I am not into the numbers game at all. Diversity interpreted as “race” and “gender” just doesn?t cut it for me. But imagine for a moment the nightmare for those caught up into it? Is it a good or bad thing? ?Well, too bad for them!? some might say. But fact is: if there is any need for redefining Diversity, it?s through the lens of the Return on Investment for the organizations committed to it, by measure of how it directly affects the bottom line, betters the work environment and marketplaces? And I?ve seen this redefining done right very few times, by very few.

It?s true that Diversity in itself is morally right, it remains socially responsible. But it would be na?ve to believe any initiative behind it could carry on endlessly and survive Diversity?s toughest critics just because ?it?s the right thing to do?.

The reaction to this article should not be to bash Monster because they got it wrong on this (after all, aren?t we all learning here, together through this forum?), but instead to pull them back and kindly say: ?WRONG DIRECTION, try the other way?? and encourage continued effort to help recruiters.

I will finish with one example of Diversity done right:
MultiLingualPros.com ? an online Global Diversity Recruitment & Career Resource which helps employers directly tie their Diversity Recruiting efforts to candidates? ability to increase their local reach-out and global access capabilities.
Diversity in this instance is leveraged to get beyond language and cultural barriers between businesses and their customers, vendors and partners, based on the very competencies of truly diverse talents, not a self-serving ?checked box? left for job seekers to interpret and use as they wish?

Diversity with direct applications in the workplace? That is Purposeful Diversity. That is lasting Diversity.

Best,

Mohamed Ly
Executive Director
Head of Return on Diversity? Council
A2Z Lingua International
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Main: 202-517-1641
Fax: 1-202-478-0336
Email: Mohamed.Ly@a2zli.com
Web: http://www.ReturnOnDiversity.com

Diversity recruiting requires an outreach effort. If Monster wants to help its clients reach a truly diverse population they should enable organizations to reach into the communities and social networks where these candidates reside.

There is a great article by Carl Braun of The Inclusiv* Group, a veteran of diversity recruiting (and ERE member) which makes the point, ?Either [organizations] are seriously interested in adding ?cultural competency? to their company and foster an environment where diversity is valued or they are simply trying to dig themselves out of a bureaucratic nightmare created by a culture that has up to this point been ignorant of all things diverse.

The article is entitled Identifying a (Real) Diverse Employer It reveals some of the differences between an organization?s actions that ?indicate? they are a diverse employer and those that prove it.

Yet, I remain puzzled by the white male raised in Japan example. Why make a case for the most privileged political and economic class in the history of the known universe?

Why of course, “HE” is out there. And he will find his way into a good fitting career.

It suggests that Monster.com’s Diversity effort is geared to “using” diversity-speak to promote HOMOGENEITY.

It suggests they are saying “Heavens! Let’s make sure we don’t erode the leverage of the entire controlling political class in the USA (race seen as a political class with real power and benefits of membership not afforded to others) and make some real progress on “Diversity”.”

The article clicks me. To off.