Mastodon

Tag: Cossette Penner-Olivera

How the Standard Hiring Process Excludes Neurodivergent Candidates

The process of applying for a new job tends to be pretty routine. Search job boards and agencies for a position that suits you, tailor a resume, write a cover letter, sit through a certain number of interviews, and with any luck, receive a job offer by the end. Most people don’t land a job on their first try—job hunting can be incredibly draining, even disheartening after a number of unsuccessful applications, but that’s accepted as par for the course. The process of applying for a job usually doesn’t vary much across different fields. The skills and experiences required for a given position change, but interviews themselves are frequently similar. This conventional process, however, is one that is structured against neurodivergent people and tends to filter them out, seriously inhibiting their chances of finding employment.

“Neurodivergent” is a non-medical umbrella term that describes people whose brain functions and/or learning processes differ from that which is considered “normal.” It includes autistic people, people with ADHD, people with learning disabilities such as dyslexia, as well as several other neurological differences (University of Connecticut [UConn], n.d.). Because the term describes disabilities that are frequently invisible, there is little way of knowing for certain whether or not an individual is neurodivergent, not even in the case of someone you think you know well. 

While exact figures are not known due to the lack of published statistics on unemployment rates among people with neurological differences, as a whole neurodivergent adults remain acutely underemployed. Unemployment rates can run as high as 30-40%: three times that of people with physical disabilities, and eight times that of people who are not disabled (UConn, n.d.). Some subgroups face more struggles than others with finding work. Autistic people, for example, remain disproportionately underemployed, with only 16% of autistic adults working full time despite the majority of them wishing to pursue employment (London School of Economics and Political Science [LSE], 2017). 

 Most neurotypical people (the descriptor for people who are not neurodivergent) have a poor understanding of neurodivergence. Representation in the media remains low, and the representation that does exist often plays into stereotypes and presents a very narrow view of neurodiversity. The depiction of autistic people in popular culture tends to feature white men almost exclusively, contributing to a narrow public perception of what autism looks like (Devlin, 2018). This lack of understanding ends up informing the hiring process, so it isn’t surprising that neurodivergent people are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to finding employment. Neurodivergencies are often excluded from conversations around disability and accessibility in professional environments because, to put it bluntly, our society is structured without neurodivergent people in mind. While the process of applying for a job may be relatively straightforward to a neurotypical person, for neurodivergent people it presents a series of challenges that often go unacknowledged. 

The accepted blueprint for professional conduct is one that differs from the way in which many neurodivergent people operate, a by-product of societal ableism. Most job interviews, for example, rely heavily on the candidate’s ability to speak smoothly and pick up on social cues, which is precisely something that many neurodivergent people struggle with (Mumford, 2022). Many other behaviours that employers usually look for in potential candidates are also likely to exclude neurodivergent people. For example, candidates are expected to maintain eye contact with the interviewer, which is difficult for many autistic people. A candidate who fidgets may be considered too unprofessional and “not serious enough” for a certain position, even though people with ADHD and other neurodivergencies often have trouble sitting still. Many neurodivergent people are aware of these expectations, and sometimes spend extra energy during interviews masking their known neurodivergent traits. They might concentrate on maintaining eye contact with the employer or consciously suppress the need to fidget throughout the interview. The anxiety and mental exhaustion caused by masking can seriously impact performance during an interview that a neurotypical candidate would navigate with ease. 

This means that a perfectly qualified candidate who happens to be neurodivergent will be filtered out by design, simply because they have difficulty presenting themself in a way that is arbitrarily considered to be “acceptable” in a standard interview (Mumford, 2022). Adjusting the hiring process to be more considerate of neurodivergent individuals is one significant way in which employers can create a more diverse workforce. For instance, some companies, especially large corporations, partner with advocacy groups to offer special programs that are dedicated to recruit neurodivergent talent (Fitzell, 2022). These programs are specifically structured to meet the needs of neurodivergent individuals during the recruitment stage. 

While enormously beneficial for some, however, the effectiveness of such programs is still limited. For one thing, they require neurodivergent people to disclose their disability to a potential employer. For another, these systems don’t consider the fact that there are many neurodivergent people who have not received a diagnosis, thus barring them from receiving necessary accommodations. In particular, women remain underdiagnosed for neurodivergencies because of lingering assumptions that disabilities like ADHD and autism are “male disorders” (Devlin, 2018; Sigler, 2022). In the case of BIPOC men, underdiagnosis is an issue heavily linked to systemic racism. Young Black boys who have trouble concentrating in class are more likely to be dismissed as “disruptive” or diagnosed with a conduct disorder instead (Bogard, 2022), thus leading to a series of challenges and missed opportunities that stem from not having their needs met in childhood. The lack of documentation for a disability does not invalidate these individuals’ experiences and struggles in finding employment, and it should not mean that they aren’t just as entitled to accommodations as those who have received a diagnosis. 

