Glaringly absent from the picture, however, was any evidence that new immigrants—mainly racialized, given that two-thirds are from non-European countries—give to or are actively involved in raising funds for Canada’s not-for-profit organizations.

I had many refreshing and engaging conversations with organizations who said to me frankly, we know…we know we are neither attracting racialized people in general, nor new immigrants in particular, to our ranks—certainly not in keeping with their presence in our communities. We are not deliberately excluding anyone but we feel queasy about targeting people just because of their race or immigrant status. So how do we attract them? In my workshop I gave keys to increasing fundraising success in new immigrant communities. Here’s one of them:

Key #3………..Get on the Community Radar Screen!

1)      Become a cause with which people are familiar

2)     Know and become relevant to current community concerns

3)     Learn the language and currency that gets you into the ‘inner sanctums’ of community life

4)     Find and leverage shared values and worldviews

5)     Rise above the crowd by demonstrating commitment that extends beyond simply wanting money from the community

People will not respond well to a cause they don’t see as relevant to them. As I joked to one professional, how would you respond differently to a stranger at your door wanting to borrow your phone, compared to the neighbor you at least occasionally talk to over the fence? Now is not the time to be delicate about targeting people on the basis of their race or immigrant status.  Like everyone else new/racialized immigrants love nature, get sick, experience financial hardships and care about suffering children here and abroad. And, like people anywhere, they are equally moved to help others outside of themselves. The question is not whether new immigrants give: it’s why and how they give. Once you know this you can tap into their giving traditions and extrapolate them to your cause. To begin your journey… get on their radar screen!

Getting on communities’ radar screens will demand higher levels of cooperation between fundraising and other areas of your organization, such as community outreach, communications and frontline service. You can tap into connections other departments have; or you can collaborate with them to build community relationships; or you can nurture strategic relationships with key community players who can open doors to the ‘inner sanctums’ of community life.

Regardless of the strategy you use one thing is clear: getting on the radar screen of new immigrant communities will require intentional, proactive, strategic action. Sometimes it will be simply an added dimension to what you are already doing. Other times it will call for a radical departure from current practice. Given the increasing racialization of your target donor populations, however, including Older Adults, New Seniors, Boomers approaching retirement, GenXers and working 20-somethings, it is inevitable that you will need to take a second look at your fundraising strategy…starting today!

To download a copy of Five Keys to Building Fundraising Success in Diverse Communities click here

The question actually comes in different forms, sometimes even as a statement. So I might hear: “We are looking for the best candidates, not ‘diverse’ candidates”. Or: “Everyone is equal: we don’t give a leg up just because a person is ‘diverse’”. Or: “Diversity is not an issue to us, so long as the person can do the job”.

Implicit in these questions/statements, however, is the thinking that diversity and competence are somehow mutually exclusive or are polar opposites. But what if instead of thinking in terms of ‘hiring the right person for the job’, you were to think of ‘hiring the right person for the right job’?

According to Conference Board of Canada’s Employability Skills 2000+ framework, for example, the right person for today’s jobs may need any or all of more than a dozen skills, attitudes and behaviors. These range from ability to communicate, to being able to demonstrate positive attitudes and behaviors, or to participate in projects and tasks.

And the right job? It’s that which, according to Talent Magazine, enables the organization to meet its “business goals” and its “business challenges” (‘business’ here used in a generic sense). As your customer, donor, client and consumer demographics change (and they are changing), how is this affecting your business goals and challenges? How might you need to re-define “excellent communication skills”? With whom will you be communicating and, as a result, who will be an asset to have on board as you do?

You seek positive attitudes on the job (who doesn’t?), but do you know the elements that may as we speak be undermining the attitudes you seek in your workplace because, no surprise, diversity is present in one form or another? Right now you have people on your team or in your department who are ‘different’ because of their thinking styles, their communication styles, their approach to tasks given their educational background, their age compared to others on the teams, their ancestry, racial features, religious/spiritual beliefs, sexual orientation…the list goes on.

Diversity is present in your ranks…you may just not know. Or you might, but may now need to close the loop on how, properly harnessed, it can become what you need to give you the edge. Even before that, at the point of hiring, however, you may need to re-define ‘the job’ itself and how it connects to your ultimate business goals and to the challenges that lie ahead. Only then will you really know what talent you need to get there.

