Month: January 2024

One of the many challenges Canadian executives are facing in responding to the conflict is a pronounced generational divide within their organizations. Many younger employees see Israeli and Palestinian issues as an extension of the battle against colonialism, or for indigenous rights at home. This is a particular concern for universities, hospitals and other third-sector organizations.

Linda Franklin is board chair for the William Osler Health Centre serving Brampton and surrounding communities west of Toronto, and past president of Colleges Ontario. We started our conversation discussing what’s behind this generational divide in post-secondary institutions.

Linda Franklin: There are a number of things going on.

I do think, and focus groups show this, very few members of younger generations know a lot about the history of Israel. They all got taught some basic World War Two history, and that included some references to the Holocaust. But beyond that, if you ask them to tell you anything about how things started with the Israeli state, with Gaza, the Arab Israeli War, none of those things are in their minds at all.

And so their starting point, it seems, is much further along in history – and starts around the time of the Israeli push into the West Bank with settlements.

Chris Hall: What do you conclude from that?

LF: I think folks in our generation have an easier time contextualizing what’s going on there in the fullness of history than our children do. Part of what that creates, I think, is a willingness (by the younger generations) to use language like “apartheid state” and “genocide” when describing Israeli actions. All sorts of language that I don’t think would ever cross our minds to use. I think we understand the triggers in Israel and among the Jewish population worldwide.

I don’t think our sons and daughters get that at all.

CH: Is it possible they also come at it from a different point of view than older Canadians because of their experiences around issues such as colonization and how indigenous people have been treated?

LF: Absolutely. I think that’s true.

But I do think that there’s some framing of this issue, around apartheid, around colonization, and more current issues of racism and exclusion that, for them, frames this issue in a way that it just doesn’t for us.

CH: How should academic leaders and others respond to what is coming out around this conflict from students in particular?

LF: Yeah, it’s a really hard question to answer.

I raised the University of Chicago Protocol because, quite some time ago, the university just basically said, “We are focused on our academic mission. We are not an institution that has a role in taking positions on political issues and we will never do that.”

So that has shielded that institution quite a bit. And because they were so clear, so early on, they have been spending a lot of time advising institutions in the States, and some here, around how you go about doing that.

Now the problem I think in the immediate case is it’s tough because a lot of these institutions went out with messages on Ukraine, right? And so, for the students, there’s a real disconnect between how you can be so clear on Ukraine and then stay silent on what’s happening in Gaza.

I think there’s a moment in time after this issue when institutions might want to rethink whether or not they follow a version of the University of Chicago Protocol and just say going forward, “we are not going to be commenting on political issues, however challenging or relevant they are in society at large so that we can focus on our academic mission.” Because I think you see a real problem emerging for the institutions that have gone out with messages. Nothing is enough, right?

It’s the same, frankly, in the hospital system. We have Palestinian doctors. We have Israeli doctors. We have people who treat patients who are both Palestinian and Israeli and we’ve had arguments in operating rooms.

People feel very passionately about this. Our hospitals put out three statements while I was away on vacation, none of them really did the job.

Now we’ve caught ourselves in the middle of this.

And so I think the Chicago Protocol is a better longer-term strategy. Do you really want to be an institution who every time something happens in the world, has to say something?

CH: What you’re saying I think applies as well to corporations. One of the things that’s emerging is the importance of listening with empathy and the importance of providing a safe space for people to express their views on this very difficult and complicated topic. To know they’ve been heard. I know you’ve talked about strategies for down the road, but if you’re looking today at the conflict, it’s clear it’s not going to end tomorrow. What advice do you have?

LF: I think a lot is going to depend on what the institutions feel their role in society is. So, there’s one way of looking at it that says yes: provide a safe space and let people say what they need to say and be empathetic about it. But I think if you’re doing that, you end up with a lot of one-sided dialogues.

There’s been no way to bring the two groups together, so I do think that there’s some need to think about our university spaces for open and honest dialogue about difficult subjects, where we have a significant disagreement and where we structure conversations to ensure people don’t feel unsafe.