Fortunately, there are a number of steps that employers can take to make their hiring process more inclusive of neurodivergent candidates. For one, employers can embellish job advertisements by including a short audio file or video that explains the job posting along with the usual text file, letting interested candidates choose between the format that works best for them, and thus being more inclusive of dyslexic people and those who receive information better in a non text-based format (Mumford, 2022). Employers might also consider going beyond the traditional interview by creating a system in which all candidates are evaluated “on the job” by completing tasks or doing a test project to better determine if they will be the right fit for a given position (Mumford, 2022). While hardly making up an exhaustive list, these are two ways of making for a more inclusive hiring process without requiring candidates to share sensitive information about their disability with a potential employer.  

But perhaps the most important thing you can do as an employer is to check your own biases, look beyond the standard social cues you’re accustomed to searching for, and reassess the criteria you use to identify a successful candidate (LSE, 2017). Seek out neurodivergent voices, such as local advocacy groups, and ask them what you can do during the onboarding process to be more mindful of neurodivergent peoples’ needs. By doing further research on neurodivergence, you can go a long way in making for a more diverse workforce, and creating more opportunities for qualified, talented individuals who will have plenty to offer once given a chance.

Sources

Bogard, M. (2021, October). Black Adults Who Live With ADHD. CHADD. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://chadd.org/adhd-news/adhd-news-adults/black-adults-who-live-with-adhd/

The Center for Neurodiversity and Employment. University of Connecticut. (n.d.). Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://entrepreneurship.uconn.edu/neurodiversitycenter/

Devlin, H. (2018, September 14). Thousands of autistic girls and women ‘going undiagnosed’ due to gender bias. The Guardian. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/14/thousands-of-autistic-girls-and-women-going-undiagnosed-due-to-gender-bias

Employers may discriminate against autism without realising. London School of Economics and Political Science. (2017, August 10). Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/equityDiversityInclusion/2017/08/employers-may-discriminate-against-autism-without-realising/

Fitzell, S. A. (2022, April 19). Inclusive Hiring: How to Revamp your Company’s Recruitment and Interviewing Processes. Medium. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://medium.com/neurodiversity-at-work/inclusive-hiring-how-to-revamp-your-companys-recruitment-and-interviewing-processes-8ec64ab5fd5d

Mumford, C. (2022, May 24). Adapting Hiring Processes to Get Neurodiverse Hiring Right. Simplify VMS. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://simplifyvms.com/2022/05/24/neurodiverse-hiring/

Sigler, E. (2022, July 11). ADHD Looks Different in Women. Here’s How – and Why. ADDitude. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.additudemag.com/add-in-women/

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.

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.

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.

Understanding the Question of Gender Diversity in the Boardroom

The issue of boardroom diversity, and publicly traded companies’ failure to equitably represent members of minority groups on their boards, has been met with increasing concern over the past two decades. The lack of gender diversity in particular has been central to such discussions, leading to an international push to encourage the nomination of female board members through the introduction of diversity quotas and disclosure policies. Statistics show that the implementation of such policies has somewhat increased the number of women and other minorities appointed to company boards, but many insist that progress is still too slow and that the practices of a truly inclusive boardroom must be reflected in more ways than just numbers. Furthermore, many scholars have argued that research into this issue has thus far been unsatisfactory due to the ways in which it focuses upon the business benefits of appointing women to boards and relies upon gender essentialism in its arguments. Quotas may serve as a useful stepping stone to improve diversity, but the continued inequitable treatment of women who are appointed to boards, coupled with the narrow view of diversity that previous research into this issue has adopted, make it clear that more needs to be done towards establishing a gender inclusive boardroom culture. 

The first gender-based quota for board composition was established in Norway in 2003, setting a requirement for the boards of every public limited company to be composed of at least 40% female directors by 2008 (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 2). Companies that did not comply with this policy risked facing legal action. Spain, France, Italy, and other countries soon followed with similar policies. In Canada, the Diversity Disclosure Requirement imposed in 2015 “enforces disclosure on whether the board has adopted a written policy concerning the employment of women directors” (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 2). The number of women appointed to boards around the world has been climbing in recent years, and it would seem that diversity quotas have played a significant role in compelling companies to add women and other minorities to their boards. In the United States, for example, where many states have enforced policies that require companies to disclose their board-level diversity statistics or explain why they have failed to do so, the 2021 U.S. Spencer Stewart Board Index found that female representation on boards increased up to 30%. Those from underrepresented groups (including but not limited to women) comprised 72% of new directors at S&P 500 companies. This was a considerable improvement even from 2020, where 59% of new directors were minorities (Walsh et al., 2022). However, some agencies and policymakers argue that such quotas are not sufficient to solve the issue at hand. In Canada, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) put a similar “comply-or-explain” policy into effect in 2015, but soon found that many companies’ efforts to adhere to that rule failed to meet the desired targets. The OSC argued that some companies’ diversity reporting could be considered technical compliance at best. This led them to believe that companies were not truly treating the lack of boardroom gender diversity as an issue to take seriously (McFarland, 2015).

