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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More in my next blog.

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

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

On Cross-Gender Communication in Mentoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IBM’s array of mentoring programs, from cross-generation and cross-cultural matching, to reverse and online mentoring.

Why mentoring?

• Transfer and harness knowledge through generations
• Global business growth
• Build relationships across the company to support business

Business Impacts

• Competitive advantage
• Reduced costs
• Reduced attrition
• Increased employee engagement
• Innovation driver

Eligibility

• All staff
• Targeted senior level employees
• Women (70% currently have mentors)
• ‘Elite’ students/interns
• Individuals whose job or career identity includes or will include leadership,

Types of Mentoring (examples)

• Traditional
• Job shadowing
• E-mentoring (matches with university students studying technical subjects in African countries)
• Reverse mentoring (younger staff mentoring more mature individuals on e.g. social media)
• Group mentoring (e.g. LGBT mentoring on coming out in the workplace)

Tools (examples)

• Remote mentoring using simulated situations
• Videos, blogs, role modeling, templates, electronic post cards

Tell us which possibility/possibilities you would act on. Leave a reply comment below with your answer:

At close to 67% Markham boasts Canada’s largest percentage of visible minorities/racialized persons. The flash of Chinese dragon dancers, the Aboriginal vision dance that closed the event and the delicious Indian delicacies served up by Merlyn Caterers might have tempted one to think that Markham’s Plan is a ‘song and dance’ exercise. Not to worry, the Town in its 10-year strategy has made 68 specific commitments, including that of being accountable and transparent on how it is doing. Action steps range from engaging seniors in the Town’s planning and program delivery, to increasing the number of neighborhood-specific youth programs; from ensuring that all building and park improvements address the needs of persons with disabilities, to developing new settlement services for newcomers, to creating tools for bias-free recruitment and selection.

For DTP the Markham journey was a 3-year roller-coaster ride through the thrills and challenges of diversity planning from Vision to Action, or at least as in this case, blueprint for action. We began with Council’s vision of Markham, ‘Canada’s high-tech capital’, as an inclusive community where regardless of background and life situation people feel and experience a sense of belonging. Over the three years we dug into the experiences, perceptions and solutions proposed by the Town’s internal—management, staff, Council members—and external stakeholders and community partners. Along the way we took steps to build internal understanding of and competencies in managing and serving in a diverse environment and to develop tools for use in implementing the Plan. It was a tough journey: diversity is not an easy topic for organizations to digest. But when senior leadership and community members applauded the first draft of the Plan earlier this year, the HR Department, who was the Project lead, knew it had turned the corner.

One of the Plan’s most interesting features is its format. Hard-nosed strategic commitments are encased in a gentle account of the Town’s rich history and the many—past and present—that have been part of it. It’s an unusual style but it works for Markham’s culture and for its motto of “Leading While Remembering”. The term I heard most often used as an expression of this goal was “unity in diversity”. At first, I admit, it felt a bit smarmy and idealistic. In the rough and tumble world of diversity planning who talks like that? But in the end it persisted as The Markham Way. And why not? Is this not what North Stars are for—to draw us to the ideal? The lesson for all was this: forget bottled Plans and find what inspires and brings your people on board. Just make sure you maintain the hard-nosed, measurable commitments and make sure you are prepared to be accountable for them! (Find details of the Markham Plan at www.markham.ca »)

be affecting relationships, for example fear, ignorance, privilege or history.

Using props such as Popsicle stick people, bingo chips and blocks, the games are designed as fun, non-threatening, effective conversation starters, particularly around difficult topics.