The other day this blog post from a NZ bank Ceo caught my eye, The Rainbow Connection, about their push to become Rainbow Tick certified. The Rainbow tick is an idea to boost inclusiveness in the workplace and assess your organisation's policies and procedures against a set of criteria for gender and sexuality inclusiveness. A worthy goal no doubt.
But do we need yet another layer of policy written, and another standard to assess our HR policies against? Or is it just a case of tokenism driven by marketing think rather than any real need?
Personally I think sadly it's the latter rather than the former. I base this upon the fact that ASB felt the need to make a blog post on their new staff inclusiveness policy in public. To me this shows they are seeking some sort of recognition for their decision. I assume they hope this recognition will come in the form of new business, and being talked about. I guess that I'm writing about it confirms the latter point. We also know that the so called queer market is a highly lucrative one. With in general this market demographic having a high level of disposable income. So for a bank this could be a lucrative market.
I also noted that ASB have created a new group called diversity, for connecting with the LGBTI community. Again I think this reinforces the marketing aspect of the decision to become part of the Rainbow tick program.
I say sadly because all workplaces should accept their staff for who they are. Their sexuality and gender have nothing to do with it. We all know the research tells us diversity is better for a companies bottom line. But should it become our focus above hiring the best person for the job?
If they do a great job does it really matter what a staff memeber does or identifies with as long as it's legal?
I don't think matters at all. It could be yet another sign of our increasing push for influence of our employees lives outside the workplace. As an employer or hiring manager all you should care about is that they are the best person for the job, and that you have a safe workplace for all your staff.
Now I guess you could argue that having the Rainbow tick adds to the workplace safety as Barbara Chapman ASB's Ceo does.
But then where do you draw the line for workplace safety? And do you risk pigeonholing your staff into different boxes based upon a set of criteria that has nothing to do with their work ability. Do you also risk marginalising others staff who feel they are no longer important, or that their peculiarities don't matter.
As a left hander I feel marginalised on a daily basis. I mean have you tried writing with a nice pen when your hand brushes over your freshly written masterpiece, smudging it so it looks like a piece of interpretive art. Or even some smartphones having the microphone on the bottom right corner, which is right where you want to put your little finger if you're a lefty.
Frustration doesn't begin to describe these. And arguably they have more relevance to my work than my sexuality.
I'm not trying to trivialise sexuality and gender identity at all. I know it's a sensitive topic to discuss, and many people have strong feelings about it.
A lot of people struggle with their own sexuality and sexual identity as it is.
To make it a big deal in the workplace could be a good thing, or a bad thing for someone who is struggling with their own thoughts around this. As an HR practitioner I'd hate to have it on my conscience if implementing something like the Rainbow tick program made someone who was struggling with their feelings feel more uncomfortable, or more pressure to label themselves one way or another.
In my mind all good organisations should aim to employ the best talent they can, and promote their best talent as fast as possible. Without worrying about what quota they are filling, or box they are ticking. If you pick the best, you are highly likely to promote diversity more so than under a targeted system. Diversity of sexuality or gender identity happens right across the population, so without worrying about it, you'll do it anyway.
Worrying about it, and assessing your HR policies against ever increasing numbers of diversity criteria is just going to make you go grey quicker, and remove your eyes from your focus on staff performance. Then you'll be in real trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment