This article was previously published by CareerWise and is reprinted with permission.

 When individuals from underrepresented equity-deserving groups don’t apply, don’t speak up and don’t stay, success is a challenge for all involved. How can we, as employers and career development professionals, engage every current and potential hire so they can access opportunities, feel welcomed and thrive in our workplaces on a day-to-day basis? In this blog, we take a pragmatic look at the potential issues for workplaces to assess and address. 

When individuals with diverse backgrounds don’t apply 

The first step is to review the posting, application and early screening processes. From an access lens, we can consider who would receive the calls to apply for work experience opportunities and even have access to the platforms posting the opportunities.  

From a belonging (inclusion) lens, would all potential candidates see themselves in the role, field, or sector? The banking industry is one example where companies have highlighted a wider range of people (e.g. ages, degrees, languages) as valuable employees to break down assumptions of who can apply and who is valued. From an equity lens, who is screened out early in the process? Do the criteria or computer algorithms need updating? 

If specific identity groups are not applying, we can refine our approach by reviewing postings, applications and early screening processes that impact equity-deserving groups. For example, consider the social and physical context that may be creating barriers for the very people you want to apply:  

• Is the application posted in a screen-readable format?  
• Does the company website feature people representative of all potential applicants?  
• Are family caregiving and wellness policies publicly accessible on the company website, or would someone need to take a leap of courage to ask about these?  
• Has the company demonstrated commitments to supporting and furthering reconciliation or equity in meaningful ways that potential candidates would recognize?  
• Does the hiring process require timed video-recorded sessions without clearly explaining how the recordings will be used and biases addressed, which may feel invasive and unsafe for some applicants? 

When individuals with diverse backgrounds don’t speak up 

There is pressure to do well and be perceived as doing well within a work experience. Students and new employees may not express their concerns about barriers or share any gaps in their readiness for newly assigned tasks. From an access lens, consider the opportunities for folks to raise concerns or gaps.  

Review current invitations to share feedback for subtle signals that may discourage employees from raising concerns. For instance, asking about concerns only during the last minute of a touchpoint, saying “that’s great” if no concerns are immediately raised or switching to opt-in rather than regular touchpoints to share experiences after the first week can all signal that expressing concerns or gaps is not expected. Without observation and feedback by supervisors, opportunities to address gaps may be lost as individuals may not recognize their skills gaps (unconscious incompetence). 

From an inclusion lens, do folks feel their belonging will be at risk if they voice concerns? Raising concerns can feel particularly daunting for those new to the (Canadian) workforce, including young people and newcomers. Students in placements or those whose belonging feels tenuous can feel pressure not to “rock the boat” and to represent the school or their community well. How can raising concerns be positioned as the norm and a valuable contribution?  

“From an inclusion lens, do folks feel their belonging will be at risk if they voice concerns?”

From an equity lens, how could the onboarding process provide training in how people speak up in organizations with opportunities to practise through scenarios or early in the mentorship? 

Refining our focus, we can consider if people from specific identity groups are less likely to speak up. Consider the expected ways of taking initiative and speaking up within the organization. Do they account for a range of family and community cultural styles? Differences in communication style can lead to a person being perceived as too meek or too aggressive relative to a local norm when speaking up. From an inclusivity lens, how are various styles understood, evaluated and integrated into the workplace? 

In addition to communication style, we can consider if the level of support and encouragement reflect access to success. How are assumptions about specific identity groups identified, reviewed and adapted? An assumption that young people know how to use workplace technology without much training or that someone older having issues with a presentation is due to technology knowledge (rather than a lack of login access in executive meeting rooms), for example, can lead to mismatched expectations around the level of independence and amount of scaffolded support. These expectations, in turn, can contribute to gaps in learning, poor performance, and employee and even mentor disengagement. 

When individuals with diverse backgrounds don’t stay 

When people feel excluded at the application stage, can’t speak up, and believe they are unlikely to succeed, why would they stay in a workplace? Create a sense that success is possible. From an access perspective, consider who we typically invite for a second interview or select to be promoted. From a lens of belonging, how has the message of “you belong and are valued here” been conveyed? From an equity viewpoint, how have productivity, quality and “fit” been evaluated, and what norms are embedded in these expectations?  

In short

Our careful review and attentive design of work experiences that consider why people don’t apply, speak up and stay will lead to a greater diversity of people joining, belonging and thriving.