A new study by the Williams Institute suggests that a policy requiring federal contractors to have nondiscrimination policies including sexual orientation and gender identity would cover at least 11 million individuals in the US.

According to Williams Institute research, employees at federal contractors (about a quarter of the US workforce) enjoy better protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. “Among federal contractors, 61% of employees are already covered; 51% of noncontractor employees are covered,” the report explains.

Additionally, the report continues, “41% of employees are already covered; 28% of noncontractor employees are covered.”

This leaves millions of people at risk to discrimination, and as the Williams Institute points out, the federal government could change that by prohibiting contractors from discriminating against their employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“We estimate that 11 million additional employees would gain protection against sexual orientation discrimination and 16 million employees would be protected against gender identity discrimination. We also estimate that requiring federal contractors to offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners of employees would expand such coverage to companies that employ 14-15 million people.”

It adds, “Since LGBT workers make up approximately 4% of the nation’s workforce, more than 400,000-600,000 LGBT people would gain nondiscrimination protections.”

Creating Change

The author of the report, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute Research Director and Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Public Policy & Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said, “This study highlights both the powerful impact of a federal policy that prohibits LGBT discrimination, as well as the continued progress already made toward protecting LGBT workers through state law and voluntary corporate policies.”

The study shows that Fortune 1000 federal contractors as well as defense contractors are the ones most likely to have these kinds of protections already – nondiscrimination policies dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as partner benefits.

By mandating similar policies on behalf of smaller firms, the White House would be using its pull to normalize policies and benefits which already exist for the largest employers – possibly making those smaller companies even more attractive to LGBT employees, as well as the LGBT individuals who may be their clients.

Additionally, a federal mandate would encourage those large firms that are still holding out against such internal policies to take the plunge, creating more inclusive environments for the LGBT individuals who work there.

Many companies who have set LGBT nondiscrimination policies have done so based on the grassroots efforts of internal affinity networks. By adopting forward looking policies, companies show all of their staff that they are truly companies of the 21^st century.

Historical Precedent

According to the Washington Blade, two of the President Obama’s cabinet advisors have already recommended he sign the executive order. Reporter Chris Johnson wrote:

“Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said the report is important because it shows millions would gain non-discrimination protections “once President Obama puts pen to paper and signs the document that is now sitting in the White House ready to go.

“‘With an LGBT fairness record as impressive as Mr. Obama’s, I can’t think of a single legitimate reason he might not sign the order that two of his cabinet agencies have already recommended he sign,’ Almeida said.’

The Williams Institute says presidents have long issued executive orders dealing with non-discrimination before the passage of similar legislation in Congress.

For example, in 1940, President Roosevelt issued an executive order “prohibiting discrimination in federal government employment on the basis of race, religion, or political affiliations,” long before similar measures were passed as part of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Similarly, the Williams Institute says, there is also already a precedent for executive orders mandating non-discrimination policies for federal contractors. The report explains:

“In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order that required companies receiving government defense contracts and vocational training programs ‘not to discriminate against any worker because of race, creed, color, or national origin.’”

Because executive orders tend to precede legislative action on civil rights and nondiscrimination issues, presidential policy action now could turn the tide toward Congressional support for ENDA later on.

“I’m not interested in diversity as it’s commonly known,” said Pat David, Managing Director and Global Diversity Officer at JPMorgan Chase. “I’m interested in using my life experiences in the context of helping people get to where they want – particularly underrepresented groups.”

She continued, “The way I was raised, my mother said ‘you’ve got to give more than you get.’ And when I look at my career, I’ve had an insatiable appetite to help people. My job enables me to help people 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

A Career Helping Others

David began her career at Merrill Lynch, working in technology, then moved to Salomon Brothers where she became a senior technology manager. She explained, “I was fortunate enough to be involved in technology when technology was becoming part of the business – I was in the right place at the right time. I’ve had a career that has moved at a steady pace, and very little of that was my doing. I’m a little in awe at times with how far I have come with so little to start!”

“Sometimes I think, imagine if I had really focused on it. I’ve had really positive experiences – I came in to work and really delivered and was chosen for top assignments. But I didn’t really apply any career management until later on. What if I had done this earlier?”

David continued, “I moved out of the technology organization and into the diversity function about seven years ago. When you work in technology, you come in every day and focus on  three things: you build quality bullet proof products, you deliver them at a good price point, and you make sure they work and can scale. When you take a step back, though, part of my job was really about trying to make sure the people around the world working on these technical solutions had the right tools to be the best they can be. And that was 20% of my job.”

Now, as Global Diversity Officer at JPMorgan Chase, she continued, “Today helping people is 100% of my job. Everything I’ve learned about building technology systems, good practices, managing careers – I am able to apply to the diversity function.”

Diversity at JP Morgan

David said that diversity at JPMorgan Chase is focused on creating business value.

“Right now I’m working on our diversity plans, meeting with business heads and HR executives,” she said. “Diversity is playing a major role in our strategy. We’ve really created a synergy and a structure where diversity is good for business, whether that means market share, client penetration, or effective delivery. Diversity is critical to achieving these results.”

She added, “We’re approaching diversity in an organized, pragmatic way.”

For example, she said, the firm’s program for advancing and retaining women is based on performance.

“Our programs for women are not remediation programs – women are not broken,” she explained. “But we do have several initiatives for attracting and retaining women. Depending on the line of business, the efforts are different.”

For example, David described a program designed to boost female vice presidents. “We identify top talent at the VP-level and make sure they have the right support structure so they move at the same trajectory as men.”

But the women first and foremost have to be top performers, she continued. “We’ve got to hold up the right people to be moved. We need to make sure they get everything to achieve their goals, everything they need to achieve their potential.”

Additionally, she said, the entire financial services industry is asking how it can compete with more flexible career paths.

“We just received the results of an industry workforce diversity survey – and the representation at the entry levels has declined for women. Which leads me to believe that young women are seeing the industry as less attractive,” David said.

“If the financial services industry wants to be more appealing to women, I think we have to ask how many women really want to come to this industry in the first place. There are so many choices now that women have and we’ve got to compete with that, we are not the only game in town,” she said. “We want to be a competitive industry and there’s a lot to compete with. For example, the industry may not be as flexible as other industries – the markets are open all the time around the world not just from 9-5.”

In Her Personal Time

“I like to do crossword puzzles,” David said. “It’s one of the few things I can do where it’s just me. I’m in meetings and conferences almost all the time. Sometimes I need quiet time!”

David said she also enjoys helping her two college-aged children plan for their next career steps. “I’m working to help them make the right choices for their careers, and I also enjoy helping their friends when I can with some coaching.”

Is Gen Y a generation of job-hoppers? According to a recent study by Millennial Branding, a social media marketing company, yes. Millennials spend an average of 2 years on the job. The company based its study on an analysis of 4 million Gen Y Facebook profiles.

According to Dan Schawbel, Founder of Millennial Branding and Bestselling Author of Me 2.0, the research shows the enterprising nature of the generation – in fact, he says, the fifth most popular job title for Gen Y is “owner.”

He believes companies can learn much about attracting and retaining the newest generation of employees to enter the workforce by looking at the aggregate Facebook data – particularly when it comes to how they identify themselves in relation to their employer.

Friends and Coworkers

According to the study, 82% of millennial employees listed at least one work friend, 53% have at least five, and 40% have at least ten work friends on Facebook. Nevertheless, it continues, “64% of Gen-Y fails to list their employer on their profiles, yet they add an average of 16 co-workers each to their ‘friend’ group.”

This could point out to a preference for personal relationships over being part of an employer brand. For this reason, companies looking to retain and promote millennial employees should focus on building a culture based on collegial relationships – rather than a more paternalistic or corporate-name based employer brand. Deloitte was the largest corporate employer.

The study also pointed out the entrepreneurial nature of the group. Millennial Branding says:

“’Owner’ is the fifth most popular job title for Gen-Y because they are an entrepreneurial generation. Even though most of their companies won’t succeed, they are demonstrating an unprecedented entrepreneurial spirit. Companies need to allow Gen-Yers to operate entrepreneurially within the corporation by giving them control over their time, activities and budgets as much as possible.”

In fact, very few Millennials have ever worked for a large company, the analysis showed. Only 10% of Gen Y employees has ever listed a Fortune 500 company as am employer, and even fewer continue to work for one. The study said:

“Only 7% of Gen-Y works for a Fortune 500 company because startups are dominating the workforce for this demographic in today’s economy. If large corporations want to remain competitive, they need to aggressively recruit Gen-Y workers.”

Finally the company pointed out, many Millennials are either in school or have yet to find a job outside the bartending or waiting tables, due to the economic downturn. But that doesn’t mean companies shouldn’t work to engage those hourly employees for corporate jobs later on.