Can you have forums where moderators engage people with different points of views successfully, and challenge viewpoints? Not in a hostile way and not in a way that leaves everybody in the room feeling more vulnerable? And that’s tough to do on this issue.

CH: What pressure is on leaders to manage the expectations of a younger generation that feels as passionately as they do about this issue while staying true to corporate values?

LF: I think it’s an important question to address because I think these sorts of issues, if you let them run in the institution, don’t stop there.

The world has become a very challenging place and I think everything leads to something else.

I do think it’s incumbent on the institutions to try to figure out how to manage, not just this issue, but these large issues going forward, with integrity.

It’s also why I keep coming back to the Chicago model because I think you’re never going to know what’s around the corner. If you are constantly distracted by issues that aren’t part of your core mission, but for which you’ve created expectations of response around – then you’re in trouble. The fact is you’re never going to have unanimity of views on these tough issues amongst all students, faculty, administration, and donors. So, wading in feels like a lose-lose proposition, to be honest.

Nitin Jain is the president and CEO of Sienna Senior Living. He and Nancy Webb, the company’s senior vice-president of public affairs, spoke to Navigator about his corporate statement to both staff and residents, and why he decided to post the statement (below) to LinkedIn.

Today, I shared an important message of support with team members at Sienna Senior Living around the conflict in Israel and Palestine. I want to extend it to everyone. The Jewish community has been impacted by the atrocities of the Hamas attack, and now people in both regions are suffering from the violence. The images and daily reports of people killed and injured are heartbreaking. No one has been spared, from children to seniors; many innocent lives have been lost.

We are now seeing a heightened level of threat for Jewish people around the world. That fear has crossed all borders, impacting Sienna’s homes, teams, friends, and families. As Canadians, it is our responsibility to uphold our fundamental values and safeguard the essence of our nation, which is nurtured by tolerance, peace, and multiculturalism.

The conflict in the Middle East is complex and deeply personal for many. But at this time, the focus must be on those who are suffering. We must keep the innocent, both Israelis and Palestinians, at the forefront of our hearts and minds.

Nitin Jain, LinkedIn

Chris Hall: Let me start by asking you what discussions you had internally, with respect to how and whether Sienna should issue a statement about the Hamas-Israel conflict.

Nitin Jain: A little bit of context here might be helpful on our approach in general. We had been in the news quite a bit, and unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons, when I initially came into the CEO job. We spent a lot of time thinking about how to interact with media. And where we got is: if you don’t have anything good to say and you cannot show it, don’t talk about it. So, we have taken that approach. And when our reputation improved we would, at times, start talking about things which were in the news. And we went a step further and said we will only do that, if it is meaningful to one of our important stakeholders.

And so, the discussion we had was, why should we comment on it because I am not, and Sienna is not, an expert in what’s happening in the region and because there’s so many ways people can interpret it.

But it was also a place where I felt pressure to make a comment because every day people were saying, “Why is no one saying anything?” No one said it to me personally. But you know, I’m part of a few chat groups of other CEOs and there was this view that we are leaving this topic unsaid. Much of this sentiment was coming, for the most part, from people of the Jewish belief. So that was at the back of our minds.

We also run an all-Jewish retirement home called Kensington Place, where we’ve had to place guards. When things started to escalate, we were thinking we have to be careful, we don’t want to make ourselves a target. So, we had a lot of conversations on whether we should speak on it or not. And the determination was: we want to speak to it because it’s important to our team members, we have team members who are Jewish, and we have team members who have families in Israel, and we have team members who are of Muslim descent and who have ties to Palestine. We felt it was important for us to have a point of view.

CH: When you were deciding what to say how did you decide to make people who are suffering the focus?

NJ: I think that’s, again, why I wanted to give you a bit of context. As a company, we have shareholders, we have team members, and we have residents. But, at Sienna, we made a strategic decision that the people we can serve are actually our team members too. And we made it a clear strategic priority that everything hinges on our team members. The reason why we decided to focus on people who are suffering was because we really thought of our team members, that was the view that we have, we have families who are impacted by it… and that’s why it was important to share the memo with you, our LinkedIn post was basically a replica of our employee memo or pretty close to it.