Finally, when you cast your net for the right talent, if what you seek is that which will help you meet your REAL goals and your REAL challenges, you will find that it comes in different—diverse—packaging, some more visible than others. Of course, you will also need to ensure that you have the right net to begin with so this talent does not slip through your present approach to hiring!.

To register for our December 1st Diversity Management Boot Camp on recruiting, hiring and preparing for talent from a diverse pool, click here.

The nightly exchanges between my first Millennial (born 1984) would give the Ladies of The View a good run for their money. Of course any statement of hers beginning with “You Boomers…” is quickly followed by a loving disclaimer of “We love you guys…” But because there is usually a “but” following THAT disclaimer, I still proceed with caution. Boomers, take note, there’s a book out there indelicately titled: Boomsday. It’s all in good fun, my Millennial assures me, in a tone that while playful somehow fails to assure. At those moments I actually yearn for my 20-year-old male Millennial’s eyes rolling at my technological ineptitude or even I’m-really-busy-can-we-talk-about-this-later from my 21-year-old.

So what does this have to do with the workplace? Well, between 2001 and 2006 the number of Canadians 55-65 jumped 28% to 3.7 million, 11% of the population (StatsCan). By 2014 (U.S. figures) ⅓ of the workforce will be Millennials. Some workforces actually have four generations, starting with ‘traditionalists’, born 1930-1945. This trend is expected to continue for some time, especially given relaxing mandatory retirement laws in some jurisdictions. This means interesting times in your workplace.

Let’s take the Millennials, for example. They have their own very clearly defined expectations of what work should look like…and it must NOT look what their Boomer parents endured en route to career success. Our generation talked about and agonized over Work-Life Balance: theirs insists on it. We (at least the earlier Boomers) marched to Give Peace a Chance…they wonder what happened to the Revolution and intend to set things straight. The irony of all this…WE created them…and we are unapologetic!

Former New York Times columnist Ron Alsop offers interesting insight into what he calls the ‘Trophy Kids’ in his book on How the Millennial Generation Is Shaking Up the Workplace. Aslop describes how companies are accommodating ‘helicopter parents’ (that’s us Boomers, hovering incessantly over our offspring to ensure they get The Best, even at work). Instead of sending us packing, companies are instituting Parent Days (Merrill Lynch); offering memory sticks with information (Ernst & Young); and, creating special web pages. One university even hosts a ‘Build-A-Bear’ orientation event where parents keep the bears to remind them of their departing Millennials.

Alsop says employers are fielding questions like: “Can we have time for an afternoon nap?” from Millennial employees. This is not as outlandish as it sounds: studies show that a nap can actually increase productivity. But seriously, can you imagine a Traditionalist or Boomer actually asking for a mental health break, regardless of how much they need it? We would rather do busywork at its unproductive best! Aslop even cites a case of the Millennial who quit her job because her employer would not allow flexibility to walk her dog in the afternoon. “This job is interfering with my life”, the woman allegedly said as she left.

Contrary to what some believe, however, Millennials are not lazy. And if we think they feel entitled, well, maybe they are. After all, they are clearly holding us to the promise of the work environment we fought hard to create—one marked by work-life balance, diversity and creative energy. And the “1.5ers”—Millennials born in other countries but growing up in their present one—they can with their diverse influences be an invaluable asset rather than a lost opportunity. Employers, there’s one thing you ignore to your peril: the growing impact of generational diversity at work!

Given my work helping organizations wrestle with these kinds of issues I was not surprised by the reports. In fact they elicited the inner groan I utter whenever I read another document that challenges my optimism that maybe, just maybe, we’re winning the war against racism. I flipped the email to a colleague, a professor at an Ontario University where I guest lectured on diversity earlier this year. (He reported—happily!—that the series created quite a stir among his 4^th year students.) He thanked me for the resources adding, “I hope its good news!”

Hmmm. Good news? Well, let’s see. The UN report featured a litany of ways Canada is failing its “minorities”, ranging from persistent use of the catch-all term visible minorities ; to high drop-out rates among racialized (the term the UN agrees we should use) students; to above average unemployment rates, police racial profiling and poverty. (UN reports are based on submissions from sources including government, academics and community organizations, in this case on racism).

Drawing on statistical and labor market surveys the Ontario report concluded that “racialized Ontarians are far more likely to live in poverty, to face barriers to Ontario’s workplaces, and even when they get a job, they are more likely to earn less than the rest of Ontarians.” The Toronto Star documented AGAIN (using data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act after a 7-year Court battle), the disproportionate experiences especially Blacks are having with police profiling. (In 2003 I was commissioned to prepare a report, In their Own Voices, in response to the first Star series.)

