As a workplace design consultancy on a mission to build better organizations through the lens of anti-oppression, we spend a lot of time thinking about how bias leaks into practices, policies, and processes at work. The unfortunate reality is that if we don’t intentionally build systems that mitigate bias, we may unintentionally invite biases that can lead to inequitable outcomes and disenfranchising experiences, particularly for folks from historically marginalized communities.

One of the instances where we observe this play out is in informal “coffee chats” between job-seekers and hiring managers. Quick, get-to-know-you conversations are so commonplace that you may be surprised to learn how detrimental they are to building fair and equitable interviewing and hiring processes. Whether these coffee chats are solicited from candidates (how many of you recruiters have received a LinkedIn DM requesting a “quick chat”?) or hiring managers (we’ve witnessed countless messages on Twitter and LinkedIn inviting candidates to “DM me to learn more about the role”) these unstructured conversations can inadvertently invite bias in several ways.

Here’s how:

1. Similarity bias. Hiring managers may feel more comfortable and drawn to candidates who resemble them in terms of background, interests, or experiences. This bias can lead to a preference for candidates similar to the hiring manager, potentially overlooking qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds.
2. Affinity bias. Much like when similarity bias crops up during casual conversations, hiring managers may unconsciously develop a liking or connection with candidates who share similar hobbies, interests, or personalities. This bias can influence their evaluation and decision-making, favouring candidates who they personally relate to rather than objectively assessing qualifications.
3. Halo/horn effect. Positive or negative impressions formed during coffee chats can impact the overall evaluation of a candidate. If a hiring manager has a positive initial impression, they may be more inclined to overlook or downplay potential weaknesses in the candidate’s qualifications or performance. Conversely, a negative initial impression can cloud judgment and lead to dismissing strong candidates.
4. Confirmation bias. Hiring managers may unintentionally seek information that aligns with their preconceived notions or expectations about certain candidate characteristics. This bias can lead to selectively focusing on details confirming their beliefs, resulting in a biased evaluation.
5. Lack of structure. Informal coffee chats lack a standardized format, making them more susceptible to subjective judgments and personal biases. Without a clear framework, hiring managers may rely on gut feelings or personal preferences, increasing the potential for bias.
6. Lack of consistency. Unless you allow every candidate the opportunity for an informal coffee chat, you are not creating a fair or equitable process for applicants.

To mitigate these biases, it’s essential to establish structured and standardized interview processes that focus on objective criteria and qualifications. Here are a few helpful scripts you can use as you work to honour more structured (read: consistent and equitable) hiring practices.

For recruiters, here’s how you can advise hiring managers against soliciting coffee chats.

Hi [Hiring Manager],

Although having casual talks with candidates may seem like a great approach to getting to know them in a less formal atmosphere, it’s crucial to be aware of potential risks and guarantee a fair and objective recruiting process. Here are a few things to think about:

1. Consistency and standardization. By following a structured interview process, we ensure that all candidates are evaluated fairly and consistently based on their qualifications and alignment with the role. Informal coffee chats can introduce subjective elements and personal biases that may compromise the integrity of the selection process and your decision-making.
2. Equal opportunity. Encouraging informal coffee chats with specific candidates can inadvertently create a perception of favouritism, nepotism, or bias toward those who have been granted such opportunities. Other candidates who were not invited to these chats might perceive the selection process as unfair, potentially undermining their trust in the hiring process and the organization as a whole. In relation to external concerns, internal employees may become aware of this process and question the integrity of your interview and selection process.
3. Unintentional bias. Informal conversations can unintentionally introduce bias into the evaluation process. Factors such as shared interests, personalities, or backgrounds may influence the hiring manager’s judgment and detract from an objective assessment of qualifications. Ensuring that our hiring decisions are based solely on job-related criteria is crucial to making an informed hiring decision.
4. Time and resource management. As hiring managers, our time and resources are valuable. While coffee chats can seem beneficial for relationship and rapport-building, conducting multiple informal meetings can be time-consuming, leading to potential delays in the hiring process. Focusing on structured interviews allows us to effectively assess candidates within a reasonable timeframe and make informed decisions efficiently.

To maintain a fair and equitable hiring process, I advise sticking with our current interview framework, which includes structured interviews, standardized evaluation criteria, and diverse interview panels. This approach allows us to evaluate candidates objectively and select the best fit for the role based on their qualifications, skills, and experience.

I understand the importance of establishing a positive candidate experience and building relationships, which can be accomplished through various stages of the hiring process, such as formal interviews, especially when diverse panels are included in the process. Through these channels, it’s possible to interact with candidates while upholding consistency and fairness.

Thank you for considering these points. By upholding a standardized and unbiased hiring process, we can attract top talent, foster diversity, and make well-informed hiring decisions that align with the company’s values and objectives.

Please get in touch if you have any inquiries or wish to continue this conversation. I value your dedication to maintaining high standards in our hiring procedures.

For hiring managers, here’s how to thoughtfully decline a candidate’s request for a coffee chat.

Hello [Candidate’s Name],

Thank you for getting in touch and sharing your interest in the role at [Company Name]. I appreciate your enthusiasm and eagerness to learn more about our company and the position, and I’m excited to potentially learn more about your experience.

We’re asking everyone who gets in touch about our roles to apply directly via the link and submit their application before we can start the interview process. We do this so we can maintain a consistent interview process so we can have more ethical, equitable, and inclusive hiring outcomes. Our goal is to ensure that every candidate has had an equal opportunity to show us how they are uniquely qualified for the role we are hiring for. Not offering informational interviews or casual chats alongside our existing process supports our DEI initiatives and efforts. You can apply here: [link].

I appreciate applying for a role can be a big decision, so I’d be happy to answer any company/role-clarifying questions you may want to send here.

Conversely, if you’re a job-seeker interested in learning more about an organization, here’s how you can inquire without requesting a coffee chat.

Hello [Hiring Manager/Recruiter],

I recently came across [Company Name] and have been impressed by the work the organization is doing. I would be very interested to learn more about the company and its culture since I am actively looking for new career opportunities.

Could you kindly provide me with any available resources or materials that offer insights into the company’s mission, values, and workplace environment? This could include company blog posts, videos, or other content that can help me better understand the organization.

Additionally, I would be grateful for any recommendations you may have regarding upcoming events, webinars, or industry conferences where I can learn more about [Company Name].

Thank you for considering my request. I am genuinely interested in [Company Name] and believe that understanding the company better will help me determine if there could be a potential fit for my skills and aspirations.

Want to learn more about building anti-oppressive hiring and recruiting practices? We offer context-specific DEI training for recruiters, hiring managers, and other People & Culture folks committed to building more inclusive and equitable hiring processes and workplace systems. Get in touch with us to find out more.

I regularly talk to people who want to build more inclusive workplaces in my job at Bloom. These conversations go wonderfully until we talk about activities. That’s when I hear the dreaded “Can we do this in a one-hour session?” question. I get why leaders ask for an hour session. It’s the standard ‘long’ meeting in the corporate world that’s meant for big tasks. However, addressing DEI challenges needs a different approach. Instead of thinking about it like a corporate problem to solve, approach it like learning a language. It takes time, and there are awkward moments, but those are actually good things. Let’s get into it.

You can’t productivity-hack your way to inclusion

The startup and corporate world is full of productivity hacks: how to use AI to cut down on emails, how to optimize meetings, and how to streamline processes. Hacks like these are great for siloed issues with a clearly defined beginning and end. A problem occurs, or a need arises, people plan out the action items, then implement them. Boom, done. Onto the next thing. You can hack any part of this process: you can identify problems more efficiently; you can speed up the solution identification process with a new process; and you can certainly hack the building of a solution with new and novel tools.

Unfortunately, when DEI problems are put through this siloed solution model, it ends up largely being performative. Acknowledgement of the problem becomes a big, often dramatic statement of how people need to “do better.” Then people start looking for a one-hour session to solve the problem of “doing betting”, get nowhere, and wonder why.

