Mastodon

How AI can help promote diversity in the workplace

In today’s world, diversity and inclusion are crucial elements of any successful business. A diverse workforce brings different perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds, which can lead to increased creativity, innovation, and problem-solving abilities. However, achieving diversity and inclusion in the workplace is not always easy. That’s where artificial intelligence (AI) comes in.

AI can help organizations promote diversity in several ways. Here are some examples:

1. Removing Bias in Hiring

One of the biggest challenges when it comes to diversity in the workplace is bias in the hiring process. Many recruiters and hiring managers unknowingly harbor unconscious biases that can influence their decisions, leading to a lack of diversity in the workplace. AI can help remove this bias by providing a more objective evaluation of candidates. For example, AI can analyze resumes, cover letters, and other job application materials and identify candidates based solely on their skills, qualifications, and experience, rather than factors such as gender, ethnicity, or age.

2. Improving Employee Retention

Once a diverse workforce is established, it’s essential to keep it that way. However, studies have shown that many employees leave their jobs due to a lack of inclusion or feeling like they don’t belong. AI can help improve employee retention by monitoring employee engagement and identifying potential issues that need to be addressed. For example, AI can analyze employee surveys, social media posts, and other data to identify patterns and provide insights into how employees are feeling about their work environment.

3. Providing Personalized Training

Another way AI can help promote diversity in the workplace is by providing personalized training for employees. Everyone has different learning styles and preferences, and AI can help tailor training programs to meet the needs of each individual employee. This can help ensure that everyone receives the training they need to succeed and can help prevent employees from feeling excluded or left behind.

4. Encouraging Collaboration

Diversity can lead to increased creativity and innovation, but only if employees are willing to collaborate and share ideas. AI can help encourage collaboration by providing a platform for employees to share their ideas and opinions. For example, AI-powered collaboration tools can facilitate communication between employees and help break down barriers that may exist between different departments or teams.

5. Ensuring Fair Performance Evaluations

Performance evaluations can be a significant source of bias in the workplace, leading to unfair treatment of certain employees. AI can help ensure fair performance evaluations by analyzing data such as employee productivity, attendance, and project completion rates. This can provide a more objective evaluation of each employee’s performance and help eliminate bias.

6. Facilitating Diversity Training

Finally, AI can help facilitate diversity training in the workplace. Many organizations offer diversity training programs to help employees understand the importance of diversity and inclusion and provide tools for promoting a more diverse workplace. AI can help facilitate this training by providing personalized training programs, tracking employee progress, and providing feedback to employees and trainers.

In conclusion, promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace is essential for any organization that wants to succeed in today’s world. AI can play a significant role in achieving this goal by removing bias in hiring, improving employee retention, providing personalized training, encouraging collaboration, ensuring fair performance evaluations, and facilitating diversity training. By leveraging the power of AI, organizations can create a more diverse and inclusive workplace that benefits everyone involved.

This article was written by ChatGPT.

True Barriers to Immigrants in the Workplace Part I

Education. Merit. Credibility. These words are often loosely thrown at anyone seeking employment. A term most forget to mention is ‘validated by Canada’. Education that is validated by Canada. Merit that is validated by Canada. Credibility according to what is validated by Canada. It’s understandable that Canada has many of these policies to regulate the stream of workers entering the workplace and ensure they fit in with the Canadian work environment. However, in doing so, Canada is denying immigrants who are qualified, sometimes overqualified, for a position of authority thus increasing the unemployment rate of skilled immigrants (Sakamoto et al., 2010).

As an immigrant, I know of countless highly skilled workers who, now proud citizens after a decade in Canada, still struggle to maintain a well-paying permanent job. These individuals have completed their Bachelor’s as well as their Master’s degrees and were formerly professors, physicians, therapists, teachers, and bankers with years of prior experience. Once they arrived in Canada, seeking a better lifestyle and education for their children, they were faced with a harsh dismissal of their expertise by the Canadian government. How invalidating must it be for you to spend so much time and money on your education so you can be independent and work tirelessly for years only for someone to tell you it is insignificant and you must start over?

A paper published by the University of Toronto recognizes this dissonance by stating that barriers such as the invalidity of foreign credentials, language barriers, and the ever-so-necessary ‘Canadian experience’ requirements prevent skilled immigrants from entering their fields of expertise (Sakamoto et al., 2010). 

In Canada, fluency in English and French is greatly valued as an asset to boost employment prospects, however, this works against immigrants who have spent their entire lives honing their skills, only in another language. According to the government of Canada, skilled immigrants entering the country must complete either the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP) or the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) examinations for English proficiency in order to work here (Language testing- skilled immigrants, 2022). Once they pass it with adequate scores, they can ‘officially’ communicate effectively with others in said language.