Nancy Webb: I’ll build on what Nitin was just saying. We have four values. One of them talks about creating community, meaning celebrating diversity and building relationships. And another one is about demonstrating caring and engaging with empathy and understanding. So, as we were debating, it came back to our values in terms of creating community and demonstrating caring, those grounded us. But the other side of the conversation, and Nitin talked about this, we have some communities that are in the Jewish community and serve the Jewish community and are very high profile.

So we also must take into consideration making sure we weren’t attracting attention that put anybody at risk. And so, the debate was not whether it is right or wrong to provide those messages externally. The debate was, do we understand the consequences of this for the safety of our team members, our residents, their families, etc. That was really the conversation that happened.

And then to Nitin’s point, the first thing, the first conversation, the first message was to our team members, that was important. I think it was extremely appreciated and well received.

NJ: Yeah, that’s the piece that really jumped out to us. We focus a lot on communications. I send something out every month or so, and you will get two or three team members who will say that was a good message. Thank you for highlighting me. But, in this case, it was much higher.

And it wasn’t simply “thank you for talking about it”. It was heartfelt. I don’t know how to describe it, but it felt like giving water to a plant that was ready to die. That’s the feeling that we got from some team members. We just had a leadership conference, and I ran into one of our leaders, and she told me that she is in Elmira, Ontario. She said, I’m the only Jewish person in our community, the closest synagogue is 100 kilometers away and yours was the only message of support I got. I don’t have any family here.

CH: As you look at this conflict, clearly, there’s not an immediate end in sight. And there will be more suffering, as you so eloquently noted in your statement. What should CEOs, and other leaders for that matter, consider when they’re deciding whether they should speak out publicly about global events?

NJ: I think for us, the view is (when) we have a point of view which is valid. Let’s assume for a second, you comment on an issue you are not personally impacted by and don’t have any expertise on. I think at that point, you’re getting on a high horse, and that’s useless. I’ll give you an example, a level further. There are topics which are important to others that I don’t talk about because I’m not an expert in it and it’s not personal to me.

I talk a lot about immigration, I talk about a lot of diversity and team members, because those are personal to me, I can relate to it. It’s authentic. I’m not copying and pasting from the Globe and Mail or some other headlines. I think a lot of CEOs do get in trouble when they say things which they have nothing to do with. Everyone has an opposite point of view on many things, and I think that can put you and your company in a lot of peril in these situations.

And frankly, as CEOs, you know, I read this, which really struck me and was a very sobering thing. It was a survey of CEOs. And one of those CEOs said, “I realized I don’t belong to myself anymore,” which was a very humbling thing when I read it. I read it around six weeks back, and it has changed me, how I think of myself because you always struggle (with) well I want to say this, and then the note basically said, Well, too bad because, for lack of a better word, you have given up those rights. Because what you do is going to represent the company. So I think it has to line up with that.

CH: Is it important for companies like yours to have, if not a corporate policy, at least an unofficial policy, about how you address these kinds of complicated, deeply held issues, or issues around which your employees and stakeholders have deeply held views?

NJ: You know, you’ve raised the question, Chris, which is did you talk to your team members about it? Yes, but it’s not a democracy, it’s not a consensus, you’re not trying to get everyone to agree on a statement. So, for anything like this, Nancy and I will talk about it. We usually don’t talk to the head of HR for a public statement like this. But in this case, she was deeply involved in helping to draft it. So, I think that becomes a key thing. And because all of us have our own biases, and I think, again, going back to talking about CEOs, you don’t really belong to yourself. If you start putting out your own opinion, you can get in serious trouble. And I think that’s why it has to be the voice of the organization, not yours.

NW: I’ll add to that. It’s always easier, and frankly, safer, not to speak out. But that’s not necessarily the right thing to do. And that’s why the conversations that Nitin is talking about, are so important. I think if Nitin had said we’re going to take a political stance, I would have said, “You’re crazy, you can’t do that.” Right. But the words we used, the approach we used, was about standing up for the difference between right and wrong. And the impact it has on our own team members and the people we serve our communities. That’s quite different.