The real process of DEI work

Most people’s intentions around DEI are good. People ask me about one-hour sessions not because they are being flippant but because they want to solve the problem quickly for those affected. But if you want to address deep issues, here’s the real approach you need to take: learning slowly. We often say at Bloom that this is journey work, not destination work. Here’s what this looks like in practice:

1. Evaluate the organization’s current efforts. Critically examine where your company is at on its learning journey. What work have you done to date? Which gaps need to be filled? This will inform your starting point and which subsequent action items make sense for your team.
2. Meet people where they are at on their learning journey. Often, organizations dive right into unconscious bias training and anti-racism training without building a solid foundation and shared language around key concepts like identity, intersectionality, privilege, and oppression.
3. Build off learned competencies. Once your organization has put in the time and intention to build a solid foundation, then you can work on diving deeper into more context-specific topics like building more inclusive and equitable workplace practices, processes, and procedures.
4. Practice and iterate. This is where the real magic happens! There is no one-size-fits-all solution to DEI, and each organization will have different needs and varying experiences. Maintaining open communication and consistently gathering feedback from your team will allow you to make evolutions to continue learning and moving in the right direction.

In this way, this process is more like learning a language than solving a one-off problem

Many of us are familiar with the fun (and frustration!) of learning a new language through tools like Duolingo or Babbel. Both apps start with a self-assessment. How fluent are you in this language? Are you a total newbie or just looking to brush up on existing skills? This will inform where your learning journey starts. The initial modules begin with very basic vocabulary while introducing spelling and pronunciation before building up to more complex phrases, eventually providing the tools and confidence to speak conversationally. But even skilled language learners will tell you that the only way to maintain fluency is to practice constantly.

The learning journey never ends.

The good news is that just like learning a language, continuing to deepen your understanding of anti-oppressive workplace systems actually gets easier with practice because you are building your baseline understanding more and more over time.

Action is the currency you spend on patience

Knowing DEI work takes time, it’s tempting for leaders to ask for patience from their teams and leave it at that. But it needs to go beyond that. Patience is a withdrawal of your team’s trust. Every time you ask for patience, you ask your staff to believe that you will change. The way to refill that metaphorical bank account is with action. When leaders make a public statement, that’s the first deposit into the shared ‘team trust’ account. The next deposit comes when leaders bring in competent people to lead DEI training and initiatives. And then again when they show up to training sessions and actively take part in the conversation.

A similar trend appears in language learning. Most people are willing to cut you some slack if it’s evident that you’re trying your best and learning. But if you just talk to them in your native language and wonder why they don’t get it, you can’t be surprised if they have little patience for you.

Different companies (and leaders) may need to take different actions depending on circumstances and organizational context. That’s where an in-house DEI leader or a DEI consultant can help push forward change and evolution. The key is to resist the urge to rush a ‘solution’ and instead spend time uncovering where your DEI opportunities are and working to upskill those competencies. When you do this, your ask for patience will be more respected because you’re showing that you genuinely are doing foundational work and need time to continue learning.

Learning a new language together

The only ‘hack’ in the DEI world is a willingness to learn and follow a realistic (and often non-linear) process. At the start, this might feel uncomfortable. However, the more you learn, the easier and more comfortable you will get. Once you have that small base of knowledge and common understanding, suddenly you can pick up concepts more quickly than you ever thought possible and grasp action items immediately. That’s when you’ll know you’re ready to continue moving forward.

One more thing — At Bloom, we support leaders who aren’t ready to hire a full-time DEI employee but need the support on an interim basis. We offer fractional DEI strategy support along with our signature context-specific DEI and anti-oppressive workplace training, Bloom Academy. Interested in learning more? Get in contact with us here.

As an organization that provides context-specific DEI training and fractional DEI advisory, we get a lot of fascinating insight into who is championing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts internally and who isn’t. An overwhelming majority of the reach-outs we receive about corporate DEI training and strategic initiatives come from women, and we observe an over-representation of women and femmes in both our community sessions and Bloom Academy for individuals.

This year, we intentionally hosted a session just for men in observance of Women’s History Month in March for two reasons:

1. We positioned this as an opportunity for men to act in solidarity with women. Men are our peers, managers, leaders, and often the executives at our work organizations. And men still overwhelmingly hold positions of power at work, which means that men have an outsized influence on the workplace experiences of women and other marginalized genders.
2. We wanted to see if men would show up.

While we had a few men sign up (thank you!), as expected, our other sessions saw much higher attendance, reflecting a pattern we’ve observed across all of our DEI programming: It’s the women and gender-diverse folks who consistently show up to do the work.

So… where are all the men?

Every year, like clockwork, we observe men make grand declarations on International Women’s Day about their commitment to supporting gender equity and equality. Too often, these statements ring hollow. They come off as performative and insincere when it’s all talk and no action.

To be clear, there are many ways men can work to support women at work. These include:

• Actively listening to and working to understand the experiences of women.
• Acting as an active bystander.
• Amplifying women’s workplace contributions.
• Advocating for organizational change.

However, acting in solidarity with historically marginalized communities also includes engaging in ongoing education. Even folks who are well-versed in anti-oppressive practices can benefit from learning specifically about how we can challenge and dismantle current ways of working and create more affirming workplace experiences. This is why DEI training (for example, the sessions we offered throughout Women’s History Month) is so valuable.

We’re not saying that men don’t do the work of supporting their women colleagues in other ways, but curiously, so few show up to learn.

There are likely a number of reasons for this.

We speculate that it’s because there is no incentive or motivation for men (particularly cishet white men) to engage in DEI work. Our existing workplace systems were built by men and directly benefit men. From rigidly structured work hours to even the temperature at which most physical office spaces are kept, work was designed to suit the needs of the dominant group.

Persisting biases, often left unchecked, also allow men to benefit from traditional ways of working. These can lead to inequities in these key areas:

• Compensation, due to gender bias in hiring, promotion, performance evaluations, and salary negotiations.
• Opportunities, whether for important projects or advancement within the organization.
• Distribution of “office housework” (i.e. non-promotable, non-revenue generating tasks), which pulls time and focus away from more meaningful work.
• Gendered stereotypes, like the competence-likability trap or the belief that women are too soft or emotional for leadership positions.

So if our current systems directly benefit men in these ways (and more), why would men want to challenge or even change the status quo?

All too often, it’s folks from historically marginalized communities who are the ones advocating for more inclusive and equitable ways of working and putting in the (largely unpaid) labour to move the dial. This is not entirely surprising, given that workers with historically marginalized identities are the most impacted by biased and discriminatory workplace practices.

Interestingly, men are celebrated more for engaging in this kind of diversity-valuing work, whereas folks from historically marginalized communities are often perceived more negatively when advocating for the same things. Why? Because they are perceived to benefit from crafting more inclusive workplaces over cishet men. This is all the more reason why we need the men in our workplaces to be loud champions for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. You have the least to lose, and you still stand to benefit from change.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings around anti-oppressive workplace practices. Many people, particularly those who historically have benefitted from the most power and privilege, incorrectly assume that a more equitable distribution of power leads to adverse outcomes for dominant groups. As Franklin Leonard so eloquently put it, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”

The truth is that we all benefit from implementing more just ways of working — including men. When we push for more flexible work environments, working fathers are better able to balance and support childcare duties. When we implement more equitable hiring, promotion, and compensation practices, men who may have previously been overlooked due to racial bias, height bias, or other forms of discrimination have access to more opportunities. Moreover, organizations with genuinely inclusive workplace cultures tend to demonstrate higher employee engagement, making work more positive, supportive, and satisfying for all.

We’re curious — what has been your experience with men demonstrating authentic allyship at work? What might be getting in the way of more men meaningfully acting in solidarity with women and other marginalized genders?

We hope that as we continue to have these conversations, men become better able to acknowledge their essential role in advancing gender equity and equality. Men — we need you. We hope you show up next time.

We recommend signing up for our 2-hour workshop “Exploring the Intersections of Women, Race, and Work” which examines the workplace experiences of racialized women and how we can build more inclusive and equitable workplace systems that support all women. Get in touch to learn more.