It says, “Companies such as Walmart and Starbucks ranked high and should focus on training their in-store workers to become corporate employees when they graduate.”

Changing the Workforce

According to Caroline Dowd-Higgins, Director of Career and Professional Development and Adjunct Faculty at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, the research shows that Millennials are looking to break down the barriers between their personal and professional lives – and, she continues, this means a change in employee processes for everyone.

In a recent Huffington Post article, she wrote:

“I see a shift happening in a variety of sectors that are accommodating part-time, flex-time, and tele-commuting options for their employees. Gen Y has helped us all remember that quality of life is important if we are to be successful as professionals and healthy as individuals.

“Large law firms, for example, have begun to add staff attorneys or contract attorneys into their employment menu for lawyers who don’t want to work on the traditional partner track. The legal industry is exploring this off-track model to retain great talent and give more flexible opportunities to those who don’t value the prestige or earning potential of the high level partner-track positions. It all boils down to professional values.”

She added:

“I am encouraged that work/life integration is something employers are finally addressing since burn out, stress related illness, and toxic work environments continue to cause serious problems in the workforce. Perhaps Gen Y’s request for this “balance” up front will generate a paradigm shift and help to restructure the workforce since balanced, healthy people perform better on the job.”

While the Millennial Branding’s research may reveal as much about how Gen Y is using Facebook as it does about how they feel about their employer,  it is clear that as this generation rises up through the ranks, companies will have to shift the ways in which they do business to attract and retain their high performing employees.

Does corporate sustainability really pay out in the long run? According to a Harvard Business School working paper, companies that have engaged in sustainability initiatives for a long time “exhibit fundamentally different characteristics from a matched sample of firms that adopted almost none of these policies,” including better performance on sustainability measures – and better performance in the stock market.

The companies engaging in long-term sustainability practices are described as having a “culture of sustainability,” that is board directors, senior management, and the rest of the workforce are all engaged in driving sustainability.

According to the paper, The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance, “high sustainability” companies perform better than those companies that have only engaged in sustainability for a short time or for appearances. The researchers, Robert G. Eccles, Ioannis Ioannou, George Serafeim, explain:

“High Sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long-term, both in terms of stock market and accounting performance. The outperformance is stronger in sectors where the customers are individual consumers instead of companies, companies compete on the basis of brands and reputations, and products significantly depend upon extracting large amounts of natural resources.”

Much opposition to corporate sustainability revolves around cost pressure, but, the study shows, that opposition doesn’t make sense – companies engaging in CSR on a cultural level are better off in the long run.

High Sustainability Factors

How do you spot a high sustainability company? According to Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim, there are a few key factors in how they behave, compared to low sustainability companies.

1. Board Dedication. High sustainability companies have board members dedicated to sustainability and a board committee for sustainability.

2. Executive Pay Tied to Metrics. According to the researchers, high sustainability companies compensate executives based on performance metrics like environmental, social, and external perception.

3. Stakeholder Engagement Process. The paper explains:

“…risks and opportunities are identified, the scope of the engagement is defined ex ante, managers are trained in stakeholder engagement, key stakeholders are identified, results from the engagement process are reported both internally and externally, and feedback from stakeholders is given to the board of directors.”

4. Long-term Oriented. The researchers explain that high sustainability firms “have an investor base with more long-term oriented investors and they communicate more long-term information in their conference calls with sell-side and buy-side analysts.”

Employee Engagement

According to the study, high sustainability companies perform better in the stock market in the long-term – which, they posit, is the result of long-term planning, as well as deeper relationships and more transparent communication with all stakeholders.

The report says:

“This finding suggests that companies can adopt environmentally and socially responsible policies without sacrificing shareholder wealth creation. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: sustainable firms generate significantly higher profits and stock returns, suggesting that developing a corporate culture of sustainability may be a source of competitive advantage for a company in the long-run.”

This has as much to do with culture and stakeholder engagement as it does with metrics, they write.

“A more engaged workforce, a more secure license to operate, a more loyal and satisfied customer base, better relationships with stakeholders, greater transparency, a more collaborative community, and a better ability to innovate may all be contributing factors to this potentially persistent superior performance in the long-term.”

Particularly, these better performing companies are the ones that have cultivated culture around sustainability.

They comment:

“Collectively, the evidence above suggests that sustainable firms are not adopting environmental and social policies purely for public relations reasons. Adoption of these policies is not just cheap talk; rather these policies reflect substantive changes in business processes.”