So how do we respond to reports such as these? Well, one reaction I often see is anger: Canada is a great country…we are models of inclusiveness…these people should see how other countries—including their own—treat minorities, then they would thank us for what they have. Another response, discouragement: What’s the point of trying to be inclusive? Look at all the laws and the ways we bend backwards to accommodate everyone, getting only criticism in return. A third response, total agreement: Of course racism is a reality. I experience it when I apply for a job; my kids get called names at school; my son can’t walk from point A to B without being searched by police, who also routinely stop my husband now that he drives a Lexus.

My response? Instead of staking claim to extreme corners on racism, what if we were to hear, REALLY, REALLY hear what each other is saying about this phenomenon that leaves such a trail of destruction on individuals, institutions, society and ultimately our country? In 1903 African American educator and philosopher W.E.B. DuBois made this famous observation in his  book, Souls of Black Folk: “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line”. If only DuBois knew Race would continue to be the problem of the 21^st century as well!

So instead of attacking and denying, let’s ‘GO THERE’. Let’s dare to move beyond our own silos and embrace the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is more to racism than our position suggests. Let’s shine the light on our policies, organizational priorities and operational processes. Often the culprit is not just (or necessarily) individual behaviors and attitudes; it’s in the things our organizations take for granted as being fair to all, but which, if we really listen to those we serve, hire and do business with, are having the completely opposite effect. Let’s risk seeming Pollyanna-ish…let’s do our part to make racism history!

It seemed like yesterday the struggle to define feminism was between stay at home Moms and working Moms. This time though, the “hippie-ish Mom”/”trashy daughter” exchange is the sub-plot of a much larger Boomer-GenX-Millennial generational struggle.

A leading retailer hired me to design and deliver a one-day workshop with its in-house diversity committee. The group’s role is to instill the ‘business case’ for diversity at all levels of the organization. The focus on generational diversity made for an interesting discussion. For example, how do you manage a work group that has up to four generations?

1. Given that in some jurisdictions there is no mandatory retirement age, some workplaces still have pre-Boomers (individuals born 1930-1946). Two characteristics of this group: they are loyal and the Depression shaped their work ethic.
2. Boomers, born 1946-1964, well, I described them (actually, us!) as, in the words of the poet Dylan Thomas, the generation that refuses to “go gently into that good night” of aging. Boomers hold the real power in the workplace and, according to GenXers nipping at their heels they are in no hurry to share or hand over the reins.
3. GenX is the group born between 1965 and 1977. If you are in the retail sector this group has money to spend and little time to spend it. In the workplace they are primed, they are restless and they are ready to get on with it…if the Boomers would let them. To no-one’s surprise GenXers are as irritated with the Millennials as the Boomers are with GenXers. Here’s why…
4. The Millennials/Echo Generation, born 1977-1994, is the largest since the Boomers…and just like Boomers did in the 60s they are defining their world. In the workplace they are the group most likely to be multi-tasking (a.k.a. texting/’twittering’/facebooking) WHILE they work, they remind us, INSTEAD OF their work, GenXers insist. Boomers, we who control HR departments and marketing budgets are scrambling too hard to keep up with this generation’s tastes to lose our few remaining strands of non-white hair raging against social media on the job. Instead we are probably trying to figure how we can use said social media to get Millennials to buy our products, support our causes and DO THEIR JOBS!

So there it is….”the new generation gap”, according to MacLean’s . Like the flabbergasted mother of a Millennial, the Boomer or GenX manager constantly juggles ‘life as we have known it’ with the rapid re-definition of everything from feminism to appropriate office attire. No, it is not OK to engage flirtatiously with your male colleague: we know the deep, ugly place sexual harassment can take you…and us as a company. As for the fresh, non-traditional approach you bring to the way we relate as colleagues…bring it on!

Fast forward 2000 years as Monica Neve describes the public square as “urban space moulded according to the influences of its inhabitants…a dynamic space (that) carries narratives and symbolic meanings of the past, present, and future”. (Stadtgeschichte, Kostanz University, Germany, 2006).

CBC’s Sylvain Lafrance continues the evolution: “The issues of the 21st century aren’t technological or economic: they’re issues of culture and democracy (and) factors such as cultural identity, fragmentation, social cohesion or cultural coexistence influence the way citizens experience culture and democracy.” It is important therefore Lafrance says, to create “community-building spaces where citizens can meet and interact based on a shared experience – a sort of public square.”