This past November, Tanisha Godfrey went viral for a video describing her lunch: a chicken salad. In it, she says, “Y’all better come up and get one of these… It’s a chicken salad. 81st Deli.”

Tanisha’s original audio has been used over 200 thousand times on TikTok and 1.2 million on Instagram alone. Like many viral moments, big brands noticed the trend and wanted to take advantage of the hype. While we have observed strides in policies that protect creators on platforms like Instagram, content theft and the absence of attribution are still rampant. Digital content creation is a growing area of work, and better regulation is needed to protect the folks who create the reels, TikToks, and memes we enjoy daily.

When it comes to content creation, like all other forms of work, there is a wage gap.

As in traditional work systems, many inequities exist in the influencer and digital marketing space. For example, Forbes published their “Top-Earning TikTok-ers of 2022”, a group that collectively made $55.5 million this year. Unfortunately, no Black, disabled, or transgender TikTok creators made the Forbes list. What’s worth noting is that the creators who made this list aren’t the ones with the most followers — they’re the creators who earn the most via brand partnerships, deals, views, TikTok virtual gifts, and the Creator Fund. One example of the discrepancy between top followers and top earners is Khaby Lame, a Senegalese-Italian content creator with over 153.2M followers. On the other hand, Forbes top earner Charlie D’Amelio only has 149.3M followers. Like any other job, being a content creator doesn’t shield you from the injustices and economic inequities influenced and shaped by systems of oppression.

What’s the data saying?

According to a study by MSL, pay inequities between racialized and white influencers mirror similar trends in other industries. They note that “historic socioeconomic inequities create an unequal playing field, trapping a disproportionate number of Black workers in the lowest paying jobs with little chance of upward mobility.” Like in other industries, influencing still has a long way to go toward creating more inclusive and equitable practices for racialized, 2SLGBTQIA+, and disabled creators. MSL shared:

• 77% of Black creators are over-represented in lower-paying influencer tiers (under 50K followers), where compensation from brands averaged $27,000 annually (versus 59% of white influencers).
• Only 23% of Black influencers (versus 41% of white influencers) made it into the macro influencer tier (50K+ followers), where earnings averaged upward of $100,000 annually.
• The majority (59%) of Black influencers (and 49% of racialized influencers) reported that they felt negatively impacted financially when they posted on issues of race versus 14% of white influencers.

Brands — and their marketing teams — need to do better.

The fallout of these trends trickles down from influencers like Khaby Lame to our girl Tanisha Godfrey. After her video went viral, corporations contacted her to use her likeness as part of a brand partnership. Google, worth 1.17 trillion USD, reached out to her for a brand partnership and offered her $500.00 (yes, you read that right).

Whether in sports, film, or on TikTok, racialized folks are consistently told to “shut up and dribble” — to not speak on our experiences with marginalization and to create without being fairly compensated or compensated at all. This inequity is why so many racialized creators are exhausted. Too often, we observe iconic brands and companies profiting off the creativity of racialized creators (we’re looking at you, Addison Rae and Jimmy Fallon). Unfortunately, just a year after the ‘#BlackTikTokStrike, it still seems like many big brands haven’t listened to creators from historically marginalized communities when they’ve asked to be paid for their work, especially if corporations worth millions are going to profit off of it. Luckily, some brands have been paying attention.

In a surprising turn, Weight Watchers did the right thing.

After rejecting Google’s (offensive) lowball offer, Tanisha was approached by Weight Watchers (now rebranded to WW) to partner with them to create a WW chicken salad and pay her for her contributions to the brand. While we at Bloom aren’t fans of how WW perpetuates harmful diet culture and fatphobia, this is an excellent example of a corporation choosing not to profit off of Black creatives but to profit share — the way it should be.

Many marketing teams and ad agencies are now building more partnerships with racialized, 2SLGBTQIA+, and disabled content creators, which is why it is critical not to abandon anti-oppressive principles and assume that “exposure” or free products will pay content creators’ bills. They don’t.

Marketers: now is the time to disrupt the bias, build equitable partnerships, and follow through on your company’s DEI commitments.

Here are some ways to start building equitable brand partnerships with creators:

Practice pay transparency.

Lack of transparency is one of the greatest amplifiers of pay inequity. For example, in the MSL’s study, respondents were asked to share a single factor that could eliminate the racial pay gap, and 92% of all influencer responses involved more pay transparency.

Value the perspectives of folks who speak out against inequality year-round.

Creators from marginalized backgrounds regularly share how frustrating and financially detrimental it is when brands prioritize their content only during month-long observances such as Black History Month, Pride Month, or Indigenous History Month. Only amplifying these creators when it’s trendy can feel tokenizing and performative and can make it more challenging for creators to manage other projects, scale services, and build economic independence.

Don’t overlook micro-influencers and “small” creators.

Data shows that racialized folks are over-represented in nano and micro-influencer tiers, but they still have value. Investing in content creators from historically marginalized communities means investing in their futures. Don’t just send free products — pay people to review, use, and recommend.

Tanisha, we’re so happy for you. We love seeing Black women get some coin. Especially when, time and time again, racialized content creators are undervalued, underrepresented, and under-compensated for viral trends that companies profit from.

Much has been said about the state of work over the last few years. Many organizations adapted to working remotely when the pandemic hit, some have continued to operate under a hybrid model, and others still are now starting to require their employees to return to the office. There are risks and pitfalls to each of these models, but the push to “go back to normal” is one that, in our perspective, is particularly misguided, especially as it relates to creating and fostering anti-oppressive workplace experiences.

Who wants to return to in-person work?

Let’s first examine who wants to return to a physical office space before we identify some of the reasons why folks may not want to. In 2021, Future Forum, a research consortium led by Slack, conducted a survey of over 10,000 global knowledge workers. Overwhelmingly, it was white men who wanted to return to the office full-time. This isn’t surprising, because North American work culture has historically been built and designed to accommodate the logistical, social, and physical comforts of white men. (Anecdotally, many of us at Bloom have also heard men say they come to work to “escape” their wives and families. Big yuck. #notallmen).

Additionally, another survey from 2021 revealed that men tend to suffer more from working remotely than women. Men were more likely than women to feel that their chances of a promotion or advancement had been hurt by working remotely; that their professional skills suffered; that their ability to collaborate suffered; and that effective real-time communication has become more challenging. Layer that with the fact that the vast majority of North American organizations are led by white men, and it becomes clear why there is a growing push to require employees to return to co-located workspaces.

In our experience, the primary reasons leaders state for wanting to return to in-office work are to improve productivity and camaraderie. This oft-cited study indicates that remote employees work longer hours and less efficiently. Other studies point to less collaboration — a particularly important piece for knowledge workers — and increased social isolation. It’s also worth noting that many leaders simply do not trust workers, as evidenced by the increase in activity monitoring and workplace surveillance systems, and the ability to work from home is often positioned as a privilege that has to be earned. However, for every study railing on the disadvantages of remote or hybrid work, there are others that clearly demonstrate the benefits of flexible work, particularly for folks from historically marginalized communities.

So, what’s a leader to do? For organizations with a stated commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, it starts with understanding who holds the least amount of power and privilege in your organization and prioritizing the removal of barriers for folks from historically marginalized groups.

Why are some folks hesitant to go back to the office?

There are many reasons why employees may not want to go back to in-person work full-time, but they can largely be grouped into these fives themes: health, accessibility, transportation, family care, and mental health (which are all directly related to race, gender, class, and ability). Let’s examine each of these individually.

Health

First things first, the pandemic is not over. Full stop. Reported cases of COVID-19 have remained steady since the spring of 2022 and people are still contracting the virus, many of whom are struck with something far more severe than a common cold. While many (typically healthy, non-disabled) people are no longer seriously impacted by COVID-19, folks with chronic health conditions, people who are immunocompromised, folks with disabilities, older adults, and people with other health risks are still not safe to be in shared spaces with large groups. Folks with increased health risks are not outliers, and they are not expendable.