By mindfully creating a corporate culture based on relationships and long-term planning, rather than short-term transactions, companies perform better.

According to a new study by KPMG, more and more companies are engaging in sustainability reporting than ever before – because of the realization that it makes good business sense.

The 2011 KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting [PDF] says, “Companies are increasingly realizing that CR reporting is about more than just being a good corporate citizen; it drives innovation and promotes learning, which helps companies grow their business and increase their organization’s value.”

And, it says, those companies that have yet to begin reporting are running the risk of falling behind their competitors. The report continues:

“It seems clear, therefore, that companies not yet reporting on their CR activities are under significant pressure to start. This will be increasingly critical; not only to stay competitive in a societal context, but also to gain a better understanding of how CR activities impact and benefit the business in areas such as cost savings and new business opportunities.”

The firm analyzed the Corporate Responsibility reports of 3.400 companies around the world, including the 250 largest companies. It found that big companies were much more likely to report on sustainability than smaller ones. For example, 95% of the G250 companies now report on CR activities.

Global Movement

The report shows that corporate responsibility reporting is becoming the standard around the globe – but, some areas are doing better than others. KPMG singled out Europe for leading the way when it comes to reporting quantity and quality:

“European companies continue to lead the pack, with 71 percent of companies reporting on CR, but the Americas is gaining ground with 69 percent, as is the Middle East and Africa region, where 61 percent of companies now report on CR initiatives. However, Asia Pacific continues to trail behind as a region, with just less than half of companies (49 percent) now disclosing CR data to the markets.”

And although two-thirds of G250 non-reporters are headquartered in the United States, reporting in North America has increased significantly in recent years, particularly in Mexico. The report says:

“North American growth rates rose overall on the back of impressive gains by Mexico, where 66 percent of companies now report, versus just 17 percent in 2008. And while the US and Canada certainly continued to close the gap, they enjoyed less impressive growth rates than those overall. In South America, Brazil’s growth is also worth noting, as it brings the country up to an impressive 88 percent overall.”

The report adds that while the Asia Pacific region seems to be lagging when it comes to sustainability reporting, China has picked up the pace in recent years.

“China, new to the survey this year, seems to be in a full-out sprint to catch up to the traditional leaders in this field. Almost 60 percent of China’s largest companies already report on corporate responsibility metrics, bringing the country on par with where Spain, Italy and the Netherlands were just three years ago. While previous data is not available for benchmarking, it is clear that China will enjoy wide-spread CR reporting in the near future.”

This could be due to a desire on behalf of Chinese firms to do business in parts of the world where sustainability reporting is becoming a prerequisite for partnership.

Business Case for Sustainability

According to John R. Hickox, KPMG’s Americas leader for Climate Change & Sustainability (CC&S), CR reporting can help companies grow. He said, “During these tough times, companies look to the value of their brand to carry them through.”

“In addition, managing risk, keeping workers engaged, and innovating for new products or services, or opening new markets can provide additional key foundations for corporate strength,” he explained.

According to the report 67% of G250 companies felt “reputation or brand” was a reason for reporting on sustainability. The next most popular reason for reporting was “ethical considerations” at 58%, and then tied in importance were “employee motivation” and “innovation and learning” at 44%.

Hickox continued, “While corporate responsibility reporting was broadly considered an ‘optional’ activity only a few years ago, more organizations are generating CR reports to meet rising stakeholder demands for greater accountability, transparency and accuracy in assessing parts of the business that are not necessarily financial, but which contribute to the overall value of the company.”

“In addition, we have seen many companies benefit from analyzing their CR reporting data to develop continuous internal improvement programs to effect lasting change,” he added.

As the business case for sustainability reporting gains steam, more companies are likely to consider CR a critical piece of reputation management, corporate values, and employee engagement.

Everything we know about improving gender diversity points to one uniquely important success factor. Great programs notwithstanding, brilliant arguments in abundance, the pursuit of enhanced gender equality flourishes or flounders with the interest and investment of an organization’s top leadership.

It could be the CEO of your company, the president of your university, or the director of your institute. Whoever is at the top has to care and has to support action. If we can’t get our top leadership engaged, we probably won’t succeed.

But people who have made it to the top are creative. They might have different ideas about achieving diversity — ideas that sound good, but that probably won’t work. How would that happen? What could we do in that situation?

To get CEOs on board, they need to believe in the cause themselves; they need to believe that gender diversity matters. We must provide the best arguments we can so the people at the top will care.

