June is LGBT Pride Month, and I feel this is a great opportunity to discuss why LGBT inclusion in the workplace is important for employee wellness and how employers can foster an environment of inclusion.
In the past few days, business leaders across the U.S. have spoken out against President Trump's executive order on immigration. Indeed, the business case for diversity is compelling. Having different opinions at the table is critical for innovation in the information age.
As corporate globalization undermines the standard of living of working families, workers will re-discover the value of grassroots organizing and collective representation. In the process, a whole new generation of diverse, talented leaders will come to the fore.
As Canadians, we pride ourselves on our diversity and acceptance and, while things have come a long way in a short period of time and progress continues to be made, the survey results show that more needs to be done. As employers, we have an opportunity to pay attention, learn and be better.
I've been asked, "Where are you from?" more times at the bank than at any other workplace. The query is almost always followed by an individual's shock of how kind, efficient, or great my service was. In their mind, there's no way a black girl from [insert black country here] can be so nice at customer service.
You wouldn't know it from the tone of discourse today, but immigrants and foreign workers have been part of the Canadian labour force since Confederation. Then, much as now, they were necessary to ensure Canada's economic survival. Nevertheless, 19th century immigrant workers were viewed with suspicion and contempt and assigned the most dangerous tasks.
One of the most important aspects of building effective teams is to select the right team members in the first place. Stereotypes cloud perceptions, significantly reducing the likelihood that candidates will get fair consideration and the best candidate will be selected.
Posing the question, would you prefer to work for a man or women strikes me as treading in dangerous territory. For one, it insinuates that men and women fall into different stereotypical "types" as leaders. It also assumes that a terrible or wonderful manager somehow remains representative of his or her entire gender.
Workplace diversity programs -- derided by some as politically correct pandering or little more than public-relations stunts