Accessibility

Despite employment laws which require employers to provide workplace accommodations, and legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), which require businesses to adhere to accessibility standards, the truth is that most workplaces (physical and virtual) are not designed for folks with disabilities or people who are neurodivergent. There still exist many environmental barriers that inhibit the full participation of disabled and neurodivergent folks in the workplace. Many people with ADHD, for example, find open-plan office spaces distracting and overwhelming, and some folks on the Autism spectrum experience sensory sensitivities brought on by noise and lighting. I once worked in a 14-story office building where the only accessible washroom in the entire building was on the main floor. Imagine having to wait for the elevator every time nature calls! It shouldn’t come as a surprise then that some disabled folks would prefer to work from home, where the environment is comfortable and guarantees dignity.

Transportation

With the cost of living rising nearly everywhere across the country, it simply isn’t affordable for most people to live close to where they work. This means increased commute time and increased transportation costs. For folks who can afford to drive (and we know the price of vehicles has gone up, too), the cost of parking close to work is wildly prohibitive in most cities. And for those who rely on public transportation, access to public transit is not always built equally. Infrastructure for public transit tends to be far less developed in both low-income neighbourhoods as well as new-development suburbs, where the cost of housing is lower than in inner-city neighbourhoods. A 20-minute drive to work for someone who lives inner city can easily take upwards of 90 minutes for someone who has to make multiple transfers on public transportation from a more affordable part of town.

Family care

The unequal division of household and caregiving labour amongst hetero couples is well-documented. When millions of parents started working from home in 2020, women continued to do the majority of the care work, including 33% of married working moms who identified themselves as their children’s sole care provider. Read that again and let it sink in. Knowing that women will continue to bear the burden of family care (until society drastically changes), offering the flexibility to work from home helps parents manage pick ups/drop offs, allows the opportunity to multi-task (like throwing in a load of laundry when you’re between meetings), and cuts down on commute time that could be spent on a multitude of other caregiving activities.

Mental health

Much can be said about the importance of social connection as a fundamental part of good mental health, but not all social interactions are positive. Many folks from historically marginalized communities experienced a welcome reprieve from microaggressions when they switched to working from home. Additionally, many employees also experienced a break from having to “cover” at work. Covering is the exhausting and emotionally taxing practice of working to conform and assimilate to white euro-centric standards of professionalism, from changing one’s physical appearance (makeup, hairstyles, clothing), to the way one speaks (code-switching), to one’s general demeanour and self-expression (not wanting to appear “too” Black, or “too” gay, for example). Understanding the emotional and psychological toll it takes on folks to field these disaffirming experiences, it makes sense why many people prefer to keep working from home.

What are the risks of requiring employees to return to a physical office?

For any organization, your people are your greatest asset. Hiring and retaining talent are both critical to organizational success and requiring folks to return to in-person work full-time jeopardizes each. According to this 2021 survey, if they’re not allowed to continue working from home, 60 percent of women said they’ll look for a new job, compared to 52 percent of men. And a majority (80 percent) of women — compared to 69 percent of men — said remote working options are among the most important factors to consider when evaluating a new job.

A 2021 study from AngusReid found similar results and noted that only 5% of workers surveyed actually want to return to the office full-time. This poses a huge threat to retaining talent and may create serious barriers when recruiting and hiring. Despite murmurs of a looming recession, the job market is still competitive, and many existing and prospective employees will choose to work for a company that offers flexible or remote work over one that doesn’t.

For organizations with a stated commitment to anti-oppression, requiring folks to return to a physical office environment does a grave disservice to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts. Employees from historically marginalized communities, particularly those with multiple marginalized identities, are the most likely to be negatively impacted as a result of being forced to go back to the office.

This is highlighted in McKinsey’s most recent Women in the Workplace report, in what they call “The Great Breakup”: the fact that women are demanding more from work (including more flexibility), and they’re leaving their companies in unprecedented numbers to get it. The report found that only one in 10 women employees want to work from the office most of the time and indicated that many women point to hybrid work schedules as a key reason for joining or sticking with an employer. As a result of the disconnect between what employees want and what employers are providing, women leaders are switching jobs at the highest rate we’ve ever observed (at a higher rate than men in leadership), and this is especially true for racialized women. The report warns “If companies don’t take action, they won’t just lose their women leaders; they risk losing the next generation of women leaders, too. Young women are even more ambitious, and they place a higher premium on working in an equitable, supportive, and inclusive workplace. They’re watching senior women leave for better opportunities, and they’re prepared to do the same.”

This creates a real risk of workplaces becoming more homogeneous (read: mostly white men), with diversity concentrated in the lowest rankings of the organization. DEI wins are often hard-fought and the decision to “go back to the way things were” could mean exactly that: rolling back on years of progress.

Where is the disconnect?

Knowing that there are so many pitfalls to requiring employees to return to the office full-time, why is there still such a push for it? Confirmation bias and motivated reasoning may be contributing factors.

Confirmation bias leads people to believe that their experience is the same as everyone else’s experience. It’s easy to ask your employees to return to the office when you’re a leader who can afford a nanny or au pair to help with childcare duties, when you can afford to live inner city, when your commute is under half an hour, when you can afford to park close to work, and when you can afford to drive instead of relying on public transit. This just simply isn’t the reality for most workers. Confirmation bias also extends to feelings of inclusion. Folks who regularly enjoy privilege and inclusion at work tend to believe that their experience is one that is universal. Again, this is not the reality for everyone.

Motivated reasoning, a cousin of confirmation bias, leads people to look much harder for flaws in arguments that oppose their position, rather than critically examining their own reasoning with the same fervour. This is why we observe leaders refuting all of the reasons we’ve listed above and still anchoring on the handful of studies that support their position, or relying entirely on anecdotal data. This is also why gathering real data is key to making data-informed decisions rather than relying on personal bias.

What to do about it?

Our recommendation to leaders is to approach a return to in-person work with scientific curiosity. If the hypothesis is that having the entire company return to the office will improve productivity and camaraderie, we need to put this theory to the test. The risks of forcing people to go back to the office are too great not to make an evidence-based decision.

This begins with gathering months of baseline data, based on the organization’s current hybrid or remote working model. To allow for an accurate capture, we recommend no less than 4 months’ worth of surveying on KPIs like billable hours, completion of OKRs, engagement scores, and regular pulse checks. It’s also important to take note of trends related to both seniority within the organization as well as identity. Where possible, work to segment the data so you can identify how people with greater institutional power and privilege feel compared to those with less. Additionally, be sure to position this as an experiment and communicate that clearly to employees.

Next comes the exciting part: We take an adventurous leap into the unknown and move back to in-person work full-time and measure the same KPIs, again for no fewer than 4 months. After this months-long experiment, we examine the results. Have productivity and employee engagement increased notably? That might confirm your hypothesis, and you’d be well-positioned to put together a comprehensive plan to welcome team members back to the office.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the results reveal other insights. Has productivity increased at the expense of engagement, or vice versa? Have we observed negligible changes across either dimension? Have productivity and engagement decreased significantly? How do those dynamics break down by seniority, by race, by gender? If only the most privileged employees are enjoying the benefits of in-person work, that’s a clear sign that the best decision is to move back to hybrid or remote work.

Without this data, you are operating off of assumptions. Gathering this data will take time and resources, but making a decision that could spell disaster for future DEI efforts should be treated with the care and intention it deserves. One last piece of parting wisdom: If your organization intends to survey team members, the results must be taken seriously. Asking for employee input and then disregarding their opinions, preferences, and wishes is guaranteed to lead to a loss of organizational trust. Listen to your people when they tell you what they need to perform at their best.

Need support in creating more positive and affirming workplace experiences for everyone? Bloom offers context-specific DEI learning experiences for organizations and individuals alike. To learn more, get in touch with us here.