Indeed, as many studies have shown, an increase in the number of board seats appointed to women is not in itself a sufficient measure for how a company responds to demands for inclusivity. A study by the Harvard Business Review reported that even when women were appointed to company boards, 87% faced challenges and discriminatory treatment related to their gender (Groysberg & Bell, 2013). Chief among their complaints were that they were not listened to by their male colleagues, and that they were not being treated as equals in an exclusive “boys’ club”—trademarks of a toxic work culture that male directors are oblivious to having created. These findings led authors Groysberg and Bell to the conclusion that many boards simply do not know “how to leverage diversity” (2013). Although many boards claim to uphold the idea of inclusivity, the underlying issue of misogyny that has barred women from executive positions remains unresolved. The results of Groysberg and Bell’s study predate the widespread enforcement of disclosure requirements in the United States. However, when their findings are placed alongside policymakers’ current concerns that compliance policies are insufficient, it becomes clear that truly addressing the question of gender diversity is a complicated matter that requires more than just a numbers checklist. 

The size of a company may contribute to its ability to foster an inclusive boardroom culture. A recent study by Carleton University, which examined firms listed on the TSX index from 2010 to 2019, found that the boards of smaller firms tended to perform better and benefitted the most from gender diversity. Authors Mohsni and Shata suggest that the more complex and bureaucratic structure typical of larger firms “may lead to a wider distribution of power” and make it “more difficult for members to cooperate and reach consensus” (2021, p. 3). By contrast, smaller firms tend to have less bureaucratic structures, which facilitates communication among board members and strengthens the impact of individuals’ voices when group decisions are made. This means that at smaller companies, each director has more power at the table, offering a greater chance for women to really influence the decisions being made in the boardroom where they might otherwise be drowned out in a larger, all-male group. Larger boards must therefore commit to reassessing their communication methods and organisational structures when making group decisions and integrating female directors (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 17) in order to truly make a difference in terms of gender diversity. 

The failure of companies to successfully implement gender diversity is certainly a topic that requires closer examination, but as some scholars have suggested, research into this issue has thus far been lacklustre. The bulk of existing research into boardroom gender diversity tends to be approached from what Brown and Kelan refer to as a utilitarian perspective. The utilitarian perspective makes a so-called “business case” for women to be appointed to boards on the merit that they present “an untapped pool of potential talent that can improve the way the board or company functions” (2020, p. 6). The problem is that investigations of this variety tend to draw upon “essentialist notions of gender” (Brown & Kelan, 2020, p. 9). They frame gender as a mere issue of comparison rather than addressing the structures and institutional misogyny that have historically barred women from the boardroom. As justification for why women should be appointed to boards, policymakers often draw attention to the supposedly unique qualities and intrinsic feminine traits that women can bring to the table. The notion that women have a higher emotional intelligence than men and can therefore offer a fresh, more empathetic perspective to a board (Groysberg & Bell, 2013) is just one example. Furthermore, when operating under quotas that describe women’s allegedly unique skills and characteristics, women striving for boardroom seats are still expected to possess traits associated with successful male board members in addition to conventionally female traits. They must occupy the role of the elite leader (a traditionally masculine role) while simultaneously facing pressure to meet “contradictory expectations related to notions of (respectable) femininity” (Brown & Kelan, 2020, p. 13). As Groysberg and Bell’s study showed, women are held to a much higher standard than men when board nominations are taking place because they are simply not thought of first as potential candidates. Their skills and experiences must somehow tie into their gender in order to be appointed over a male colleague with similar qualifications. This sheds light upon serious flaws in existing diversity quotas and the ways in which they are implemented. Addressing the issue of gender inequality in the boardroom will be far more challenging so long as diversity policies are themselves dependent on misogynistic assumptions. After all, if the board’s internal culture of misogyny does not change, then simply satisfying a quota is only useful in terms of external appearances.

When boardroom diversity is seen as little more than a checkbox to fill out in response to a quota, understood solely in terms of a numerical goal to be met, we fail to consider the fact that the question of inclusivity, and our understanding of gender itself, is constantly evolving and varies from culture to culture. Diversity in the boardroom is a matter far more complex than mere gender inequality, as the bulk of existing research presumes. A truly inclusive boardroom should adopt an intersectional perspective when tackling questions of inclusivity, one that examines diversity beyond the male-female binary. Some policymakers in different parts of the world have certainly pushed for the representation of other minorities, including BIPOC people, queer people, and Indigenous peoples. But there is a case to be made for the lack of representation of women of colour on company boards, not to mention those individuals who fall outside the gender binary and who remain largely neglected in existing studies about boardroom diversity. There is no clear, easy solution to the issue of boardroom diversity, and there is a pressing need for thorough, more expansive research before change can be implemented. That said, given the gradually increasing representation of women and other minorities on company boards, the impact of diversity quotas should not be dismissed outright. It is worthwhile to understand disclosure rules and similar policies not as a magic solution to the issue of gender diversity, but rather as a stepping stone to true inclusivity. As quotas are filled, and a wider range of voices are introduced to company boards, we can allow people from diverse, intersecting backgrounds to share their own perspectives about how a more inclusive boardroom can be made. That way, we can start to gain a stronger sense of the best way to move forward.

References

Brown, S., & Kelan, E. (2020). Gender and Corporate Boards. In Gender and Corporate Boards: The Route to a Seat at the Table (pp. 6–23). essay, Taylor & Francis.

Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2013, June). Dysfunction in the boardroom. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2013/06/dysfunction-in-the-boardroom

Johnson, G. R., & Ramchandani, R. (2019, July 10). New diversity disclosures under the CBCA effective for annual meetings in 2020. Torys LLP. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.torys.com/Our%20Latest%20Thinking/Publications//2019/07/new-diversity-disclosures-under-the-cbca-effective-for-annual-meetings-in-2020/

McFarland, J. (2015, June 10). OSC rebukes firms for lack of action on gender-diversity rules. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/osc-blasts-firms-for-lack-of-action-on-gender-diversity-rules/article24902736/

Mohsni, S., & Shata, A. (2021). Board Gender Diversity and Firm Performance: The Role of Firm Size. Carleton University, 1–35.

Sheker, M. (2019, September 3). Canada’s top firms now have to disclose figures on diversity in the boardroom, but is ‘sunlight the best disinfectant’? Rotman School of Management. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/ResearchCentres/JohnstonCentre/JohnstonCentre/2019/9/3/Canadas-top-firms-now-have-to-disclose-figures-on-diversity-in-the-boardroom-but-is-sunlight-the-bes

Walsh, D. G., Atkins, E. G., Rabin, R. J., Lander, E. G., Busching, D. E., England, E., & Leitch, A. (2022, March 3). Continued Focus on Diversifying the Boardroom. Akin Gump. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/corporate/ag-deal-diary/continued-focus-on-diversifying-the-boardroom.html#:~:text=The%202021%20U.S.%20Spencer%20Stewart,of%20all%20S%26P%20500%20directors

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

Addressing Accessibility Barriers With Remote Work Part II

This blog post is the second of two articles on disability and remote work. The first entry focused on some of the accessibility barriers that disabled employees face in the workplace, and how the normalisation of remote work has helped to overcome many of those barriers. This post considers what it means for disabled employees to return to in-person work now that many companies are adopting a hybrid model or mandating a return to the physical workplace. 

 
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, disabled employees have found that remote work gives them the opportunity to work in an environment that accommodates their needs more easily than working at the office. As I discussed in the first segment of this blog, disabled Canadians who qualify for employment remain vastly underrepresented in the workforce, and the inaccessibility of many work environments is a contributing factor. The widespread adaptation of remote work during COVID might just have provided a needed solution to overcoming some of these accessibility barriers. But now that many employers are implementing a return to the physical workplace, it’s worth questioning what this means for disabled employees.

It’s true that many people are experiencing feelings of isolation and are impatient for the chance to get out of the house, which can help to maintain a work-life balance. But a mandated return to the office may present a serious setback for disabled employees who have benefitted from the convenience of working from home. Remote work has contributed to both their physical and mental wellbeing, and after two years of operating out of what may be for them an optimal work environment, some disabled employees might be reluctant or unable to make the adjustment to working in-person, especially if they started a new position remotely and may not know what to expect at the office in terms of accessibility.

Employers may believe that in-person work is the best option for everyone, but the notion that jobs can only be performed in a physical workplace fails to take into account the experiences and concerns of disabled people. Granted, some industries are dependent upon in-person labour, but the past two years have proved that many jobs can in fact be performed remotely. Why should disabled members of the workforce be forced to return to the office when they can work equally, if not more efficiently, in an environment in which their needs are met?

We can see a similar phenomenon taking place in the post-secondary education system, as many institutions have shifted toward a return to the classroom over the past year. A workplace and an academic setting may be different environments in nature, but there is considerable overlap between a student’s ability to focus in class and succeed in their studies and an employee’s ability to perform their tasks and do their job well.

As a case in point, Anushay Sheikh filed a human rights claim against U of T Law before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. After accepting an offer of admission to the law school in 2021 and deferring acceptance for the fall 2022 semester, Sheikh soon ran into barriers when requesting accommodation from the university. As a student with disabilities, they requested access to Zoom links for lectures so that they could sometimes attend classes remotely on an as-needed basis. According to news reports on the case, U of T Law Faculty repeatedly refused on the basis that university programs are delivered in-person, and that the shift to online learning was only intended as a temporary COVID measure. The university technically has a system in place to provide lecture recordings for those who miss class for both COVID and non-COVID related reasons, but disabled students at U of T are still reporting that accommodation requests to learn remotely are being denied (Yousif & Frances, 2022). According to Sheikh, several of their professors were supportive, but the administration was ableist (Damte, 2022). After months of back-and-forth with the administration, Sheikh filed a human rights claim in January 2022.
“As someone that suffers from chronic pain flare ups, PTSD, and anxiety, the option of remote learning gives me the flexibility I need to navigate my symptoms,” Sheikh asserted in an email response to Journey to Diversity Workplaces. “[… B]eing able to make decisions about my health as an adult without asking permission from older white administrators will not only help my ability to access course material, but would also save a significant amount of distress that comes with asking people in positions of power for basic dignity.”

It’s easy to see how similar principles can be applied to members of the workforce and their requests to work from home. The COVID-19 pandemic has proved that many jobs can in fact be performed remotely, so there’s no substantial reason for employers to deny their workers the right to such accommodations, certainly not if a company is meant to uphold inclusive practices.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that a non-inclusive work culture or inaccessible workspace is likely to steer a disabled employee toward other companies and industries where they can be accommodated more easily, even if they might otherwise be the perfect candidate for a particular job. Such a culture will, in turn, inhibit a company’s ability to be more inclusive in the long run because of the lack of disabled voices on its team.