So, for those who can communicate in one of the two languages mentioned above, many fall victim to the ‘broken English’ circumstance, which both harms their prospects in the hiring process, and curates challenges amongst colleagues when on the job. ‘Broken English’, granted that the language being spoken is English, refers to the small gaps in an individual’s aptitude for English where one may use incorrect grammar, have a limited vocabulary, and struggle with creating or understanding very complex sentences. In spite of the broken English barrier, these individuals are able to communicate effectively, get the message across, and get the job done, but it is the lack of support due to prejudice from colleagues and individuals in higher positions that situates this as a problem.

Speaking a foreign language like English often comes laced with an accent, which furthers the pre-existing cultural divide for immigrants in the workplace. Their culture, which influences how they dress, speak, behave, interact with others, and look at the world can all feel ostracized in the workplace when it does not equate with the Canadian culture and workplace etiquette. It’s not an inclusive environment until all individuals feel comfortable and safe to express themselves and learn about new customs and norms without the breath of judgment breathing down their necks. That is a topic I will be discussing in a follow-up blog article.

This is to say, Canadian workplaces focus on the soft skills that are significant in the Canadian culture, otherwise known as the ‘Canadian experience’, which swiftly erases many immigrants from having a fair chance at getting the job (Sakamoto et al., 2010). For instance, a family friend of mine who applied for teaching-related jobs in math and physics, as they were a physics teacher in their home country, would be asked about their soft skills rather than their knowledge of the subjects. Their home country has a different culture and approach towards education, so does that mean their knowledge, skills, and experience are invalid in Canada?

Canada is a country driven by immigrants, whom it profits off of ever so graciously. The diversity of Toronto alone is enough to make Canadians label this country a ‘melting pot’, and pride themselves on its multiculturalism, however, Canada’s alarming population of struggling immigrants establishes a daring reality. It is extremely important to examine the roles and challenges of immigrants in the Canadian workplace because immigrants are the backbone of this country. We have a moral obligation to respect them and create accessible avenues for them to succeed.

Sources

Government of Canada. (2022, March 3). Language testing—Skilled immigrants (Express Entry). Canada.ca. Retrieved August 22, 2022, from https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/documents/language-requirements/language-testing.htm

Sakamoto, I., Chin, M., Young, M.(2010). “Canadian Experience,” Employment Challenges, and Skilled Immigrants A Close Look Through “Tacit Knowledge”. Settlement of Newcomers to Canada, Canadian Social Work, 12, 145-151

This article was written by summer student Ilesha Prabhudesai and edited by summer student Bayden Summers. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

Understanding the Alphabet Soup of Inclusive Language Part II

This blog post is the second instalment of a series. The first post in this series introduced the idea of inclusive language and provided a beginner’s guideline on its use when addressing racialized employees. This second instalment focuses on disability, gender, and sexuality. 

Making use of inclusive language is a significant way in which you can establish your organisation’s commitment to diversity, and communicate to clients and employees that your workplace is a welcoming environment that respects others’ identities. As you begin to use inclusive language more regularly, you may find yourself adopting terms and phrases that are new to you, some of which may challenge your preconceived notions of the structure of your society. But a commitment to diversity and allyship requires the flexibility of an open mind and a willingness to learn. 

When it comes to matters of disability, one phrase you may or may not have encountered is person-first language. Person-first language is based on the view that people are complex and cannot be pared down to any single aspect of their identities (Ferguson & Bellamy, 2022).  In practice, person-first language describes “a person with a disability” rather than “a disabled person.” While the intention behind person-first language comes from a place of respect, it is actually a point of contention within the disability community. Many of its members prefer to use identity-first language, and opt to self-describe as “a disabled person.”

To some, the aim of person-first language to centre upon personhood doesn’t achieve its goal of making disabled people feel more included. Instead, it makes it seem as if an individual’s disability is something negative, something they should want to be separated from, rather than another characteristic like hair colour, gender, or religion (Liebowitz, 2015). In reality, a person’s disability is integral to the way they live their life; it is often a meaningful component of their identity (Brown, n.d.). Consequently, many disabled people prefer identity-first language because it comes from a place of disability pride and more accurately underscores the reality of being disabled. Identity-first language is preferred by many disability activists, especially within the Deaf and autistic communities (National Center on Disability and Journalism [NCDJ], 2021).

 It’s important to recognize that there is no singular approach when it comes to the appropriate use of identity-first vs. person-first language. After all, some within the disability community, such as those with intellectual disabilities, prefer person-first language (Liebowitz, 2015). At the end of the day, it’s considered best practice to use the terminology that those with disabilities would prefer, not what allies or what parent and physician groups have to say. When addressing disabled employees and clients, consider asking them what language they’re most comfortable with. When conferring with individuals is not an option, it would be best to research which terms tend to be preferred by that subcommunity in particular. Note that suggestions regarding the use of person-first language are not as straightforward as some diversity guidebooks may have you believe. Simply being thoughtful with the terminology you use is an important component of applying inclusive language effectively; in most cases, it is not a simple checklist of dos and don’ts. 