Byline: Written by Jessica Regan, Sr. DEI Advisor at Bloom

Dear Bloom,

I am a Digital Marketing Director and also a Black man. Our office is hosting a virtual Halloween costume contest this year. I want to dress up as Yasuke, the African samurai (the actual 1500’s Japanese African samurai from the Netflix show). I was introduced to the show Yasuke by my Japanese partner. Upon further research, I found that Yasuke challenges anti-Black attitudes and embodies the sacred core beliefs of samurai culture. I want to represent that.

Being a Black man, I fear my costume could be considered offensive. But like Yasuke, I am a Black man, which adds some nuance worth celebrating. His story is about cultural exchange and acceptance. Something else worth noting, I sit on my organization’s executive leadership team, and I am afraid if I wear this costume, I may be engaging in cultural appropriation. I’m worried this could compromise the DEI efforts our organization has made to be more inclusive. What should I do?

—Hesitant Samurai

Dear Hesitant Samurai,

Firstly, we love a costume contest! As a collective of DEI and HR Advisors at Bloom, we understand why folks might be hesitant to dress up — especially if there are concerns around inclusion. Understanding cultural appropriation can be confusing, especially when we exist in a world that champions cultural pluralism while systemically erasing, co-opting, and exploiting the cultures of historically marginalized communities.

What I find interesting about your question is that it opens up a much deeper discussion on the impact of appropriation at work. Cultural appropriation goes beyond just office celebrations. We observe cultural appropriation in marketing, advertising, company culture, and employer branding. The fine line between cultural appreciation and appropriation is one that historically has been difficult to draw for most organizations. Let’s dig into your question and work to cultivate the tools to identify and avoid cultural appropriation at work (and beyond).

First things first, what is appropriation? Why does it matter?

In the case of your question, Hesitant Samurai, your concern about cultural appropriation isn’t unfounded. Appropriation means using elements of a culture that isn’t your own without an in-depth understanding of the significance and relationship held between the cultural object or practice and the community to which it belongs. Appropriation is the unacknowledged, inappropriate, and non-consensual adoption of the customs, traditions, regalia, objects, hairstyle, or headdresses of one culture by members of another (typically those with more social and political power). Cultural appropriation can also manifest as profiting off of sacred objects, practices, or expressions of self (such as hair, nails, and clothing) while simultaneously not caring about the community it comes from. Like many other Asian cultures, Japanese culture is subject to anti-Asian hate in the forms of racism, xenophobia, the model minority myth, and orientalism. Japanese culture has also been fetishized and hypersexualized. For example, when Gwen Stefani fetishizes the Harajuku Girls or the western world’s obsession with consuming anime while not challenging anti-Asian racist beliefs. Especially in the wake of COVID-19, anti-Asian hate is at an all-time high, and it’s showing up at work too.

It’s important to question the cognitive dissonance that occurs when one wants to consume a culture while existing in a space that still marginalizes that culture.

How cultural appropriation manifests at work

Our culture often places the responsibility of dismantling systems of oppression, like racism and capitalism, on individuals rather than critically examining the broader systems in which we operate. As such, cultural appropriation goes beyond Halloween and offensive costumes. It rears its ugly head when organizations attempt to stay relevant by misusing AAVE in their marketing campaigns (also known as “Digital Blackface”). Or when multi-billion dollar conglomerates like the Kardashians launch products like the Kimono, acting as though they invented this traditional garment. It’s the unchecked exploitation, misrepresentation, behaviours of objectification, and dehumanization of marginalized identities. People often forget that cultural appropriation also includes misrepresenting cultures through messages that reinforce stereotypes and reduce people’s cultures to more palatable versions for mainstream (read: white) consumption. Like Kim Kardashian’s “Kimono,” it removes the intricacies that make specific cultures unique and beautiful.

This is why you can’t appropriate being a “cowboy” or other elements of white culture. Appropriation requires a power imbalance — the (mis)use or adoption of cultural elements from a culture that has been historically subjugated by a more powerful and/or dominant culture. And guess what? Many historians say Black and Indigenous men were actually the first cowboys.

Understanding, honouring, and celebrating the intricacies and nuances of a culture is what sets appreciation aside from appropriation. As such, if one truly understands all elements of the culture in question and understands why those elements are sacred, one is less likely to wear it as a costume or position it as a piece of marketing material.

So, Hesitant Samurai, if you’re still on the fence about your costume (and if you’re worried about putting your organization’s DEI progress at risk), here is a checklist to help you make your decision.

1. Purpose: Why are you wearing this costume?
   I know the purpose of wearing this costume. [Yes or No]
   I’m not wearing this to stay trendy. [Yes or No]
2. Usage: How are you using this item?
   I am not making a joke out of someone’s culture by wearing this costume. [Yes or No]
   I am wearing this costume because I love what it represents and not because it's a convenient opportunity to try on something new. [Yes or No]
3. Significance: What’s the significance of this costume?
   I know the history of this costume. [Yes or No]
   I know what the costume represents. [Yes or No]
   This costume doesn’t represent anything sacred. [Yes or No]
4. Source: Where did you purchase this costume from?
   This item was sourced directly from the community. [Yes or No]
5. Frequency: How often do you engage with the community from which this culture comes?
   I consume or celebrate aspects of this culture more than once a year. [Yes or No]
   I advocate year-round for the causes that affect this community. [Yes or No]
6. Impact: Who might this harm?
   I have considered who might be affected or othered by wearing this costume. [Yes or No]
   I have made my best effort not to misrepresent this culture. [Yes or No]
   I haven’t changed any core elements of the costume so that it remains true to the original culture. [Yes or No]
   This costume does not require additional context to not be viewed as culturally appropriative. [Yes or No]
7. Consent: I have permission to wear this as a costume. (This is a tricky question because communities are not a monolith. No one person can permit cultural objects. However, being a part of the community makes one more likely to have insight into whether this is something to be shared with outsiders.)

If you answered no to any of these questions, this is a sign to find another costume.

There is unfortunately no straightforward answer to your questions, Hesitant Samurai, without first engaging in self-reflection. As we’ve highlighted, there are many things to consider before dressing up as Yasuke. By being a member of the executive leadership team, you hold significant power and privilege within your organization. To make your costume choice more inclusive, you most likely would have to explain the Yasuke origin story and what it means to you as a Black man. Due to your status within the organization, team members may not feel comfortable asking you to explain your costume, especially those with less power. So that you can wear this costume and feel confident that you’re not engaging in cultural appropriation, you need to ensure that you have cultivated a space where folks from all levels of the organization feel safe to engage in dialogue and ask questions without fear of retribution. The reality is that folks in executive-level positions will always hold more power, making it more challenging for people to really understand the nuances of your costume.

My suggestion? Find an alternative costume — one that doesn’t require ongoing explanation and one that better matches your organization’s DEI efforts. You can always go with The Black Panther. Chadwick Boseman was one hell of a hero on and off the screen.

To help you prepare for the festivities coming up on the 31st, here is a non-exhaustive list of non-inclusive Halloween costumes to stay away from:

• Day of the Dead/Sugar Skull makeup
• Aladdin
• Caitlin Jenner
• Drag Queen/King if you’re not actively involved in the community
• Anything done in Blackface/Brownface
• A Holocaust victim/survivor
• Sumo suit, body shaming suits
• Moana
• Pocahontas
• A terrorist
• Someone with an eating disorder
• Someone who is mentally ill (ie. wearing a straight jacket)
• Someone with a substance abuse issue
• Domestic violence couple (eg. Ray Rice, Whitney and Bobby)
• An unhoused person
• A sex worker
• The Black Lives Matter moment
• For white folks or white-presenting folks: any character in which their likeness is directly tied to their race/phenotype; ie. Foxy Cleopatra, Aladdin, Mulan, The Obamas, etc.

Not sure why a certain costume is on this list? We have you covered. On October 24th, we’re hosting a 1-hour session titled Celebrating Inclusively: Deconstructing Appropriation. Learn more and register here.

Byline: Written by Vinciane de Pape, DEI Advisory Lead at Bloom

Dear Bloom,

I’m a Senior Recruiter and recently interviewed a candidate who shared that they listen to a controversial podcast — one whose host is notorious for making inflammatory and oppressive remarks about folks from historically marginalized communities, specifically women. That disclosure really struck me, and ultimately, I decided not to move the candidate to the next stage of the interview process because I couldn’t envision them aligning with a company that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. Did I make the right move?

