The business case is in for diversity.

A sold out show and networking event on November 24th complemented the excellent content provided by the panelists and the questions posed by the audience on the topic of organizational diveristy. The Honourable Harinder Takhar, Minister of Government Services has an extensive and successful leadership background in the corporate world. He aptly stated that organizations should see implementing diveristy in the terms of the positive "business case" that it has proven to be. It should not be legislated he stated. He was supported by panelists that represented a cross-section of industry that included technology, banking and media (IBM, BMO Financial Group and CBC/Radio-Canada). All put forward how their organizations are putting forward diversity and "inclusion" initiatives because of the established business case their organizations have seen for it. Noelle Richardson, Chief Diversity Officer, Ontario Public Service, added to the discussion the need to address "invisible minorities" - e.g. mental health issues. She also brought forward a poignant comment on racism. Noelle noted that racism and prejudice were not the purview of Canada, US and Europe but they can be found throughout the world as she herself witnessed and noted as an example while visiting Africa. This acknowledgement I believe helps give us a pluralistic perspective that what we need to address is part of our collective human condition and not but the responsibility of one group or people. See video excerpt on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/DirectEngagement#p/a/u/0/O5MzoQVawro

Organizational Diversity. Another imposed cost?

There are those when speaking with business colleagues who see organizational diversity as but another bureaucratic imposition of our politically correct times. They see it yet as another burden towards their operational budgets. But is it? Studies in fact show that organizational diversity has a profoundly positive impact on businesses that adopt its practice. This includes a more positive moral, ethical and social corporate character with increased staff retention and productivity. In an increasingly globalized economy - Re: a demographically diverse world of customers - it can also provide opportunities. Organizations will be better equipped to address market changes and in turn increase their marketing & sales creativity accordingly (Ann C. Schauber, 2001). Further operational examples come from research that indicates that firms with higher percentages of women managers report relatively higher financial performance (Shrader et al., 1997) and greater effectiveness (Richard & Johnson, 2001. Numerous studies support the positive impact implementing organizational diversity will have on your organization. That being noted Canada's corridors of power both politically and corporately are woefully under represented by those of a non-white male demographic ( only 7.2% of the top corporate positions in the largest companies in Canada are filled by women, Rosenzweig & Company, 2009). This number is even lower when you factor in ethnic minorities of both genders. In the end implementing organizational diveristy is the moral and ethical thing to do and the business case for it backs it up. Should it be legislated? Where would you begin? What would the quota levels be based on - i.e. colour of one's skin, religion, gender, etc? It can not and should not be legislated other than to have laws in place regarding racism in society period. Perhaps it is more about education and if businesses see a possible advantage and return - which there is - they will adopt organizational diversity without government legislative coercion.

Cease the notion of '3' founding peoples of Canada

The notion of '3' founding peoples as is bing put forward under Ottawa's new citizenship guide is in itself outdated. What are they the founders of exactly? The Canada we know today or that of a decade ago and the decades preceding that, is the result of a highly plural development. It is not of one, two or three peoples but a diverse origin of citizenry that is the result of valuable input from people the world over. Canada's success is not the purview of three peoples as is intimated with the establishing them as the 'three' founding peoples but the fact is clear that today's success is the result of a diverse base of cultures and peoples. It could be argued that if left to the stipulated founding three, Canada would not have been the success it is today. All the successful societies of our world's history were based on taking in what the rest of the world had to offer (e.g. Greeks, Romans, British, American, etc.). I suggest we should therefore cease the illogical concept of '3' founding people and in its presumed arrogance that the substantial and no less significant input of all others have had no input in founding the country we know as Canada today.