Lafrance is speaking of CBC’s role as a national broadcaster in bringing the country together through television programming. Neve is speaking to urban planners. What both and many others have in common, however, is the belief that there is a state of being where people feel included—that is, if that state reflects their reality. What happens when it doesn’t? What happens when they look into the organization or city’s shiny new inclusion policy and don’t see their reflection staring back? What if everything that defines the space/the program/the policy/the norm is based on the reality of others but not their own? How will the person feel the sense of ownership that inspires them to full participation?

In the case of religion I see a stubborn “win/lose” attitude—and I’m not even referring to the explosive issue of Muslim face covering. That is a separate though connected topic. I am speaking of more mundane acts like banning Christmas trees or decorations. Why would an organization do this and why would it be surprised that Christian (practicing or not) employees are outraged? How can it not see the backlash this would cause for members of other faiths in the workplace, a public square for all employees?

I typically invite organizations to consider three options when wrestling with religion in the public square:

(1)   Exclude all religious displays in the square—no art, symbolism or activity that betrays faith of any kind. The pro, everyone gets equal treatment. The con, those who have had access to the square become resentful towards those they see as the source of their eviction…not a great way to create a harmonious environment.

(2)  Allow all equal access. The pro…on the surface it seems fair. The con, trying to accommodate everyone can become a logistical nightmare, which means somewhere along the line someone—likely the least powerful voice—will get squashed in the rush. There is another downside: bringing everyone under the same tent does not automatically guarantee they will share space peaceably. Can you imagine bringing the Hatfields and the McCoys together in the same room and telling them to ‘play nice’?

(3)  Devise a system for selective access. What special days, for example, should we as a group observe? If the system gives access to the Big Six (most populous) world religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikism would make it into the square. The main issue then becomes what should be allowed in the square and what should not? Can we agree to have a small celebration or mention of a holy day in the staff calendar but draw the line at displays of religious art? Can we allow art of certain measurements at an employee’s desk but stipulate that it has to be out of sight range for others? Can we agree to say ‘Happy Christmas’ or ‘Happy Hannukah’ so long as Muslim staff can bring treats to celebrate the end of Ramadan? The pro in Option 3 is that you would able to justify your choice of public celebration. The con is that you would lose out on what others could bring to the square.

The key to religion as a healing rather than divisive force is to avoid anything that creates the impression that (a) participation is a requirement for group acceptance (b) to appreciate others’ beliefs a person needs to abandon their own or (c) publicly owned resources are being used in a discriminatory way. The key to enriching the public square is allowing the freedom to participate or to abstain. The more we understand of each other, however, is the more we are able to find common human experience that makes for real inclusiveness. Education through exposure is a powerful antidote to narrow-mindedness and exclusion.

Bottom line…there is the vision of inclusion and there is the reality. Don’t stop with your vision: stubbornly pursue the reality.

Aside from academic settings, we rarely hear the term “public square” used. It is, however, more often than not, the place people unconsciously think of when, for example, they fume about “these people” who come to “our country” to change “our” ways. Typically the speaker is referring to the obvious—absence of Christmas trees in a City Hall lobby; a company’s decision to abstain from playing background Christmas carols; Muslim women wearing face coverings in public.

On the surface people are addressing a specific issue: in reality they are instinctively protecting the public square from unwanted incursions. The problem is the square is owned by all members of that community. So how do we shape access in such a way that those who own it can enter, without blocking the path for others? As a Diversity consultant I am frequently asked to help navigate this difficult question.

To be inclusive/diverse/equitable is a noble goal. But what does it mean in real terms? Is it possible to be inclusive and exclusive at the same time? This is not a conversation about religion per se—although that is often where it comes to a head. It’s about culture—whether national culture (as in ‘multiculturalism’); workplace culture (as in the things we consider the norm); or even the culture of your local municipality, as in: “Well of course, this is the way we have always been…going back to my grandparents’ time”. So if you are truly inclusive, how do you ‘re-define the norm’ and who gets to be part of the re-definition?