—Unsure About My Decision

Dear Unsure,

We know firsthand that hiring is tough! As a recruiter, you’re working hard to bring more diverse representation to your candidate pool, engage exceptional talent, filter out misalignments, assess competencies, and manage competing timelines. It’s a lot. So when a candidate reveals something that feels like a glaring red flag, it’s natural to want to thank them for their time and keep the process moving forward. And while, at first blush, it may seem like you did the right thing, this particular situation is actually quite complex. Let’s break down why.

A litany of podcasters, creators, influencers, and YouTube personalities have built wildly lucrative careers out of misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and racist rhetoric and commentary. Sometimes it’s positioned as “whataboutisms”; other times, bad-faith Devil’s advocate arguments barely veil their oppressive ideologies.

If you’re screening for culture add in your interviews, it might seem like an obvious misalignment when a candidate shares in conversation that they listen to a podcast that you find perpetuates oppressive behaviours. However, an individual’s interests are not always an accurate predictor of their capacity for demonstrating inclusive behaviours at work and beyond. I’ve personally worked with folks who listen to the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros of the world and, yet, they were some of the most vocal workplace allies and advocates of DEI. (Yes, the cognitive dissonance is astounding, but people contain multitudes.)

Instead of using an unreliable proxy (like the podcasts a candidate enjoys), here are some behaviour-based interview questions that better assess an individual’s commitment to anti-oppressive behaviours and inclusion at work.

• Tell me about what you’ve done to create an inclusive culture in the past.
• Tell me about a time you went out of your way or had to be creative about including others.
• Tell me about a time when you witnessed exclusionary behaviour and how you handled that situation.
• How do you model inclusion in your leadership or management style?
• How do you demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion at work?

These are questions that interviewers should ask every candidate and should be part of a structured and standardized interview process. Using a standardized set of interview questions (the same set of questions, asked in the same order to every candidate) is a great way to mitigate biases that can so easily creep into the hiring process.

Part of mitigating bias also means critically examining which questions we ask candidates. I don’t have any context around how it came up in the interview that the candidate listens to a controversial podcast, but there are two likely scenarios.

In the first, the interviewer perhaps asked something like, “What are you reading or listening to right now?” or “What are your interests outside of work?”. While these are seemingly innocuous get-to-know-you questions, they can invite many common hiring biases, like affinity bias, similarity attraction bias, or halo/horn bias. These biases can perpetuate inequities that disproportionately impact candidates from historically marginalized communities, further exacerbating barriers to career advancement and economic opportunity. Additionally, get-to-know-you questions (including “Life Story” questions that require candidates to disclose sometimes deeply personal life experiences) do not provide any tangible insight into the candidate’s on-the-job performance. At Bloom, we strongly recommend only asking questions that will help the interviewer accurately assess core competencies. That way, you can compare candidates’ skills and strengths more accurately against one another and make data-informed decisions.

In the second scenario, the candidate divulged this information unsolicited without prompting from the interviewer. This would have been an opportunity for the interviewer to approach the situation with curiosity and probe deeper. I would have liked to know, “What initially drew you to that podcast? And what do you find interesting about it?”. The candidate’s answer would likely confirm or assuage any cropped-up concerns. If they’re drawn to controversial figures because they espouse the same oppressive beliefs, well then… you’ve got your answer. If, on the other hand, they find the podcast interesting because it’s an exercise in critical thinking to try to parse out potential nuggets of wisdom, or they actively seek out perspectives from the “other side”, then the situation is a little different. I, myself, have gotten sucked down the rabbit hole of consuming content inconsistent with my values out of sheer fascination and curiosity. I can absolutely understand why someone might find it interesting, and I can also recognize that it’s not always indicative of how someone will treat others.

All of that being said, the fact that the candidate felt comfortable sharing that they listen to a controversial podcast in an interview may in and of itself be concerning. This disclosure, especially if unprompted, could indicate both a lack of self-awareness and a lack of critical thinking. It is very risky, and certainly not advisable, to share during an interview a personal interest that could be interpreted as holding or defending oppressive beliefs. A recruiter or hiring manager would understandably view this as a liability.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with the strawman argument that is often positioned as “If we’re evaluating two identical candidates…” (because we know that no two candidates will ever be identical and all candidates come with strengths and weaknesses), the possibility of a candidate wreaking havoc on an organization’s culture is a very real consideration to weigh. It’s cause for concern and worth investigating but should always be done with care and intention.

To answer your question, Unsure, I would encourage you to approach the situation differently next time. The knee-jerk reaction to not hire a candidate when they might hold oppressive beliefs is a natural one. My more nuanced (and perhaps, unpopular) advice is to approach situations like this with less binary thinking and more intention in the future. I recommend you use a standardized set of interview questions, using only questions that assess required competencies and avoiding ones that could invite bias. For an organization that values diversity, equity, and inclusion, I would also make sure to ask interview questions that directly assess a candidate’s capacity for demonstrating inclusive behaviour at work. This is critical when assessing candidates for roles where they will be managing others. Lastly, I encourage you to lean into curiosity when something feels like a red flag and reserve judgment until you fully evaluate the situation. Your initial gut feeling may have been right, but gathering data to support (or refute!) your hypothesis is a more fair, ethical, and equitable way to approach your judgments next time.

If you’re interested in learning more about equitable and inclusive recruiting, interviewing, and hiring practices, we’ve designed a context-specific DEI learning experience for Recruiters and Hiring Managers just like you. Check out our Recruiter Track at Bloom Academy here.

Centring the Voices of Trans, Disabled, and Racialized Women

Byline: Written by Jessica Regan, Sr. DEI Advisor at Bloom

Women’s Equality Day celebrates the signing of the 19th Amendment on August 26, 1920, a proclamation giving women the right to vote in the United States. However, this amendment really only benefitted white, non-disabled, cisgender women. The early suffragist movement was led by liberal — but often racist — white women who were passionate about equality for some but not for all.

While we Canadians (often smugly) like to believe we are more progressive than our American counterparts, please remember that Indigenous women and Two Spirit folks only gained their right to vote in 1960. Our own suffragist leaders, the Famous Five, also held deeply racist and xenophobic beliefs. So Canadians, as you read on, we encourage you to stay curious and critical of our own history.

Women’s Equality and its racist roots

The lack of intersectionality in the feminist movement has hundred-year-old roots. Often lauded as feminist heroes, suffragist leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony held demonstrably anti-Black, racist, and xenophobic beliefs when the 15th Amendment (the right for African American men to vote) was passed. Here they are in their own words:

“It will be more dangerous for Black men if they can vote and women cannot because women will resent them and they might face more violence, especially in the South.”

This excerpt is pulled from Stanton’s book Manhood Sufferage, co-written by Parker Pillsburt and edited by Susan B. Anthony. The sentiments shared in this book were often used as a tool to justify the lynching of Black men across the country, as well as xenophobic beliefs against Irish, German, and Chinese immigrants.

How did racism shape the suffrage movement?

It’s difficult to separate racism from the First Wave Feminist Movement. The suffrage movement consistently excluded racialized women from the pursuit of equality and centred instead the needs of middle-class white women. As this NY Times article notes, “Historians are rightly warning groups involved in suffrage commemorations not to overstate the significance of the 19th Amendment. It covered the needs of middle-class white women quite nicely. But it meant very little to black women in the South, where most lived at the time and where election officials were well-practiced in the art of obstructing black access to the ballot box. As African-American women streamed in to register, Southern officials merely stepped up the level of fraud and intimidation.”

Many suffragists actively chose to distance themselves from Black women suffragists out of fear of losing support in their Southern communities. White Northern suffragists regularly refused to join forces with Black women suffragists out of “fear of losing their Southern base.” This excuse was a tool that allowed white women to distance themselves from acknowledging the uniquely marginalizing experiences that racialized women faced in America, particularly Black and Indigenous women. In one especially egregious example, Black women were asked to march at the back during the 1913 suffragist parade in New York.