 Meanwhile, the use of queer-inclusive language can present its own set of complexities. There are a number of different subgroups within the queer community. Some, like the asexual or intersex communities, receive little attention in the media, with the result that public understanding of those communities is limited. It’s best to turn to queer-run organizations for guidelines on what language to use when referring to different members of the LGBTQ+ community. Organizations like Pride at Work Canada (PaWC) and The 519—Toronto’s main queer community centre and charity—both provide resources on the definitions and usage of LGBTQ+ terminology (and, in the case of PaWC, offer a course designed specifically for employers on queer history and phrases, which is linked below).

Although it isn’t feasible to discuss the nuances of every queer identity in existence in one blog post, J2DW can offer a few key pointers. When addressing the community as a whole, it is widely accepted to use the phrases “queer” and “LGBTQ+.” Most queer people use these phrases interchangeably when speaking about their community. If you are addressing one employee, it is usually acceptable to refer to their particular identity if they have shared it with you. However, if an employee self-identifies as a member of the LGBTQ+ community but has not shared more specifics about their identity, it is inappropriate to request that they go into more detail. Gender identity and sexual orientation are deeply personal matters, and there are a number of reasons behind why an employee may have chosen not to share the specifics of their identity at their workplace. If you aren’t sure how to address an LGBTQ+ individual, the umbrella term “queer” is generally a safe bet, and that individual will let you know if they’d prefer to be addressed in some other way. 

Respecting people’s gender identities is a crucial component of creating a queer-inclusive workplace, and the language you use should reflect that. Do not make assumptions about the gender identity of your employees and clients, and always refer to them by the correct name and pronouns regardless of what their official ID might indicate (Vulpe, 2018). There’s also a chance that you may find yourself referring to someone who uses they/them pronouns. Using singular they/them pronouns might be confusing at first, but you’ve probably been using them already without even realizing it. Take the case, for example, of having found an abandoned wallet in public. “Someone lost their wallet,” you might think. “I should check to see if there’s any ID inside and notify the owner so they can pick it up.” It’s also best to use gender-neutral pronouns when talking about individuals in a hypothetical or general sense; doing so is in fact more natural than the clunky he/she, and it is inclusive of everyone regardless of their gender identity (Ferguson & Bellamy, 2022). 

Of course, groups of people sometimes disagree over preferred terminology. Members of a community, such as the LGBTQ+ community, are not a monolith. Queer people may unite over a broader shared experience, but they are still individuals with diverse opinions and their own personal life events that have shaped the way they navigate and present themselves to the world. If you are engaging with one specific employee or group of employees who happen to prefer a different term of address than what is commonly preferred by those who share their identity, always ensure you meet those individuals’ wishes. A workplace cannot be included unless the individual needs of the people within that workplace are met. 

As you learn more about adopting inclusive language into your vocabulary, understand that you are likely to make mistakes and that these are a natural part of the learning process. In these instances, the best you can do is apologize to the people you might have unintentionally hurt and try to ensure that your use of terminology is amended in the future. Though you may become frustrated, embarrassed, or ashamed when you make mistakes, try to view these occurrences as an opportunity for growth. Intent will take you a long way on the road to promoting diversity, and your concern over being respectful towards those who might be different from you will help you overcome some hurdles as you adjust to using new terminology. 

Sources

 Brown, L. (n.d.). Identity-First Language. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/

Disability Language Style Guide. National Center on Disability and Journalism. (2021, August). Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://ncdj.org/style-guide/

Ferguson, J., & Bellamy, R. (2022, May 20). How to get better at using inclusive language in the workplace. Fast Company. Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://www.fastcompany.com/90753901/how-to-get-better-at-using-inclusive-language-in-the-workplace

LGBTQ2S Glossary of Terms. The 519. (2020, February). Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://www.the519.org/education-training/glossary

LGBTQ2+ 101: History, terms and phrases. Pride At Work Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://education.prideatwork.ca/LGBT101.html

Liebowitz, C. (2015, March 12). I am Disabled: On Identity-First Versus People-First Language. The Body Is Not An Apology. Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/i-am-disabled-on-identity-first-versus-people-first-language/

Vulpe, J. H. (2018, May 7). Listen Before You Speak: Discussing Trans and Gender-Diverse People in the Media. The 519. Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://www.the519.org/news/media-reference-guide-01-18

This article was written by summer student Cossette Penner-Olivera and edited by summer student Bayden Summers. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

Emotional Labour in Female-Centric Workplaces

Despite having similar capabilities, men and women are often on two sides of a spectrum. Our capitalistic society benefits from this divide by exploiting these parties, women especially, through carefully crafted narratives that support whatever point they want to reinforce that day. If a narrative doesn’t serve them, it will simply be re-written. This behaviour serves as a turning point for a woman’s chance at her desired position and dictates what is expected of her in the workplace.

