The changing domestic and global economies, have forced businesses to search for ways to make themselves more competitive and to maintain any competitive advantage which they currently enjoy. Strategies involving technological change, product diversity, production and information outsourcing, and employee incentive schemes, to name a few, have been explored and adopted by the business sector. However, in responding to the market conditions, there several businesses which continue to ignore critical demographic changes.

It has been said that within the next two decades, one in every three Canadians will have an ethnicity other than European. Can a business remain competitive or gain competitive advantage while ignoring that fact? It is extremely important that the business sector repond to the reality of the cutural and racial pluralism of Canada. The natural response in my view, is for companies that are ethnically, culturally, and racially monolithic, to begin an active program of workforce diversification. So what if companies choose to ignore the the demographic dynamics, I would conclude that the decision is: 1) a racist and ethnocentric posture, and 2) there is an exploitive disposition which says "we will accept your money, but we do not need you within our institutions".

We must be cognizant of the efforts to politicize the Canadian population (of all racial and ethnic backgrounds) against racist behavior and racial singularity in the workplace. A persistent attitude against workforce diversification will lead to an isolation of offending businesses. We only need to be reminded of the anti-arpatheid campaign which lead to the isolation of businesses that conduct trade with South Africa, and the influence of the environmentalists on the practices of companies. There will be similar victories for the anti-racists. Businesses must come to realize that racial diversity is a necessary strategy for good business in a racially-plural market and that affirmative action is the collective set of tactics for achieving racial diversity.

Over the past decade, the term Affirmative Action has come to mean 'reverse discrimination', 'lowering standards', 'quotas for minorities', 'tokenism' and more. While there may be a lack of consensus on an exact definition of Affirmative Action, I believe there is at least consensus on its intent. In my opinion, Affirmative Action is "a positive, decisive, and definitive action designed to increase the participation of various historically underrepresented citizens within all institutions".

There has been many assaults on Affirmative Action programs. The terms 'reverse discrimination', 'lowering standards', 'quotas for inorities' all exemplify that. They also imply a rejection of the idea that racial diversity is good for business. These attacks may be rooted in self-preservation. While everyone believes everyone should have a job, there are many who believe, at least implicitly, that only Europeans should have whatever jobs are available.

Many argue that Affirmative Action is discriminatory. I submit that discrimination is everpresent, and in critiquing it, it has to be contextualized. There is fair and unfair discrimination. For example, many businesses, in embarking on a new company directive, will compare several strategies. The final strategy is chosen through a discriminating procedure involving the essence of the directive, and a number of relevant criteria. Similary, affirmative action must be contextualized. It is a discriminatory practice contextualized by a racial diversity strategy. If racial diverity in the workforce is a strategy towards the competitive directive, then affirmative action is a fair tactic.

Many opponents of Affirmative Action have argued that the 'best' qualified person should always be selected. But even the word 'best' has to be contextualized. It means different things to different people at different points in time.

Recently, I was discussing Affirmative Action with a CEO of a major company in Nova Scotia. I recall him say he hated the idea of quotas. I told him that I too detested quotas. We must recognize that the success of any strategic objectives such as greater racial diversity, increased economic growth, reduced unemployment, and so on, must be evaluated against tangible measures. Most institutions set minimum targets for strategic objectives. For example 10% economic growth, 5% unemployment, and 25% racial diversity. Corporations do not set a quota on economic growth, they attempt to exceed their minimum targets. If they do, the event is hailed as a major accomplishment for the company. Similarly, the government does not set a quota on the unemployment rate, it would like to eliminate it. Hence with racial diversity, there ought to be targets and not quotas. Herein lies my dislike for quotas. Quotas tend to be passive and restrictive, where as targets tend to motivate a more active campaign towards the strategic objective. The CEO I mentioned earlier, he remarked that the target vs quota approach was a lot more meaningful, and the he had never thought about it using a business angle.

For an institution to embark a successful Affirmative Action program, it must first adopt the philosophy that racially diversity is good for business. Then it must entrench the philosophy, strategy, and the necessary tactics through policy.

Implementing racial diversity (ethnological change) in the workplace brings with it several challenges, some of which parallel the management of new technology within institutions: the battle with the skeptics, the understanding of interactional issues, the management of a diverse workforce, the design of affirmative action programs and policies, the preparation of staff and administration for a diversified workforce are all significant challenges. In developing tactics for achieving racial diversity, it is not sufficient for institutions to sit and wait for racially visible people to seek them out - the achievement of any strategic objective is not satisfied through passive means and without capital resources.

Racial diversification of the workforce is not a social program! It is a business strategy which must be adopted if companies are to gain and/or maintain a competitive edge in changing domestic and global markets.

  Back to Articles