When asked by Journey to Diversity Workplaces about how disabled students can benefit from remote learning in the long run, Sheikh asserted: “[…] We live in a society that has perpetuated toxic work and study expectations, including not listening to your body and mind, not taking breaks, forcing yourself to conform to a specific learning style that may not work for you, etc. By adopting a universal design, one in which many different needs are met without requiring students to other themselves to get accommodations, universities can and will attract people who think in different ways. A diversity of thought is crucial to having a well rounded institution, and by extension, a well rounded and representative legal profession. It’ll also allow students, as adult human beings, to make decisions about their health and well-being. If that means learning from home to get the most out of a lecture, so be it.”

At the end of the day, a company’s internal inclusivity/anti-discrimination policies are meaningless if the environment is not accessible (Claus, 2021). Many workers are eager for a chance to return to the office, but leaving the option open for remote work for those who can benefit from it is one significant way in which employers can make their work culture more accessible. Disabled employees have been pushing for the opportunity to work remotely for a long time. Accommodating those requests is one way in which employers can show they are listening to the disabled voices on their team, and move towards a work culture that is more diverse and welcoming of everyone.

Sources

Berting, P. (2022, February 14). Law student files human rights claim against U of T over zoom link accessibility. The Varsity. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://thevarsity.ca/2022/02/14/human-rights-case-u-of-t-law-student-zoom/

Claus, C. (2021, October 4). How to Improve the Hiring Process & Create a More Inclusive Workplace, According to an Accessibility Support Engineer. InclusionHub. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.inclusionhub.com/articles/improve-hiring-process-create-inclusive-workplace

Damte, M. (2022, February 28). Inclusive Excellence? Recent Human Rights Tribunal Application Says Otherwise. Ultra Vires. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://ultravires.ca/2022/02/inclusive-excellence-recent-human-rights-tribunal-application-says-otherwise/

Peng, J., & Kiessel, L. (2020, October 27). For those with disabilities, shift to remote work has opened doors (video). The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2020/1027/For-those-with-disabilities-shift-to-remote-work-has-opened-doors-video

Yousif, N., & Francis, A. (2022, June 5). U of T Law is denying access to virtual classes, disabled students say – despite COVID-era shift to online learning. Toronto Star. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/06/05/u-of-t-law-is-denying-access-to-virtual-classes-disabled-students-say-despite-covid-era-shift-to-online-learning.html

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.

Addressing Accessibility Barriers With Remote Work Part I

This blog post will be one of two articles on disability and remote work. This entry focuses on some of the accessibility barriers disabled employees face in the workplace, and how the normalisation of remote work has helped to overcome many of those barriers. The second blog post will consider what it means for disabled employees to return to in-person work now that many workplaces are adopting a hybrid model or mandating a return to the physical workplace.

More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the shift to remote work has become a “new normal,” with many Canadians having adjusted to a work-from-home setting. But for many disabled employees, the opportunities that have arisen as a result of this shift are considerable.
The fact is, disabled employees have long been advocating for the right to work (Peng & Kiessel, 2020), but for the most part they’ve been turned down. This is partly because many employers believe that allowing for remote work will give disabled employees an unfair advantage over their able-bodied coworkers.

Despite the rising inclusivity in many work settings, some disabled employees may feel hesitant to ask for further considerations out of fear that they are asking too much, and should simply be grateful for those accommodations they have received. Well-meaning supervisors might still have overlooked efforts to make the workplace more accessible, simply by failing to consider the extent of accommodations that disabled employees really need. And that’s without considering the fact that most office buildings, especially old buildings, are designed without disabilities in mind. Employers might install access ramps, but that doesn’t change the unfortunate reality-that a building’s doorways might not be wide enough to allow passage for wheelchairs. Even the commute to get to work usually comes with barriers, such as a lack of elevators at some subway stations.

In Canada, the rights of disabled employees are protected under the Employment Equity Act (Canada.ca), but unfortunately, stigma toward disabled people remains, creating considerable barriers to equal employment opportunities. The belief that disabled people are less qualified or incapable of performing their duties as effectively as their able-bodied counterparts is a common one. And when it comes to the physical workplace itself, accommodations for disabled employees, like the provision of special chairs or modified work hours, are seen as too expensive or too complicated to manage.

Legislation doesn’t change the fact that disabled Canadians are disproportionately unemployed compared to able-bodied Canadians. The numbers speak for themselves: a 2017 survey by Statistics Canada found that there are approximately 645,000 disabled Canadians over the age of 15 who have the potential to work and yet are not currently employed. In the 25-64 age group, 80% able-bodied people are employed, whereas only 59% of disabled people in the same age range are employed (Morris et al., 2018).