Why is it that so many emotionally taxing, often under-respected occupations, are not-so-coincidently female-centric professions? Nurses, receptionists, daycare providers, nannies, flight attendants, teachers, and social workers are all prime examples of this observation. Here, I introduce to you the term ‘emotional labour.’ Emotional labour is the act of regulating one’s emotions in order to engage with others and it is heavily practiced in several workplaces by employees towards their colleagues, and more commonly, their customers. Workers are required to be friendly, polite, and receptive to all kinds of condescending behaviour while suppressing negative emotions, whether it be with a nurse to unstable patients, a flight attendant to inappropriate passengers, teachers to immature students, or receptionists to frustrated clients. Emotional labour, in comparison to its counterpart, physical labour, is an unspoken requirement in many fields and is prominent in female-dominated workplaces (“What is emotional labor?”). 

When viewing the structure of our society through a critical lens, it’s fair to note that there is a distinction between the labour expectations men and women are held toward due to historically cemented gender roles. In following this narrative, women are supposed to be natural caretakers and are considered not to be as capable of critical, rational thinking, so employers accept more women in these fields that are driven by feminine characteristics (Yavorsky, 2019).

Although an individual’s capability to perform emotional labour is prioritized in the hiring process for such jobs, it’s essential to acknowledge that this is not a bad thing in and of itself. Jobs in things like customer service and nursing need workers to do emotional labour, or else no work would get done, and there would be endless amounts of conflict. Most workers have employed ways to manage this expectation by ‘surface acting,’ masking their negative emotions or indifference with an outgoing, polite version of themselves, or ‘deep acting,’ using another positive memory to fuel the friendly mask in a more genuine manner (“What is emotional labor?”). The latter is more widely practiced because it allows for a more enjoyable work life and gives employees a sense of control over their emotions.

With this knowledge, we can see how problems arise for women’s mental health, their sense of identity, and their attitude toward their work in such female-centric fields. Women may feel as though they are uncertain of who they are, unsure of how to navigate their true feelings, and incapable of finding authenticity in their life outside of work. As a result, their personal life is negatively affected, impacting their professional attitude and work performance. How is a woman to feel confident and happy with herself when she is berated, degraded, disrespected, and emotionally exhausted eight hours a day?

Women who are people of colour (POC) in these workplaces often receive the short end of the stick when it comes to emotional labour or mistreatment. Not only are they spoken down to and asked to be emotional mediators during conflicts, but are also subject to racial comments and demands to educate others on culturally or racially sensitive topics (“Emotional labor in the workplace,” 2022).

It all boils down to the fundamental arguments about gender roles and misogyny which propose that being emotive, like a caretaker, is not respectable in society; that a woman’s place is beneath that of a higher male authority. So now we must ask ourselves: what can we do to stop women from carrying the burden of this trait in female-oriented workspaces? We must first be more receptive to allowing non-women in these work fields, as well as letting women enter male-dominated industries, to diversify the workplace and create balance. If you are a consumer of products or services offered by these professionals, whether it be getting treated by a nurse or conversing with the receptionist at the spa, remember to be mindful of your behaviour and its impact. Although women are not the only ones doing emotional labour at their workplace, it is necessary to address the impact it has on them to create awareness, change attitudes, and spark productive discussions.

Sources:

Emotional labor in the workplace: The disproportionate burden on women. Women and Emotional Labor in the Workplace. (2022, February 9). https://www.stkate.edu/academics/women-in-leadership-degrees/empowering-women/emotional-labor-in-the-workplace 

What is emotional labor? Workplace Emotional Labor and Diversity Lab. (n.d.). https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ 

Yavorsky, J. (2019, January 6). Hiring-related Discrimination: Sexist Beliefs and Expectations Hurt both Women’s and Men’s Career Options. Council on Contemporary Families. https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2019/01/16/hiringdiscrimination/ 

This article was written by summer student Ilesha Prabhudesai and edited by summer student Cossette Penner-Olivera. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

Understanding the Question of Gender Diversity in Power Positions

   Historically, women have been born into an assigned gender role in the workplace. 

Dating back to the 20th century, most women stayed at home completing tasks such as cleaning, cooking, and taking care of children, and they did so primarily young and unmarried. In that era, 

just 20 percent of all women were considered “gainful workers” (Yellen 2020) while their men counterparts were fulfilling the roles of managers, CEO’s, and engaging in the act of physical labor. The visually unjust barrier during this time period could further be divided by race, where African American women were more likely to be forced into unwanted labor than white women largely because of segregation and lack of people that would hire them. Women abandoning their career prospects upon marriage reflected past cultural norms, the nature of work readily available to them based on race and/or sexual orientation , and legal barriers formed by men. Women in this time were told not to attend higher education as they were taught to consider their role as a ‘homemaker’ to be their ultimate goal in life. Since the establishment of the Equal Rights Amendment where women were now seen as equivalent to men, a modern day woman has achieved countless milestones  in the workforce and in society. According to Statistics Canada, women are more likely than men to earn their high school diploma, to have a greater enrollment presence in college and university programs, and to dominate various industries such as healthcare and teaching. Despite all the progress and success of a modern day women, discrimination in the form of authority, physical ability, and wage gap are still ever so prominent when competing for roles of power in the workplace. There are many leadership qualities that women frequently display in power positions that go unnoticed, and could benefit their male coworkers if followed. We have yet to see a woman president of the United States despite past candidates having the same, if not more willpower as their male counterparts, we have a progressive, yet underwhelming presence of women in STEM and innovation fields not because a majority of these individuals do not wish to pursue a career in that field, but because of stereotypes and degradation. Women continue to face hierarchical discrimination, limiting their employment prospects and societal advancements. 

History has  reinforced the idea that women are too kind and compassionate to be leaders, but when a woman who is not particularly bubbly, and instead chooses to focus on producing more sales, and being assertive, it is viewed as humorous and not taken seriously by male counterparts. It is important to recognize that the stereotypical definition of authoritative has been hijacked by validation, appreciation, and empathy– something a workplace needs to maintain a positive culture. It is human nature to crave validation after working a ten hour shift in which an employee has put all their willpower towards. We are no longer living in a world where masculinity contest culture creates a hostile work environment and undermines the efforts of employees covered up by the simple sentence “it’s your job”. Many of the men in positions of power tend to overlook the significance of establishing genuine relationships in a well structured workforce, and instead, think of their employees as another step to achieving their company goals. Center For Creative Leadership conducted a study where individuals were asked to compare and contrast the benefits of men versus women in positions of leadership. Results showed that when there are more women as authoritative figures in the workplace, there is an increased job satisfaction rate, increased productivity rate, and allows employees to be less susceptible to burnout (Creative Leadership 2019). This is because women take the time to learn about their employees’ personal morales , passions, and strengths. 

Women brainstorm ways to integrate employees strengths into their workplaces execution style which can go a long way towards success. Toxic masculinity has structured the way men react to a woman’s authoritative manner, and how they present themselves in the workplace because that type of initiative used to be the only way to success. Women were always ranked below men on an economical scale, and many of these men have not yet adjusted themselves to workplace diversification. 

Motherhood bias is the assumption that mothers should be fully responsible for their families’ social scene, and their children without reservation. When a woman is applying for a position that requires much time and effort, the misconception that her role as a mother will compromise her role in the workplace shadows her accomplishments and capabilities. Regardless of our increasingly progressive society, a woman’s availability to her child is still guarded as an indication of her competence as a mother and the success of her child. How about the father who may even work a position less time consuming than the mother? Maybe a longtime friend or caregiver can spend time with a child for a short period of time? Ultimately, it is still viewed as the mother’s responsibility no matter the circumstances. A study conducted by the American Journal of Sociology discovered that mothers were seventy nine percent less likely to be hired for a position of power, one hundred percent less likely to be promoted, offered $11,000 less in salary, and held to higher performance standards than women without children (Breaking Through Bias 2022). This bias may not even be presented in the form of direct discrimination. A woman may be  dismissed from meetings at hours critical to a child’s needs, and may not be considered for assignments where traveling is required. This may be beneficial to a child, and considerate under the circumstances that the woman asks for time off, but for a woman wanting to advance her career, these subtle forms of dismissal only alienate her from crucial aspects of her company’s proceedings. This form of discrimination may be even more determinental to a single mother that has to support herself and her kids without external sources. A single mother may be in contention for a job of higher power simply because she needs the extra income flow, and can not afford to remain in her current position with no chance of a raise or promotion. Alongside motherhood bias, motherhood guilt is extremely prominent in the workplace. To fulfill the position of a CEO, or manager, the individual will need to perform difficult tasks and work long hours. A mother may face backlash from her coworkers with comments such as “you should be spending more time with your child” , or “you are depriving your child of a mother’s attention”. These types of comments are practically unavoidable, and possibly derive from feelings of insecurity on behalf of the commenter. As a man, displaying your commitment to your position, as well as raising a kid, you are more likely to gain the respect of your coworkers simply because men have never been obliged to be the ‘homemaker’. As a woman, you are told your priorities are not in the right place, and are excluded from valuable workplace opportunities.