The suffrage movement not only intentionally excluded racialized women, but also benefited from their labour. Chinese suffragist Dr. Mabel Ping-Hua Lee worked tirelessly to mobilize the Chinese community in America to support women’s right to vote, despite knowing she wouldn’t be able to vote after the 19th Amendment was passed. Due to the Chinese Exclusionary laws, Chinese women were not given the vote until 1943 after the passing of the Magnuson Act.

Representation during Second, Third, and Fourth Wave Feminist Movements

While slow progress has been made, many of the same exclusionary dynamics have been perpetuated during subsequent waves of the feminist movement. White middle-class women have historically led the pursuit for gender equality, and while gender equality is a central tenet in feminist ideology, the unique experiences of trans, disabled, and racialized women are often sidelined. The 2017 Women’s March on Washington — organized as a reaction and protest to Donald Trump’s presidential election — is a prime example of this. This event centred the needs of white, cis, non-disabled liberal women and certainly did not do enough to cultivate an equitable and inclusive space for racialized women, trans women, and disabled women to share their stories and experiences. There is irony in the fact that the 2017 Women’s March was overwhelmingly attended by white women. Let’s not forget that many American white women voted for Trump and both American and Canadian white women continue to vote for conservative politicians who actively work to undermine core issues that affect all women.

The future of Women’s Equality

Critically examining the roots of the feminist movement can help us to identify profound ways in which we can dismantle ableism, white supremacy, and transphobia within our current culture and the current feminist landscape. As Frances Ryan states, “Disabled women’s experiences reflect the bigger picture of what it is to be a woman in this society — and, in their own right, tell us about other women who also matter.”

From women’s marches to employee resource groups, too often the voices and experiences of trans, disabled, and racialized women are ignored or outright silenced. When they are acknowledged, the nuances of these intersecting identities are rarely understood to the depth required to make meaningful change. Don’t get us wrong, the women’s equality movement is getting there, but we have a lot of work to do.

Since coining the term in 1989, Kimberle Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality is now widely regarded as a core tenet within the feminist movement, and many feminists and womanists are shifting their perspectives on what it truly means to embody women’s equality. In the spirit of this, here are three things to consider on Women’s Equality Day.

1. Trans women are women. If you are not already including trans women in your Women’s Equality Day messaging, your women’s ERGs, or Women’s History Month celebrations, let this be a gentle reminder to do so. Creating trans-inclusive workplaces goes beyond your standard DEI training. It isn’t enough to work to understand the trans experience — creating truly affirming workplaces means building policies and practices that mitigate transphobia and that foster a genuine sense of inclusion. Challenging legacy ways of working and implementing change right at the systems level is a powerful way to do just that. For example, adopting basic gender-neutral dress codes, creating a culture that encourages pronoun sharing, and creating trans-inclusive employee health care benefits packages.
2. Include women with disabilities. According to Lean In and McKinsey, one in ten working women has a disability. While many organizations have started the conversation about racialized women’s experiences at work, support for women with disabilities seems to be lagging. That lag has real-world consequences, especially as it relates to compensation. Discussions about the wage gap need to include women with disabilities. In 2016, an American Association of University Women report found that people with disabilities made only 68 cents for every dollar non-disabled people earned. If your organization hopes to discuss wage transparency and equal pay, it must also include the experiences of disabled folks.
   * Note: You may have noticed that we use both person-first language (for example, “women with disabilities”) and identity-first language (for example, “disabled women”). This is intentional. We do this because communities are not a monolith. While some folks with disabilities prefer people-first language that centers their personhood rather than their diagnosis/disability, others strongly feel that their diagnosis/disability is a core part of their identity and should be given more focus. Using these terms interchangeably holds space for all experiences within the disability community. To learn more, check out this article.
3. Include immigrant women. The compounding effects of racism, colonialism, and xenophobia create unique and overlapping barriers for women at work. From “You speak English very well” comments to the everlasting “Where are you really from?” question, these behaviours provide specific messaging to immigrant women at work. In a workplace environment historically designed for cishet white men, immigrant women of colour frequently receive the message that they don’t belong. Professional competency is often tied to one’s ability to assimilate or mask into the dominant culture — one that rewards whiteness (or proximity to it); sets English as the standard; expects Western notions of professionalism; and perpetuates the model minority myth. It sets immigrant women up for failure and sometimes even violence. (PS. If you aren’t sure what the model minority myth is and how it affects Asian women, read this article by Agnes Tseng, career coach and Senior People Ops Advisor at Bloom.)

If your organization is interested in learning more about the unique intersections of racialized women’s experiences at work, get in touch with us and ask about our session titled Exploring the Intersections of Women, Race, and Work.

On May 27, 2021, the remains of over 200 children were discovered on Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation Indian Residential School grounds, situated in Kamloops, BC. Over a year later, that number has risen: the remains of between 5,000 and 10,000+ Indigenous children have been reported in unmarked graves across so-called “Canada.” If we reflect on the ongoing discovery of these unmarked graves, the broken promises of reconciliation from the Canadian government, and the whitewashing of Canada’s history (ie. the near erasure of any mention of the enslavement of Black and Indigenous folks, as well as racist practices such as the Chinese Head Tax, just to name a few), it’s not surprising that many organizations are opting out of celebrating Canada Day.

At Bloom, rather than recognizing Canada Day, we’re choosing to pause our celebrations to focus on reconciliation, and we encourage other organizations to do the same. For some, Canada Day is for pride and patriotism. But this begs the question: What could be more patriotic than making this a better country for all? If your organization has decided to join us in pausing Canada Day festivities and you’re looking for alternative ways to acknowledge July 1st, here are a few suggestions:

1. Instead of celebrating Canada Day, celebrate and centre Indigenous voices. To ensure you’re doing this with intention, it may be worth considering:
2. What decolonization work has your organization engaged in to prepare for this? Do you know how to honour Indigenous stories and experiences with integrity and consent?
3. Is your organization committed to listening to Indigenous voices all year long? What actions is your organization engaging in to avoid performative allyship?
4. If your organization is discussing the impact of the residential school system, please provide a link to The Indian Residential Schools Crisis Line for IRSS survivors and their families to access support.
5. Encourage team members to learn more about the land they’re on and to research accurate land acknowledgements for where they live. (Tip: You can level up your land acknowledgment by sharing specific languages and treaties tied to your territory or region.)
6. If your organization participates in Orange T-Shirt Day, or you choose to wear an orange shirt on July 1st in solidarity with Indigenous folks, be sure buy an orange shirt from an Indigenous business, not a big box store. Support local Indigenous businesses!
7. The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is just around the corner, so prepare in advance. Avoid being reactionary and refer to the TRC Calls to Action for best practices to help ground you in your reconciliation efforts. If you’re looking for some additional support, our article here can serve as a guide.
8. Lastly: Ask yourself, what decolonization work has your organization engaged in? If the answer is not much, start today.

And for those who choose to celebrate Canada Day, we hope you dedicate the time to recognizing the land you’re on and acknowledging the work this country still has to do to be “True North Strong and Free” — which means free for everyone.

Article was written by: Jessica Regan (Sr. DEI Advisor, Bloom) and Vinciane De Pape (Lead, DEI Advisory)

Byline: Written by Jessica Regan, Sr. DEI Advisor at Bloom

Slavery may have legally ended in 1863 in the United States, but it wasn’t until 1865 that federal troops actually ended slavery in Texas, the last state to hold out. That day — June 19th, 1865, or “Juneteenth” for short — became a day for Black folks to celebrate not only the end of slavery but a reminder that the Proclamation alone was not enough; it took action to make the Proclamation real.

In response to the murder of George Floyd, the US government has finally acknowledged Juneteenth as a federal holiday, even though this holiday has been collectively celebrated by Black folks for over a hundred years. This day provides an opportunity for reflection, activism, and collective healing. However, like Pride month, it has been co-opted by folks who aren’t aligned with the cause. Much like the rainbow-washing we observe during Pride month, many corporations want to get in on the celebration, some for genuine reasons and others to boost sales and their brand.