Now that the world has largely shifted to working from home, many of those barriers have been reduced or have vanished completely for disabled employees, opening up opportunities that didn’t exist before the pandemic. Many disabled employees expressed that they could focus more easily and be more productive at work when given the opportunity to customise their workspaces to accommodate their needs freely (Peng & Kiessel, 2020). People with chronic pain, for example, can work in a setting that suits them best without having to sit for long periods of time in uncomfortable office chairs. Some able-bodied people believe that an employee needs to sit at a desk in order to be productive and to fit a certain image of professionalism, but that isn’t always the most comfortable setup for those with chronic pain.

When it comes down to it, there is a great deal of freedom to be found for disabled people in not having to request an employer who holds a position of power over them for special accommodations. Plus, it’s worth noting that many disabilities are invisible, and employees are not required to disclose their disabilities to an employer (although they still need to self-identify as disabled in order to count as a member of those groups protected by the Employment Equity Act). Remote work opens up further opportunities in this regard.

The removal of transportation and physical accessibility barriers is one obvious benefit to be reaped from remote work. In particular, those with pain and mobility-related disabilities are likely to benefit from not having to commute to an in-person workplace. But beyond that, thanks to remote work, people with all sorts of disabilities are able to work in an environment that best suits their needs.

The virtual nature of remote work allows employees to use assistive technology more easily than they might have done in the office. For example, Zoom’s closed captions function is enormously beneficial during meetings to employees who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Text-to-speech software serves to benefit employees with visual disabilities, speech disabilities, and learning disabilities like dyslexia The ability to work in a customised environment at home also benefits neurodivergent employees by removing the risk of sensory overload at the office. Some workplaces ban sensory tools like fidget spinners because of a lack of understanding of how neurodivergent people function best, but working at home allows people with ADHD to use them freely to improve focus and reduce stress.

Remote work is not a universal, permanent solution to the discrimination disabled people face when it comes to employment, nor should it exempt employers from continuing to implement inclusive practices and from making their workplaces accessible. We certainly shouldn’t use the possibilities presented by remote work as an excuse not to hold employers accountable for discriminatory behaviour. Education around disability that emphasises listening to disabled voices should become normalised regardless of whether people are working from home or from the office. But leaving the option open for remote work is one major way in which employers can ensure the equality of disabled people working in Canada and contribute to a more diverse workforce.

Sources

Farrer, L. (2022, March 30). Accommodating Disabilities In Remote And Hybrid Work. Forbes. Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurelfarrer/2022/03/30/accommodating-disabilities-in-remote–hybrid-work/?sh=3ecfde0f2c17

Government of Canada. (n.d.). Employment Equity Act. Justice Laws Website. Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/page-1.html

Howard, J. (2022, March 22). The benefits of remote work for people with disabilities. InclusionHub . Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://www.inclusionhub.com/articles/benefits-of-remote-work

Morris, S., Fawcett, G., Brisebois, L., & Hughes, J. (2018, November 28). A demographic, employment and income profile of Canadians with disabilities aged 15 years and over, 2017. Statistics Canada. Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2018002-eng.htm#a5

Peng, J., & Kiessel, L. (2020, October 27). For those with disabilities, shift to remote work has opened doors (video). The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2020/1027/For-those-with-disabilities-shift-to-remote-work-has-opened-doors-video

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 Surprising Truth About Pride at Work Canada

Pride at Work Canada (PaWC)/Fierté au Travail Canada (FaTC) is a nonprofit that is dedicated to supporting employers in making the workplace more welcoming to employees regardless of their gender expression, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Their vision: “A nation where every individual can achieve their full potential at work regardless of gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation” (Pride at Work Canada, n.d.). Originally founded in 2008 in Toronto and Montréal, PaWC now works with employers across the country from St. John’s to Vancouver. On July 11, 2022, I had the pleasure of speaking with Communications Coordinator Luis Augusto Nobre, who offered an insight into the organization’s work, and shared his advice for how employers can help to make their workplaces more inclusive. 

This interview has been condensed and edited from its original format.

Cossette (J2DW): Would you like to begin by introducing yourself? 

Luis: My name is Luis Augusto Nobre. I’m currently the Communications Coordinator here at PaWC/FaTC. My pronouns are he/him and I go with il/lui in French. I am in Tsi Tkarón:to/Toronto, which is situated within the “Dish with One Spoon” Wampum Treaty territory and covered by Treaty 13. I’ve been with the organization for almost three years, so in the team that I’m in now, I’m one of the seniors. So we could witness the growth over the past two years. When I joined PaWC… our team had five staff members in 2019, and today we have 15. So it’s a nice movement, because we see that more people are taking diversity and inclusion more seriously, and consider us to be one of the main sources to support their journey to help them. 

J2DW: Could you give me a sense of how PaWC was born in 2008? 

L: I consider it to have to do with the way the work was organized at the time, with people still experiencing every issue. Some of the laws that we have today to protect trans and queer communities in Canada were not in place at that time. So, a group of queer professionals just decided to create PaWC, on a more volunteer-based aspect…. So we have 12 founders, and they come from more personal initiatives with employers’ support, because at PaWC we serve our communities nationally, but at the same time we work with employers. That’s one way we can ensure that we’re not just addressing people’s needs, but the whole community’s needs… So this is how we as a community—we as communities and a large group of people from different provinces with different backgrounds—can build something to support our future generations.   

J2DW: What have been some of your major achievements as an organization?   

L: One of the major achievements that I’ve witnessed…is how people are taking topics related to diversity and inclusion more seriously… They want to build a place where we can be our authentic selves. 

Since 2008, we have seen the growth of partners that we call our “proud partners.” We started working with 12 employers in 2008. By 2014, we had 35. And just recently, we achieved the milestone of 250 proud partners. We have also developed a community partnership program, with more than 60 community partners—those are organizations and employers that tend to be non-profits in different provinces.… We have also developed documents that help people improve their own journey and to change their workplace by using those documents, which have guidelines on how to improve on diversity and inclusivity there. 

We’ve also developed our e-learning, that is another milestone. It’s easier for people because we can connect with employers…. at the individual level. And at the same time we can work with other organizations on a corporate level to spread the message as we try to have everyone on the same page to relate to some new knowledge. We are not here to develop experts on all sides —we have the expertise. But if you’re an employer and you know at least the minimum, if you’re aware of that, you could be an actor for change and have a more inclusive workplace. And when I say that, I’m not just considering 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion, but that you will start considering other intersectionalities. Because everyone does not just have one aspect to their identity. We have multiple aspects. So with that understanding, you would start seeing a difference… 

We also try to develop a new employee resource group, where people with similar goals and identities come together and they try to work internally to improve something. It could relate to queer and trans communities, it could relate to Indigenous people, it could relate to Black communities in Canada and even those overseas. So I think those achievements come with this building of the expertise that we have now to support our proud partners with research, with facts, with data, that will just show that we know what we are doing. 

J2DW: And what have been some of the major setbacks or barriers you’ve found that your organization has met in terms of meeting your goal? 

L: I think that some employers have an understanding of diversity and inclusion for some people, they might consider… diversity and inclusion to be just a checklist. And it’s not, but that is one of the challenges we face. It comes up every year, when we don’t or cannot work with some of our partners to go beyond those aspects. Sometimes they come to us with questions that seem to be a checklist — “oh, because I have this, this, and that, I’m done, diversity and inclusion is happening here” — when really it’s an ongoing process. And I don’t see an end to that. Today, you have realities that are different from 20 years ago, and they will be different again in 20 years. The new generation, the future generation, will come with other aspects. And we need to consider the intersectionalities of those barriers. The economic crisis and pandemic aspects. Everything is overlapping. You need to be creating, you need to adjust to that. 

We are constantly working and developing content to help our proud partners… To show that it’s not just a checklist. It’s not just using pronouns, for example… Pronouns are just one of the initiatives, but it really goes beyond the pronouns. It’s about why you are using them, and not just how. It’s not just how, it’s why.  

J2DW: What are some particular examples of those narrower questions that people tend to ask, of course without giving away the identity of any companies? How can companies improve on those? 

L: Sure. I was talking about pronouns earlier, and sometimes you see others sharing the pronouns, but they don’t know why. They’re just mirroring the language in a more shallow way instead of going in deep…. In Canada we are a bilingual country, we can experience more advanced English for the Anglophones when it comes to gender neutral language, like using pronouns…. But in romance languages, the language is gendered, so it’s a challenge. We have to ask: how can we internally support the discussion of neutral language? … How could the immigrants that are here promote some discussions to create a space for their own identity in their own languages, and how can Canada use that language? That way we can reflect on the language that we use. 

J2DW: That’s a great point about using gender neutral language in French.  

 L: Yes, we are a bilingual organization so it’s important for us to have that discussion, and we do have the expertise. We understand that the way we engage with Francophones is different because of the French language, and language is also related to culture. 

As a second example, many people also connect with us to ask, “What is the right acronym to use for queer and trans communities?” That is more related to the kind of engagement that a person and the company has for the community, and for all aspects of identities. 

We have been using 2SLGBTQIA+ in a way that allows us to expand more. The 2S at the beginning of the acronym shows our commitment to do something both internally and externally to support two-spirit members of Indigenous communities of North America. But we are building an effort and a commitment to ensure that we are with them, regardless of the sexual identity they experience. When you have the 2S at the beginning, it shows another aspect of intersectionality that diversity and inclusion work is trying to achieve. The A is not for ally, but for asexual. Ace people do experience many challenges and we want to include that. So it becomes a common acronym, having the I and A at the end, for intersex and asexual people. 

So it’s one common aspect of people coming and asking us “what is the right acronym?” and we don’t have a right acronym for that. It’s about your commitment and what you’re doing. You even have people that don’t use the acronym! You have people that use SOGIE: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity & Expression. It’s just a different way of expressing how the acronym was built. 

J2DW: Branching off of that, how has PaWC worked to overcome those barriers? 

L: With the research and the data that we have—not just our own, but from other organizations. By exchanging information with other organizations. We consider some organizations in our network to be very important, we don’t want to take their space. So it’s just working in a more collaborative way, even if it’s not a more formal partnership. Just sharing resources, and building that network support to our communities. So that is one of the good ways to overcome barriers… We have many other organizations doing similar or different work, but everything relates to diversity and inclusion… to queer communities, trans communities, and we can bring those facts and that data, the numbers to show that we have to move. We have to do something else. Without community support we cannot overcome any barrier. 