Self limiting biases leave women questioning their self worth based on how they have been perceived from a societal standpoint. A woman may assume she is not a good fit for a set position because society has told her it may not be an appropriate pursuit, or she would be uncomfortable, and incapable. Stereotypes of this descent cause uncertainty when faced with tasks that you have been told are best performed by men. 80% of social workers are women but only 15% of computer engineers are (Rueters 2021). It is more than realistic to assume this statistic is based heavily on self selection. Self limiting bias leads a woman to believe that she cannot be technical, but she is good at dealing with emotions because women are emotional beings. When a woman is pushy a man is recognized as persuasive , when a woman is rude a man is direct and knows his worth , and this often pushes a woman into believing that a more tame, and flexible position is better suited for her. Women have more than enough capability to thrive in these industries, but simply choose to avoid backlash and prejudice.

Moreover, women continue to face hierarchical discrimination, limiting their employement prospects and societal advancements. When stereotyping becomes apparent, we can unconsciously behave towards women untrue to their persona. We tend to categorize women and men in different physical, mental and emotional categories, and sometimes unconsciously think a woman should be communal, warm, pleasant, caregiving and men should be strong, forceful, and aggressive. These gender roles are rooted deep in history, a time period society has not yet outgrown.  We still have a long way to go in acknowledging  and respecting a woman’s role as a leader in the workplace. 

References

Rueters, T. (2021, June 18). Gender stereotypes in the workplace: How 5 biases harm women. Andie & Al. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://andieandal.com/gender-stereotypes-biases-foster-women-workplace/ 

Burns, T. (2022, April 13). Women in the workplace 2021. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#0 

Experteer Magazine. (2018, May 9). Why aren’t more women in power positions? Experteer Magazine. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://us.experteer.com/magazine/why-arent-more-women-in-power-positions/ 

Andie & Al. (2020, November 10). How to recognize bias against working mothers. Andie & Al. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://andieandal.com/gender-stereotypes-part-v-motherhood-biases-biases/ 

Helgesen S, Goldsmith M (2018) How Women Rise: Break the 12 Habits Holding You back From Your Next Raise, Promotion, or Job, ‎ Hachette Books (April 10, 2018)

This essay was written by summer student Bayden Summers and edited by Ilesha Prabhudesai. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

We need a new website

Hello. My name is Peter and I am fundraising for Journey to Diversity Workplaces (J2DW,) a Canadian federally-chartered non-profit organization that desperately needs a new website.
J2DW was founded in 2013 and the first site came a few months later. Then after a few years, we switched to WordPress and a volunteer worked on the site.

Now to help highlight the work we are doing, we badly need a new website.

For the past 9 years, volunteers and summer students have written articles on various workplace topics such as safety, diversity, and the human condition. We even have an expert Library full of APA-formatted essays.

In the future, we expect more of this, along with our newly launched podcast, Diversity on Air.

The funds you donate will help change how this is presented and bring new audiences to our forum.

Understanding the Alphabet Soup of Inclusive Language Part I

Inclusive language is a term used to characterize a choice of words that seeks to include people from a diverse array of backgrounds, in order to encompass as many groups of people as possible. The terminology of inclusive language is such that it is all-embracing and respectful of everyone—particularly those belonging to marginalized groups. Its use has been steadily growing in professional spaces including workplaces, academic institutions, and in the media. At first, growing accustomed to the everyday use of inclusive language may be challenging. It can be overwhelming and even intimidating to embrace a new terminology that challenges the way one is accustomed to speaking, and it may bring unconscious biases to light. But through training, a little practice, and by keeping an open mind, incorporating inclusive language into your vocabulary will soon become second nature.

A number of organizations offer extended training and courses on the understanding and use of inclusive terminology specifically within the workplace. In this blog post, Journey to Diversity Workplaces will offer guidelines and resources for how you as an employer can start to examine the language you use in order to create a more accommodating workplace. This week, we focus on using Black- and Indigenous-inclusive language, but in a follow-up blog post we’ll discuss inclusive language as it relates to disability as well as gender and sexuality. Remember that this article is only intended as an introduction, and does not claim to serve as the be-all and end-all of what your inclusive language training should look like in terms of discussion on matters that concern race and equality. 

As you go forward, bear in mind that there may be conflicting ideas over the most respectful term to refer to a group of people. As an employer, you may be inclined to turn to government resources in order to ensure that you’re using the appropriate terminology when addressing your employees, and when making reference to BIPOC, queer, and disabled communities in general. But it’s always best to listen to the preferences of the members of the minority groups that the language is describing and to treat those preferences as having authority over what official organizations might suggest. They are the ones most directly affected by the language you use.