Three examples come to mind. The first is from a financial institution where I conducted a workshop with the corporate management team. One outcome the team wanted was to know how to handle a situation where employees of Haitian origin were sporting little voodoo dolls (as reported…I didn’t see them myself) on their desks. The dolls made colleagues who passed by and even the occasional member of the public in for a meeting uncomfortable, the managers said. Did they have the right to ask their staff to get rid of the dolls and if they did would they also have to ask staff with rosaries, crucifixes and other Christian icons, art and sayings to remove these as well? Was a desk personal or public space?

The second example came from an engagement I had with a municipality that faced a similar conundrum but in the geographic city square. For years a Jewish menorah had graced one of the public buildings. Over time it became part of the community’s landscape…until someone challenged it. “How come they are allowed to display their symbol and we are not able to display ours?” Sensing where this would inevitably lead the municipality asked me to write a position paper to assist in developing a policy on the placement of religious symbols on public property. It was an interesting and thought-provoking journey.

The third example came from one of my workshops when a participant described his recent visit to a municipal park. A group of about 50 Muslim men, he said, were praying. Between the praying and other activities among the men’s families the participant (a White man who describes himself as a Christian) said he felt unwelcome in the space. Why should they have the right to practically take over a City park with their religious observance?

More in my next blog.

Why it is Important for Women to Embrace Mentoring as a Tool for Success in Business

• Many women have “fantastically good ideas” but may not know how to put them into action
• In a male-dominated society women can sometimes feel isolated even with their great ideas
• Because of sexism some women are afraid to admit they don’t know or they are reluctant to take risks because they don’t want to appear less capable, should the idea not work.

On Cross-Gender Communication in Mentoring

• Because men and women tend to have different styles mentor and protégé need to pay attention to the way they communicate with each other—verbally or otherwise
• In formal mentoring programs orientation training should include a segment/activities on communication styles
• Communication style ties in closely with personality compatibility
• The male mentor should remain aware of potential concerns a female protégé may have—whether or not she verbalizes them. For example, around their meeting: time (does it conflict with childcare responsibilities?); place (is the door open so those around can see the meeting is strictly professional?); or responsibility (does the protégé prefer to do the contacting?)
• Some women because of social conditioning may feel hesitant about ‘intruding’ or being a ‘bother’ and thus not as assertively take advantage of the mentoring opportunity, even after seeking it.

Elisabeth Jensen is the Executive Director of KVINFO, Denmark’s primary women service organization. In 2003 KVINFO created its Mentor Network, which matches refugee and immigrant women with women who are established in the Danish workforce. Matching is based on factors such as education, profession and individual request. The Network currently has about 3300 participants from across the country. While the mentors in the program are for the most part White Danish women, the protégés/mentees are usually of different races, religions, cultural heritage, ethnicity, etc. Developing personal networks is especially critical in a country where more than 50% of all job openings in are filled through personal networks. The program has, however, been so successful in helping to integrate mentees in the workplace and in Danish society in general, KVINFO was cited in Canada’s Cities of Migration project as a global best practice. Elizabeth shares tips that she says account for KVINFO’s cross-racial/cross-cultural mentoring success:

1)      Focus first on the needs of the mentee. What does she want? What does she hope for in her future? The mentor’s role is to support the mentee in achieving her personal goals.

2)      Be aware of cultural ‘glasses’ that cause people to see each other as stereotypes rather than as individuals. Let the mentee tell her own story.

3)      Make the program values-based. KVINFO’s program is influenced by values of equality and solidarity coming out of the women’s movement.

4)      Focus on the positive—life, the future.

5)      Be wary of ‘Othering’—“We are all individuals in this process”. Empathize from personal experience

6)      Focus on elements that mentor and mentee have in common, whether it be kids, hobby or professional profile.

ISS, Denmark’s largest a facilities management service provider, (world-wide the company has 450,000 staff.) is using mentoring to bring ‘New Danes’– i.e. new immigrants—from countries such as Turkey, Poland, Sri Lanka and Pakistan into management.  Less than 1 in 10 are in management; 55% are women. ISS’ goal is to have 300 New Danes in management by 2011.

ISS’ management apprenticeship program includes a job-shadow mentoring component where a New Dane management trainee is matched with a more experienced manager half of each week for six weeks. The remainder of the time is spent in classroom and on-the-job training. According to Maria Boge, ISS’s diversity manager, the program has been extremely successful, increasing the number of New Dane managers from 93 in 2007 to 188 in 2009. Some managers, she says, are initially reluctant to release staff for such a long period off the job for the job shadowing, but mentors are so enthusiastic about the program they are serving as champions to their peers. New Dane managers also serve as role models.