Some of those arguments conclude that increasing gender diversity is the right thing to do. Others suggest that it’s the smart thing to do. I’ve written a series of posts sketching the most compelling arguments.

Imagine that your CEO is convinced and decides to act. We now have research available to tell us what kinds of actions make a difference. Building on research, you can tailor a program for your organization.

And still, this isn’t enough. Gender action plans — if they are to make a difference — require more than just the interest of the CEO; they require time and money. Programs to advance women and yield greater gender balance demand economic investments. And they demand hard work, too.

So what do we do when our CEOs start looking at action plans and then make counter-proposals?

Instead of targeting women with complicated and expensive initiatives, perhaps they’ll decide to target everyone and eliminate the most basic problems for all employees. The key, they might suggest, is fairness.

Let’s develop a program that enriches our institutional values, a creative CEO might say. Let’s develop a program that makes it clear to every employee that our company is fair. Decisions are fair. Hiring is carried out fairly. Reviews give fair results. Promotion decisions must be based on fair evaluations. If we could just heighten our awareness of fairness — if we could just act fairly — then we could eliminate all those unfair gender-based impediments along a career path, and diversity and balance will be achieved.

Progressive CEOs might even have rich and liberal conceptions of fairness. They might see the “double shift” problem and think of onsite daycare as a fair initiative. They might see career interruption patterns and conclude that fairness forbids punishing pauses. They might genuinely have the best interests of the institution and all the individual employees at heart.

But there’s troubling research to consider. There’s research suggesting that some ways of emphasizing fairness actually give less of it. There’s research that concludes that explicitly advocating for a meritocracy can in fact undermine the recognition of merit.

Progress requires that we build on research — even when research yields surprising conclusions. Let’s look at one example, from an article called the paradox of meritocracy in organizations.

The experiment analyzed in this article creates an artificial situation in which the participants evaluate files of fictitious employees at fictitious companies. On the basis of those files, they make recommendations about bonuses, promotions and terminations.

The goal is to see what happens when the only difference between two files is the gender of the employee. We learn that men and women with files that are literally identical are treated differently based on the description of the fictitious company.

Some of the made-up companies are described to the subjects as having a core corporate value of emphasizing merit in evaluations. In other cases, this particular value is not mentioned in the description to the subjects.

What is the conclusion?

“When an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward.”

This is what the authors call the paradox of meritocracy.

Much of their article is devoted to discussing the psychology of this paradox. They note, for example, that when people are led to believe that they are unbiased, fair or objective, they in fact are more likely to behave in biased ways. An individual who is allowed to explicitly disagree with sexist statements before an experimental task will then tend to act in a sexist way, recommending a male over an identical female candidate.

The paradox of meritocracy in organizations is a complex study and we have to think carefully about the conclusions we should draw. It seems, however, that explicitly deciding to be fair and explicitly taking action to implement fairness as a corporate value, does not necessarily lead to increased fairness. On the contrary, research suggests that it creates greater imbalances. And there’s much more than just this one article.

So what do we do with a CEO who wants increased gender balance but proposes a broader, more general strategy? Maybe it’s fairness, maybe something else. Keep talking. Keep building arguments.

But stop building them on anecdotes. Knowledge is our friend in this work, and research is the road to knowledge.

Curt Rice is the Vice President for Research & Development (prorektor for forskning og utvikling) at the University of Tromsø. He writes on his interests in issues related to leadership development at academic institutions online at: http://curt-rice.com. Topics include the improvement of research funding, working on gender balance issues, developing policies about Open Access and more. You can join his community of thought-leaders by subscribing to his blog.

According to a recent report published in the Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development, inter-generational conflict in the workplace is on the rise. And with three generations currently occupying the workforce, companies will need to pay more attention to this issue than they have in the past.

The report, Leveraging Generational Diversity in Today’s Workplace, outlines a few challenges that employers are facing when it comes to broad range of ages on a team. The authors, Matthew Legas, M.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Cynthia Sims, Ed.D. Southern Illinois University Carbondale, write:

“Each generation has distinctive experiences that have an impact on their values, and each has complex cultural variations (McNamara, 2005). There are also various communication styles and workplace experiences that distinguish each generation. The contrasting characteristics and sheer volume of these generations combined are creating tension and dissension within the workplace.”

