Leaning forward and peering through her windshield, Janine Tamboli tried to see what was holding up traffic. She sighed and sat back. It was no use; she couldn't see a thing. She glanced at the time on her car display and stifled a groan. She didn't want to be late for work.

In her role as the director of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) at Maple Leaf Foods (MLF), Tamboli had a lot on her plate. For instance, before she joined the company six months earlier, the MLF's chief executive officer had announced the goal of having the managerial ranks of MLF reach gender parity. By the end of 2022, half of the workforce at the manager level and above were to be women. In 2017, when the goal was announced, women made up only 36 per cent of managers. Two years later, the needle had moved up to 38 per cent.

Tamboli knew that most people thought that gender parity was an ambitious but achievable goal. It was received positively in the organization for the most part. When the goal was announced, the assumption was that the company simply needed to better support women's career development. In reality, Tamboli knew that hitting that goal would require a great deal of education, awareness raising, and cultural and process change.

Similar to many companies, MLF had many roles that were traditionally dominated by either men or women. This gender difference was especially true for manufacturing and other operational roles, for which more men were typically hired. Few managers moved across functions because of the steep learning curve. Anyone who was moved into a managerial position in a new area would need to learn a whole new function and lead people who already knew the job. That was doubly tough.

While Tamboli knew that the senior leadership was widely supportive of gender equity, she also knew that some had concerns about the initiative. Not everyone thought the goal was a good idea, and Tamboli felt that it was important to also understand that perspective. As she waited for traffic to move, she reviewed some of the different reactions people had expressed about the gender parity goal.

Although they were in the minority, some people viewed the goal as unfair and thought promoting women over men would be bad for business if the women were not as competent. So-called reverse discrimination was a concern, despite the company's clear statement that its primary consideration was to hire the best talent for any role. Naysayers would point to the two women on the senior leadership team as proof thatwomen had plenty of opportunities at MLF. While women overwhelmingly endorsed and welcomed a focus on diversity and inclusiveness, some, especially mid-level managers, were concerned about the potential that they would be perceived as moving up the ladder only to help the company meet the gender parity goal and not because of their capabilities.

Women of colour also had a unique perspective. A few told Tamboli that, while they appreciated the support for equity, they wanted the focus to go beyond gender. Many times, race-based biases were a bigger concern for them. They often hesitated to even raise this concern, as it seemed peevish to complain about any policy aimed at confronting equity issues. Men of colour also wondered how they would be able to move up in the company if the focus was on women. They worried that their odds of promotion, which were lower to start with, had seemingly worsened.

As Tamboli thought about the various employees she had spoken to, the traffic started moving again, and she felt a sense of relief. She needed to get to the office. Reaching gender parity in the managerial ranks would not be easy, and it had raised many opinions. It was clear that she had a lot of work to do.

Questions

1. What is most valued by employees? How does the Maple Leaf Foods goal to have gender equity in the managerial ranks potentially help or hurt all employees?

2. What does Maple Leaf Foods need from employees?

3. How does information flow between the employees and Maple Leaf Foods?