Each topic addressed in this blog article requires a high degree of nuance, and most terminology used to refer to underrepresented groups carries a high degree of weight. Though we cannot provide an in-depth exploration of those nuances in one short blog post, we can run through some of the more common examples of inclusive language you will likely find useful in the workplace. 

When referring to racial minorities as a whole, the term most commonly used in racial equality circles is BIPOC, an umbrella term that stands for “Black and Indigenous People Of Colour.” It is an expansion of the previously-used People Of Colour (POC), with the first two letters added to give more visibility to Black and Indigenous communities. Nowadays, the acronym BIPOC is preferred over POC because it emphasizes the unique types of racism that these groups experience, in particular the deep-rooted and lasting effects of slavery, colonization, and genocide (Olsen, 2022). 

Capitalizing the letter B in Black is considered respectful and more inclusive when referring to Black people or to Black coworkers. In the United States, the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) made an official statement that they would be capitalizing the B in Black in all their communications going forward as of 2020, and recommends other organizations adopt the same practice out of respect for the Black diaspora (National Association of Black Journalists [NABJ], 2020). The capitalized Black is also preferred over the phrase African Americans because, quite simply, not all Black people are American, nor does their ancestry necessarily trace back to the African continent (Olsen, 2022). 

Opinions are a little more divided over the capitalization of the letter W when referring to white people. Some Black-run organizations, including the NABJ, choose to capitalize the W in white as part of a blanket procedure for describing all racial groups. However, it’s also important to consider the race-driven context, one that white people do not share, in which Black is capitalized as a means of upholding a shared community and history, partially in response to white supremacy. There’s no easy answer here, so it may be worthwhile to invite a group discussion over the capitalization of W in white at your workplace, provided that BIPOC employees are given ample opportunity to voice their opinions in such discussions. Regardless of your company’s decision regarding the term white, however, continue to capitalize the B in Black unless your Black employees and clients express the wish to be referred to in another way. 

Choosing the right terminology for Indigenous communities is sometimes challenging because there are so many different nations and communities that originate from Canada, each with its own needs and preferences. As a rule of thumb, it’s always best to refer to someone’s particular nation by name when talking to an individual or addressing a specific issue (Baker et al., 2021), but “Indigenous peoples” is generally considered an acceptable term when talking more broadly about Indigenous-related topics. Employers should turn to Indigenous-run organizations for more detailed guidelines regarding using inclusive terminology.  

Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (ICT) offers one such resource on their website, listing the circumstances under which it’s appropriate to use terms that have been used to describe Indigenous peoples. Aboriginal, for example, is a term that includes all First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples, and may sometimes be used interchangeably with the term Indigenous peoples. However, some First Nations prefer not to be called Aboriginal (Indigenous Corporate Training [ICT], 2016). They also advise that while the descriptor “First Nations” covers many communities within Canada, it does not include Inuit and Métis Peoples—and many of those communities still prefer the term Indigenous, as they have publicly expressed in Ontario and elsewhere (ICT, 2016). For this reason, “Indigenous” is often preferred by many nations in Canada because of its inclusiveness.

Having said all that, it’s vital that you abide by the wishes of your Indigenous employees and clients by prioritizing the language they prefer. Language is highly personal, and there is a great diversity of thought within each individual nation (Baker et al., 2021). Though based in the United States, where some nations refer to themselves differently than those within Canada, the organization Native Governance Center explains that you should never assume all Indigenous peoples will use the same terminology. The same principle applies here in Canada. 

Listening to the voices of the people you work for and work with is the most effective way in which you can create a more inclusive workplace. In practice, equality demands more than just using the right terminology. Concern for diversity needs to be reflected in your actions as an individual employer and as a company, but using inclusive language is a key starting point from which you can begin discussing how you and your company can continuously strive to do better.

Sources

Baker, T., Little Elk, W., Pollard, B., & Yellow Bird, M. (2021, October 1). How to Talk About Native Nations: A Guide. Native Governance Center. Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://nativegov.org/news/how-to-talk-about-native-nations-a-guide/

Ferguson, J., & Bellamy, R. (2022, May 20). How to get better at using inclusive language in the workplace. Fast Company. Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://www.fastcompany.com/90753901/how-to-get-better-at-using-inclusive-language-in-the-workplace

Indigenous Peoples terminology guidelines for usage. Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2016, July 20). Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-terminology-guidelines-for-usage

NABJ Statement on Capitalizing Black and Other Racial Identifiers. National Association of Black Journalists. (2020, June 11). Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://nabjonline.org/blog/nabj-statement-on-capitalizing-black-and-other-racial-identifiers/