And, they say, this “tension and dissention” is causing companies to be less productive. They continue:

“With three generations working together and a present lack of generational diversity understanding in today‘s workforce, a disharmony within U.S. businesses and decreased productivity has been evident (Clare, 2009). Corporate America seems to be ignoring these dynamics (Heffes, 2005).”

The report outlines a few ideas to ease generational tension – but it indicates that business leaders shouldn’t stop at diversity training – they need to be sure to engage employees in the work on a one-to-one level.

Building Generational Understanding

In particular, say Legas and Sims, baby boomers may take issue with the desire of younger members of the workforce to move up the ladder before they have “paid their dues.” They write, “This changing work pace and seemingly unfair system makes positive employee relationships across generations difficult. Communication can, therefore, be stifled among generations, which may negatively impact productivity and employee morale.”

In order to remedy the situation, they say, business leaders must go further than acknowledge generational differences. They have to work to ease tensions that are there – or those that will be. It says:

“Acknowledging generational diversity is not enough for a business that is aiming both its short- term and long-term goals on increasing economic capital in an ever-changing national and global market. U.S. organizations need to seek out effective generational diversity training programs to address generational misunderstandings.

“Few companies offer diversity training specific to generational diversity and tend to focus on race and gender differences. The problem that some organizations run into is that they wait until they have already failed in this area before addressing it.”

The authors suggest that diversity initiatives aimed at fostering generational understanding around communication and motivations can help create stronger teams. They explain, “Generational diversity training would go beyond the common training that focuses on race, gender, and sexual orientation. It would include generational differences, similarities, misconceptions, and common misunderstandings in the workplace salient.”

Importance of Building Relationships

But, they authors write, training isn’t enough. They suggest companies take a two-pronged approach to generational diversity, with a training initiative one side and a mentoring program on the other. “Also, a successful mentorship program would help the various generations to work together for success and allow U.S. businesses to capitalize on retention of knowledge transfer amongst its future human capital.”

Besides being a strategy for knowledge transfer, mentoring can help build rapport and closeness amongst team mates.

“Opportunities to collaborate on duties and interact in company events, both during and after work hours, can encourage cohesion and promote partnerships between various generations. Incorporating a mentoring program will give employees a chance to develop bonds across generations. Organizations should make it a priority to show they value their employees‘ participation in these mentoring programs by providing incentives for participants.”

They add, “The overall goal is to retain employees, who feel good about themselves, their co-workers, and their futures within the organization.” By making relationships the center of the workplace, individuals will feel more affinity for their employer and teammates, producing better productivity outcomes.

Image courtesy of This American Life

Last month Apple came under fire after a shocking description of the working conditions at one of its Chinese suppliers was broadcast on the radio program This American Life. The broadcast featured portions of monologist Mike Daisey’s one-man show “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs.”

Dasiey’s show, which he has performed around the US since July of 2010, details his trip to China to gather information on Foxconn, a major electronics manufacturer. While Apple is known for being secretive, the company claims to be a progressive force when it comes to labor rights and the safety of its supply chain.

The company is so admired that in a recent New York Times survey, 56 percent of respondents couldn’t think of anything negative to say about Apple. According to 14 percent, the worst thing about Apple is its pricey products – and 2 percent pointed out labor issues as the worst thing about the company.

This generally high level of esteem combined with Apple’s secrecy around its manufacturing practices contributed to the surprise that many reacted with to the radio program. According to Daisey, child labor, 12 hour shifts, injuries and suicides at the plant, and even the government blacklisting of people who stand up to the system are the norm for Apple’s suppliers. This American Life fact checked the story and found few inconsistencies. Even the New York Times followed up with a lengthy report.

The whole situation reveals how supply chain secrecy can backfire, cause workforces to question corporate leadership, and damage a company’s employer brand.

Responsibility at the Top

Before he died, former Apple CEO Steve Jobs spoke glowingly about conditions at  one of Apple’s supply chain manufacturers. The New York times quotes him as saying, “I mean, you go to this place, and, it’s a factory, but, my gosh, I mean, they’ve got restaurants and movie theaters and hospitals and swimming pools, and I mean, for a factory, it’s a pretty nice factory.”

In fact, Daisey reports, conditions aren’t quite so luxurious. “The dormitories are cement cubes, 12-foot by 12-foot. And in that space there are 13 beds, 14 beds. I count 15 beds. They’re stacked up like Jenga puzzle pieces all the way up to the ceiling. The space between them is so narrow, none of us would actually fit in them. They have to slide into them like coffins.”