For businesses wanting to take part in Juneteenth, here is a brief history of the day and five things your Black employees might actually want this year.

What is Juneteenth?

Juneteenth (short for “June Nineteenth”) honours the date when federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, in 1865 to take control of the state and free enslaved people. In modern understanding, this historic event also serves to debunk a common misconception that all enslaved Black people were suddenly “free” after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863. While some enslaved people accessed freedom from the Proclamation in 1863, many still experienced bondage for years leading up to Juneteenth in 1865.

Depending on who you spoke with in Texas, the justifications for not adhering to the Emancipation Proclamation varied. Some felt the Proclamation only applied to places under Confederate control and not to slave-holding border states or rebel areas already under Union control. Many other slaveholders knew about the Proclamation, but simply withheld this information from enslaved folks until after crop season so they could benefit from slave labour as long as possible.

It’s also worth noting that this “freedom” granted to Black people from the Proclamation was made a farce time and again. The 19th and early 20th-century history of Black Americans is littered with broken promises of land to help people start a new life, Jim Crow laws that forced segregation, and later mass incarceration and police brutality.

What does Juneteenth mean for workplaces?

On June 17, 2021, Juneteenth officially became a federal holiday in the United States.

While many government agencies were closed to honour this day, other businesses and not-for-profit organizations remained open.

Some prominent examples include Nike, which observed Juneteenth by actually closing their retail establishments. Other companies like Starbucks remained open and folks who worked received extra pay. But some tech giants, like Google, maintained regular working hours and stated they’re “recognizing” Juneteenth by hosting a virtual two-hour event celebrating Black culture and storytelling. Google did not give employees the day off but instead encouraged folks to cancel their meetings (which doesn’t feel much like a genuine observance of the holiday, if you want my opinion).

Other corporations took a decidedly different route. AT&T, for instance, told people to take a vacation day if they wanted to celebrate Juneteenth. An IKEA location in Atlanta chose to serve fried chicken, watermelon, mac and cheese and collard greens for their lunch menu, rather than traditional Swedish fare, ostensibly to show solidarity with the Black community. And then there’s Tesla. After a number of folks had already started their shifts on Juneteenth in 2020, Tesla sent a message to their employees stating that they could take the day off… but it would be unpaid.

As a Black person, all of the above sounds like a very emotionally draining work day, not a day of celebration or rest. So, where does this leave us?

Creating equitable and inclusive vacation days can be challenging, especially when people have good intentions (and, despite some of the flops, I do believe most people had good intentions to start).

Last year, the collective team at Bloom observed many things Black folks didn’t love about how corporations approached this federal holiday. Here are some of the major takeaways we gathered from our initial observations — and some tips for any businesses looking to authentically honour Juneteenth in 2022 and beyond.

5 more authentic ways to celebrate Juneteenth

1. Keep consumerism and capitalism out of our holiday

The Transatlantic Slave Trade was not only rooted in racism and dehumanization but also in capitalism. Therefore, when corporations try to capitalize on Black trauma, it feels extra disrespectful. The liberation of enslaved folks doesn’t need to be rebranded and put onto party favours or made into an ice cream flavour. If you choose to host an event this Juneteenth, such as a company-wide BBQ, please don’t purchase cringy Juneteenth plates and napkins (like these ones that say “it’s the freedom for me” on them).

2. Give folks space today.

Black folks are bombarded with performative discussions around anti-racism or allyship. Being forced to discuss your oppression (or even explain it) is exhausting. Aday of no meetings is great, but Black people (often Black women) still have to bear the brunt of educating their colleagues on why we need this holiday. Besides, you can have days with no meetings any week of the year (no-meeting days are actually shown to increase productivity!).

3. Don’t make Black folks do all the work

Unfortunately, the responsibility of anti-racism initiatives usually falls on the shoulders of Black and other racialized folks at work. Non-Black folks need to leverage their privilege, join the conversation, and prioritize anti-racist practices. We’re not saying that only non-Black folks should be working to dismantle oppressive organizational systems, but rather that the burden of developing these initiatives shouldn’t fall only on Black folks.

Further, contributions to broader anti-racism or DEI initiatives should be considered as part of people’s performance evaluations (and their additional time and labour towards these initiatives should be compensated).

4. Make anti-racism training a year-long commitment

When organizations choose guest speakers who share their experiences with anti-Black racism without providing things like content and trigger warnings or actionable takeaways and skills to practice at work, Black folks often leave these experiences feeling triggered, emotionally exhausted, or with a sense of hypervigilance and stress.

After these types of sessions, non-Black folks are often left with the feelings of “now what?”. This is a valid feeling for any training session that is heavily emotional and gives no takeaways. The problem is that non-Black folks tend to follow up with their Black colleagues for guidance. Comprehensive anti-racism training led by professionals who understand workplace-specific contexts can help prevent that. And remember, anti-Black racism training is important year-round, not just during Black History Month or to honour Juneteenth.

5. Be Transparent

Acknowledge any of your organization’s past anti-Black transgressions and commit to doing better. Unsure where to start? Research your history. Does your organization have any ties to oppressive roots such as the slave trade or has it used racist stereotypes in marketing?

Here are two examples of prominent companies doing just this:

• Aunt Jemima: The famous pancake and syrup brand heavily relied on stereotypes around Black domestic kitchen service (always performed by women) to imply food quality and home comfort. It wasn’t until 2020 that the company publicly acknowledged its racist past and rebranded to Pearl Milling Company.
• Harvard University: The university publicly shared its own legacy of slavery and was transparent about how the school was built upon the backs of enslaved folks. The ensuing report also offered seven recommendations to guide the university’s journey toward reconciliation and repairing the damage done.

Bonus

Leave AAVE (African American Vernacular English) out of your Juneteenth messaging. When people try to honour Black heritage, liberation, and history, they often miss the mark by confusing appropriation with celebration. There is power in recognizing Black liberation without the misuse of Black culture and language systems.

This means dropping the “yasss sis” and the “it’s the freedom for me” types of language.

PS: Juneteenth is an American holiday — Canadians, we have Emancipation Day

On March 24, 2021, Canada’s House of Commons voted to designate August 1st as Emancipation Day.

The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 ended slavery in the British Empire on August 1st, 1834. This act started the process toward freedom for over 800,000 enslaved Africans and their descendants in parts of Canada, the Caribbean, Africa, and South America.

Unfortunately, like Juneteenth, this Act only resulted in partial liberation. The Slavery Abolition Act only freed children under six, meaning many children were forced to continue serving their former owners for four to six years as apprentices. That said, the Act confirmed Canada as a free territory for enslaved African Americans. After this, thousands of African Americans migrated to Canada between 1834 and the early 1860s.

So while many American companies with offices in Canada might celebrate Juneteenth, Canadian companies can — and should — celebrate Emancipation Day on August 1st.

Interested in learning more about Canada’s history of enslavement and anti-Black racism? Bloom has specific training that discusses Canada’s unique relationship with anti-Blackness, enslavement, and reconciliation. Learn more here.

What Bloom is doing to honour Juneteenth

Bloom’s Right to Rest Policy

When folks from historically marginalized communities have to show up at work and participate in half-baked “celebrations” (such as guest speakers that don’t provide trigger warnings), folks often leave feeling triggered, tokenized, or exhausted. This is the opposite feeling folks should have when honouring their communities. We want our team members to feel liberated and rested. In response, Bloom has created a new policy to honour events such as Juneteenth, Pride, or Asian Heritage Month with intention and sustainability in mind. Instead of a guest speaker series, Bloom is giving folks time back into their calendars to take care of themselves. Bloom’s Right to Rest Policy means once a month, team members at Bloom can block off one hour of paid rest time to do whatever they want, as long as it isn’t work-related. This means one paid hour per month to invest in rest, whether that be booking a massage, taking a nap, or engaging in any other kind of healing or reinvigorating activity.