Olsen, B. (2022). What Does the Term BIPOC Mean and Why Is It Important? LGBTQ and ALL. Retrieved August 13, 2022, from https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-the-term-bipoc-mean-and-why-is-it-important/

This article was written by summer student Cossette Penner-Olivera and edited by summer student Ilesha Prabhudesai. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

The Effort-Reward Imbalance in a ‘Meritocratic’ Workplace

We all know an overly eager peer that you and your colleagues desperately try to avoid. You notice that this person, despite being far from your favourite individual, is always after some goal, rising through the ranks, and stressing about everything. But have you ever considered that this peer might actually be trapped in a toxic mental cycle? Why do you think they chase workplace validation so intensely?

In a profit-driven society, the amount of product generated is valued more than the well-being of the individuals producing said product. The pressure to prove yourself as worthy of your position, the need to achieve more, to overcome the next hurdle, to seek validation from authority figures, and to chase the high of the reward, are all traits exhibited by individuals trapped in a toxic effort-reward relationship. 

Meritocracy, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a system or society designed to credit one’s merit and individual accomplishments or abilities above their family, wealth, or influence, for seats in higher positions of power (Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary). Initially, this was meant to create an equalized field for minorities and underprivileged individuals, however, it soon became rigged by individuals of societal power, further dividing the population. In academic settings, for instance, the SATs were made to level the playing field for all students, but people with access to private programs, SAT prep workbooks, and years of SAT-centric tutoring weaseled their wealthy, privileged way into higher education (Kelly, 2018). 

In the workplace, meritocracy is once again emphasized, but executed incorrectly, leaving behind a trace of employees struggling to reach the top while climbing a broken ladder. Meaning, some individuals put in twice as much effort for a reward they might not get, while others that are perhaps more privileged can get by with half as much effort and twice the intended reward. The former then ends up in an exhaustive loop of chasing that reward where achievement endorses this behaviour. Failure demotivates them from doing their job, and both result in extreme burnout.

So, what is there to make of this effort/reward imbalance in the supposed meritocratic workplace? What are employees to do? On one hand, refusing to chase these achievements gives them a disadvantage in competition with their peers, and decreases their credibility and merit. On the other hand, giving into this skewed stance on meritocracy leaves employees feeling discouraged, anxiety-ridden, and unworthy of their position unless they constantly prove so otherwise.

This impacts not only an employee’s relationship with themself, but also their work performance, professional relationships, and their work environment. The emotional burden carried by such individuals devoids them of ‘distractions’ like friendly professional relationships, focusing on what is truly important… merit. Their work performance is negatively affected as well. Despite their determined efforts, the more failures they encounter, the more discouraged they become from approaching their job with the same level of determination and enthusiasm as they once did, resulting in decreased productivity. How many hits can a person take before they turn around and walk away? 

Even if an individual doesn’t fall under that specific, eager title, this pressure is bestowed upon most employees, especially ones financially responsible for their families, women, immigrants, and people of colour. Such groups have certain prejudices that they must overcome to be on the same playing field as their more privileged counterparts. This means that not only is there a major imbalance in their effort-reward relationship, but the argument of us living in a meritocratic society becomes obsolete as it’s clear we are not judged for our merit alone, but rather for the confounding variables that elevate or suppress our accessibility of viable opportunities. 

Hence, these groups approach the workplace as a setting to prove themselves worthy, respectable, and credible by working tirelessly to reach the top, which can only be achieved by having merit– a reward for which a disproportionate amount of effort would be needed. There’s a reason why, for instance, a greater percentage, 39%, of female-identifying immigrants have Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) compared to 26% of their male counterparts (Evra & Mongrain, 2020). 

In the end, the effort-reward relationship and meritocracy go hand in hand. Although once introduced as a way of promoting equality and encouraging a reward-based approach to work that amplifies performance, these ideas do not represent a sustainable or healthy workplace. What is a company if its workers are burnt out, beat down, and unsure of their value? Ultimately, to acquire that healthy workplace environment, employers must reflect inwards and redefine what it means to be an employee at their workplace and how that mirrors their company’s values. Without this reflection, a workplace is simply a cage in which the hamster runs on its wheel in pursuit of a treat just out of reach.

Sources

Evra, R., & Mongrain, E. (2020, July 14). Mental Health Status of Canadian Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00050-eng.htm

Kelly, M. (2018, June 2). Trickle-down distress: How America’s broken meritocracy drives our national anxiety epidemic. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/trickle-down-distress-how-americas-broken-meritocracy-drives-our-national-anxiety-epidemic/259383/

Meritocracy. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy

This article was written by summer student Ilesha Prabhudesai and edited by summer student Bayden Summers. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.