 J2DW: How do you think queer inclusivity varies across different industries and across different levels of employees within those industries?  

L: We have multiple voices and multiple identities….  so we cannot ensure that the same place will be welcoming to one person as they would be welcoming to another one. And when you add personalities as well…  It’s hard because you have to consider all that for the good and the betterment [of your company]. It’s building empathy with multiple identities, and respect. Respect for who people are… and how they want to be their authentic self at work. They feel confident enough to be open about their own identity. Sometimes they won’t be out at work because of the kind of environment they are in, but at the same time they are open with their family. Or the opposite, where the workplace is so open that they can be themselves…while for the family it doesn’t matter the reason, it’s a challenge just to come out and say, “I’m queer” or “I’m bisexual” or “I’m a trans person.” So I think that the best way… is to just have empathy and respect for people in general.  

J2DW: Yeah, queer is an umbrella term, but there’s so many different identities under that umbrella and sometimes people see those identities in different ways.  

L: Yeah, and with the training and education you have everyone on the same page, at least for the basic stuff. You don’t need to be an expert in diversity and inclusion to work with diversity and inclusion. You don’t need to know and read everything. But if you know enough and you respect and meet our language, relate to some people’s identities and how they introduce themselves, then you are in a good way for your diversity and inclusion journey.  

J2DW: How does PaWC try to incorporate intersectionality into its work and the experiences of queer workers who fall within other marginalized groups? 

L: We just use 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion to start opening doors, but we always consider how intersectional human beings are, with multiple identities…. So when we organize an event, or when we are helping our proud partners and community partners to organize an event, we just tell them for example…. “You’re talking about Black History Month. Why not include some Black queer speakers on that?” …. And that way, you would be avoiding tokenism. So it’s about  considering that people have their multiple identities, they’re intersectional, but then you need to consider how you can have that intersectionality in your strategy when you are organizing an event, when you are doing something else. 

We have people that we share data with for cases in which folks experience prejudice for more than one side of their identity. Recently we had a panel related to religion and queer identities, and one of our speakers was sharing how he couldn’t embrace his faith as a gay Muslim. He was experiencing Islamophobia at the same time he was experiencing homophobia. 

We had another conversation with Indigenous folks that had similar experiences. Sometimes the way that things are built, they experience some prejudice because they are Indigenous and when they seek support and refuge within their own community they might also experience homophobia or transphobia. It’s why we need to consider multiple voices in our events… We have more people sharing their own history, who they are. It’s a kind of storytelling that gives people the opportunity to share. And they have the expertise—not just for their own identities but for their whole community. I cannot speak for and represent their community, but I have the knowledge that it is happening. And that’s one way to ensure that you have intersectional voices coming together.

J2DW: What has been the most gratifying or valuable moment for you personally since joining PaWC? 

L: Joining PaWC! … I worked for many years in corporate responsibility, social responsibility… with some community engagement. I’ve been in Canada for over six years, but I used to consider myself a newcomer. Let’s say I’m the first generation of my generation to live here. So I know how hard it is for immigrants to find a job, to come to the workplace with their identities, and I found that at PaWC, I feel embraced and it’s one of the greatest jobs I’ve had in my life. I’m happy here, having the opportunity to serve our communities. To be a factor in the change I expect to see. Not just for myself and for folks alive now, but for people who will be born in 50 years. It’s like my activist side is happy in a way that I just continue the legacy from all the names like Stormé DeLarverie, Marsha P. Johnson, and Sylvia Rivera, the three main names related to the Stonewall Riots. 

And we have so many other human rights and queer activists. Being here, I have the opportunity to do a great job, to work on things with which I’m in love—in my case communications and diversity and inclusion—and just helping to change the world…. It doesn’t matter if it’s fast or slow. We can see the change. We are moving, we can see the flow and that is really important. Even when we experience some barriers or setbacks as we have from some legislation happening in the U.S. and the UK and other countries right now… I really hope that the work we’re doing here—not just at PaWC but with employers, with the communities in this country, we can influence and inspire other organisations and other people to view those changes through their own lens and in their countries and their cultures.  

J2DW: Now the last question: is there anything I haven’t asked you that you’d like to discuss? 

L: I think the work we do here at PaWC is really important, not just for queer and trans communities but for people in general. We do support other identities, even if you’re not queer or trans. We cannot do the job that we do without people supporting us, people learning, people understanding that we have to do more. That what is happening now in the US with the change in the law is not just affecting women, but will be affecting many other groups, minority groups. We have to consider that some of those movements have a domino effect. And we need to build a sense of community so that we are not alone: we are here for you, and we expect that you will be there for us when we need it. So PaWC/FaTC is a really important player, not just within Canada, but within an international contribution to support queer inclusion and trans inclusion… So we will have more folks being who they are, and being proud of that. To be who they are in the workplace, they can be their authentic selves. And when you are your authentic self you do more, not just at work but for your community, your society, your family, for yourself. The important thing is to be who you are. 

 

Sources

About. Pride At Work Canada. (n.d). Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://prideatwork.ca/about/

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.