castes (who are from rural areas) cannot compete for the university seats because the quality of education they receive – if they have access to it at all – is far inferior to students from cities. This is for a variety of reasons including general neglect of rural areas by the central government except for during election years as well as corruption to the extent that budgets for schools and teachers are diverted to politicians and business people. I am aware of schools that only exist on paper and accounting books! Furthermore, the parents of these students are more likely than not illiterate. Everything about the system is unfair to these students, and therefore affirmative action is corrective and required to give scheduled caste and tribe students a chance to break out of these generational disadvantages.

 

The fact is women founders face many barriers that men do not in terms of access to funding. Right now it is appropriate and right that we promote programs that redress this. Perhaps 20 years from now when my daughter starts her first company she will face no barriers to funding. In that future world, there would be no requirement for female founder only funding programs.

 

We all want to live in a meritocratic world where D&I is not at the expense of quality. In the case of the female founders, this is not the case; there is data that female-led startups do better than male led start-ups. Chin makes a great point which is important to note: work needs to be done with the funding providers. That is where the problem is. Changing internal mindsets is superior to explicit targets or actions. My view is that both are required because changing mindsets takes time.

 

We absolutely do not want monolithic culture. We want rich, diverse culture…cognitive diversity is when the best decisions are made and creativity and innovation happen. A thought provoking quote I heard in a video of a conference keynote recently: diversity means a diverse group of people with their varied individual baggage (biases). It’s interesting to think that counteracting bias may be to have more diverse biases!

 

Once again, I appreciate Chin for sharing. I have expressed to him personally that I have very high regard for his commitment to transparency and that sometimes means thinking/working out aloud.

 

I would like to end with some links and resources to anyone reading this who is wondering what the big deal about D&I is in the first place:

 

To me, the number one reason for D&I is that it is a moral imperative; it is simply the right thing to do! However, there is also a plethora of research which builds the business case for D&I.

Finally, here is a great talk on humanizing diversity…I think this is getting to the heart of Chin’s post…D&I is not about meeting quotas…it is about (messy) humans!

Comments welcome!