The Times continued:

“Others, including workers inside such plants, acknowledge the cafeterias and medical facilities, but insist conditions are punishing. ‘We’re trying really hard to make things better,’ said one former Apple executive. ‘But most people would still be really disturbed if they saw where their iPhone comes from.’”

In a culture like Apple’s, characterized by top-down leadership, reports that run contrary to the official company line are easily overlooked. In fact, as the Times reported, most of the company’s workforce was unaware of any issues.

“…a British newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, secretly visited a Foxconn factory in Shenzhen, China, where iPods were manufactured, and reported on workers’ long hours, push-ups meted out as punishment and crowded dorms. Executives in Cupertino were shocked. ‘Apple is filled with really good people who had no idea this was going on,’ a former employee said. ‘We wanted it changed, immediately.’”

By denying supply chain issues, when there appear to be real problems that were growing more public. he company set its workforce up to question its leadership.

Steps toward Transparency

After the New York Times piece was published, Apple’s new CEO Tim Cook sent an email to employees claiming to be outraged at allegations that the company doesn’t care about its supply chain workforce. But his email does not deny the accusations set out by Dailey or the New York Times piece. He wrote:

“Every year we inspect more factories, raising the bar for our partners and going deeper into the supply chain. As we reported earlier this month, we’ve made a great deal of progress and improved conditions for hundreds of thousands of workers. We know of no one in our industry doing as much as we are, in as many places, touching as many people.”

The company said it will start by revealing the names of its main suppliers. Additionally, it said, it has partnered with an outside auditor, the Fair Labor Association, to do unannounced visits to factories. But, as pointed out on This American Life’s blog, these steps may not amount to much.

“It doesn’t appear that Apple’s partnership with the FLA will increase transparency in this regard either. The FLA will audit 5% of the factories that make Apple products, but like Apple, it will not name which ones it checks or where it finds violations.”

The program’s host Ira Glass commented, “As it is, Daisey says, Apple is basically saying, trust us, we’re taking care of the problems. But without supplier names, nobody can independently verify any of it.”

Can real progress be made without transparency on this issue? It is debatable whether Apple’s US employees will be convinced, but working in a culture of secrecy, they may have no choice but to accept that the company is making efforts toward correcting problems in good faith.

According to the Canadian Board Diversity Council’s second Annual Report Card, Canada’s boards feel conflicted about diversity. The research shows that while the vast majority of board members across Canada’s top 500 companies and top 100 charities said they value diversity personally, board diversity is actually quite low.

According to the report, “Canada’s future competitiveness depends on ensuring more boards of directors are comprised of directors who are the most qualified in a greatly-expanded talent pool.”

The Founder of the Council, Pamela P. Jeffery, wrote, “…our research based on the surveys returned by 450 corporate directors revealed that women held 15% of board seats. Visible minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal peoples held 5.3%, 2.9% and 0.8% of corporate board seats, respectively.”

She continued:

“One in five board seats in the utilities, finance and insurance and retail trade sectors is held by a woman versus one in ten in manufacturing and one in fifteen in the mining, quarrying, oil and gas sectors. Women are much more likely to serve on a Top 100 charity board than on a corporate board: two in five Top 100 charities board seats are held by women.”

The report connects board diversity with shareholder value – but how much are Canadian boards really concerned with boosting diversity in favor of producing better returns?

Reality Check

According to the survey, “98% of female board members, and 90% of male board members indicate they consider board diversity to be important or very important.”

But much fewer state that diversity is important from the perspective of their board.

It continues, “Although 35% of corporate board members state that diversity is important from their board’s perspective, only 22% of corporate board embers report their board has a written diversity policy.”

The largest segments of board members are unsure about their board’s diversity policy – which may indicate that diversity hasn’t been a topic of discussion in their particular boardroom. Of the top 500 companies, 59% board members said they did not know if their board had a written policy on diversity, and 48% of the charity board members said the same.

In fact, among survey respondents whose boards did not have written diversity policies, very few (22%) supported enacting them. Over half (59%)said they did not support developing or adopting diversity policies, and 19% said they weren’t sure.

Considering the disparity between what board directors say they value and the reality of fairly homogeneous boards, the fact that most directors do not support taking official action toward diversity is concerning, and could be challenging for efforts toward building more inclusive boardrooms moving forward.

Creating Value

According to Fiona Macfarlane, Chief Inclusiveness Officer, Ernst & Young Managing Partner for Western Canada, “Diversity is imperative, particularly in the boardroom. It helps to spark innovation, powerful ideas and profound change.”

In fact, the report says driving diversity can help board directors produce bigger returns for corporate shareholders, and it includes a call to action for boards to make sure they replace retiring board members with diverse candidates.

“It is all about shareholder value. It can be a challenge for directors in these economic times to increase shareholder value. With a large number of directors retiring over the next five years, now is the time to bring to your boardroom table the talents of qualified, well-credentialed, experienced and board-ready new directors through a rigorous selection process.”

Furthermore, it added:

“The Council calls on boards to replace at least one of every three retiring directors with a director of a diverse background and for Nominating/Governance committees to consider three board-ready diverse candidates for each open board seat. If boards heed our call to action, these two steps will mean more boards will be comprised of directors who are the most qualified in a greatly-expanded talent pool.”

With more diversity on the slate of candidates for a particular seat, companies can take steps toward enhancing diversity and inclusion in the boardroom, and producing better outcomes for corporate stakeholders.

According to research by Evolved Employer (and our sister site The Glass Hammer), support from the top is critical for creating an LGBT inclusive environment, where lesbian professionals feel they can thrive.

Our new report, “Being Out at Work: Cultural Implications for the ‘L’ in LGBT,” discusses the challenges and opportunities lesbian professionals face in the corporate environment. It also provides insight into how lesbians in the financial and professional services feel about the culture in which they work.

One of the top findings in the report is the importance of support from the top. According to the study, 53% of respondents said senior management at their company provides verbal or visible support for LGBT initiatives.

This idea was echoed by panelists at our Monday night event for lesbian professionals at Goldman Sachs. According to our research and our speakers, senior management support goes a long way in instilling inclusive values within corporate culture.

Senior Support for LGBT Individuals

Recently the Human Rights Council released a new television spot featuring Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein expressing his support for marriage equality. He says, “America’s corporations learned long ago that equality is just good business and is the right thing to do.”

The New York Times’ Dealbook blog said the spot might be surprising for many outside the firm. But, in fact, the firm has been a big supporter of LGBT issues for quite some time.

“Still, the campaign is sure to turn heads on Wall Street, which despite having made progress on equality issues over the last decade, is still considered to be a male-dominated, testosterone-driven place.

“Behind the scenes, Mr. Blankfein has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage. Last year, he signed a letter urging state lawmakers to vote for a bill legalizing same-sex marriage and encouraged other chief executives to do the same. He also called lawmakers directly on the matter. The New York Legislature passed the law last summer.

“Under Mr. Blankfein’s guidance, Goldman has also pushed employment policies that promote equality. It reimburses employees for the extra taxes they pay on domestic partner benefits. In 2002, the company made headlines for offering gender reassignment operations to employees.”

Even within the conservative culture on Wall Street, leaders recognize the importance of diversity and visibly supporting it.

Wharton professor Jennifer Mueller also noted that the spot may provide positive visibility for the firm. She said, “I view this as a smart move for Goldman that may actually allow for a net reputational gain.”

Straight Allies

According to event panelist Jennifer Barbetta, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of Alternative Investments & Manager Selection at the firm, the personal support on behalf of Blankfein means a lot to LGBT individuals within Goldman as well.

She said, “It’s fantastic that he’s doing that and putting himself out there on a personal level.”

She also mentioned the importance of straight allies for building a culture of inclusion. She explained:

“The Ally Program has had a huge impact. We started inviting straight allies to join the network, and now there are gay members and straight members and you don’t know who’s LGBT or who’s an Ally, which is the entire goal of this – that it shouldn’t matter – no one cares who’s straight or who’s gay.”

The majority of our survey respondents also spoke positively about the value of straight allies, with 21.7% of open-ended responses even indicating that they are “critical” or “important” for developing a culture of inclusion for LGBT individuals.

But, while the idea of straight allies might get a lot of notice within the corporate space, in practice, the prevalence of straight allies varies. The study says, “Over a quarter of respondents (26.5%) said someone on their team had referred to themselves as a straight ally. But, the majority (67.5%) said they had not, and 6% said they were not sure.”

And, the study showed, for some, the notion of straight allies is still new: “…almost one in five (19.3%) of our respondents had not heard of the term ‘straight allies.’”

As more business leaders come out in support of their LGBT workforce, hopefully more straight individuals in the company at large will be encouraged to visibly or verbally support their LGBT coworkers as well, creating a more comfortable, inclusive environment, where every employee feels he or she can be their authentic self at work.