So, my cautions were around more security and safety, not should we stand up for right or wrong. I would also just say that each time you go through something like this, there’s no two situations that are the same. You learn and grow, as a company, from it. You really do learn and grow. And I think that’s as important as what we’ve said and done.

NJ: I think this posting probably was the highest risk statement that we have posted publicly. I think there were more chances of blowback, because I think it’s one of those things that’s the right thing to do. But if you get it wrong, I think this is one that people will not forgive you for.

CH: What has the feedback been?

NJ: The feedback from our team members has been positive at a personal level. Even on LinkedIn, usually you get a list of people who comment on it who are our team members. But we received comments from people across our networks. The comments have been, “thank you for speaking up because others have not”. Those were sobering comments. They underlined that this is one of those things that people are really struggling with.

Geoff Smith is the executive chairman of EllisDon. The Mississauga-based firm provides construction and related services on projects around the world including the Middle East and North Africa.

Chris Hall: Over your years with EllisDon, have you put together a policy about when and how to respond to international incidents that might have an impact on your company?

Geoff Smith: No. We do not have a policy on that. We do have policies around inclusiveness and diversity where I would tell you I’m very proud of what we’re doing, and I think we’ve been an industry leader.

We have very clear policies and a clear statement of values on how we treat people, about what we stand for, but literally until October the 7th, it never occurred to us that we would need a policy around those issues that you’re talking about.

We have discussed in this company — I don’t want to say a 50,000-foot level, but let’s say a 1,000 foot level — that we welcome everybody and we will not tolerate a lack of accommodation, a lack of a deep attempt by everybody to understand each other and to take the time to work with each other.

I think we did a reasonably good job of it, generally. But that’s it.

This industry has a racism problem at large and it’s an anti-black racism specifically, although we have anti-Asian and anti-women prejudice too. EllisDon has been working really hard on this front and we’ve let the employees define what those policies are and what we need to do. I don’t tell them what we’re doing. They tell me what I need to do. We work very hard on it.

But to your question on what’s going on in Gaza right now and what happened on October the 7th, the answer is we never had a policy around that kind of thing.

CH: So what kind of input did you get from people? Because you are present in Muslim countries. Did you have a discussion with your senior staff or your employees about how to respond to this conflict?

GS: We had a conversation with our senior management team, which is about 40 people, and which obviously includes the CEO.

We did talk about it, but we talked about it in terms of, until we think we better do something different, let’s just keep talking about the things we believe in, which is inclusiveness, which is universal tolerance.

I wasn’t there because I’m not the CEO anymore, but it was important for the new CEO to be there.

We’ve also taken steps around mental health, which goes beyond these issues, but the mental health challenges are very acute in construction. We’ve taken real steps around how we provide assistance to our employees, from places to go, to where to turn when they’re not feeling well.

So that’s what we’ve done so far.

CH: But was there any concern put forward about saying something on this issue given the operations you have in that part of the world?

GS: No, I mean let me put it this way, I’m not worried about people asking why we’re there.

What I’m more concerned about, within the company here, is any ethnic or religious tensions, because the fact is we’re spread out around many job sites, around many offices, and we are very diverse. That’s what I’m worried about — a lack of tolerance with what is now, obviously, a very inflamed issue in the world and having that inflammatory situation come to EllisDon.

So, we haven’t seen it. We’re watching it. We have talked about whether we should go out with the statement, and I’ve seen a couple of good ones… We just haven’t done it because I don’t want to get it wrong and sometimes, as you know, if you go out with something and you get it wrong, then you took a situation where everybody was pretty calm and cool about this and you created an issue.

Anyway, that’s where we’re sitting right now. We’re just saying it’s OK. We keep talking about our values. We don’t see a problem. If we see one, we’re ready to act.

CH: You mentioned anti-black racism. I remember, I think it was in 2020, when you came out very publicly to condemn whatever or whomever was behind hanging the noose at a couple of your work sites. How was that different? I mean, I know it was local and specific to your company, but how did you approach that in terms of why it was important to speak then?

GS: Let’s be really clear about this. It was neither local — we had nooses in Calgary… we had nooses in Vancouver — nor was it specific to our company. PCL had nooses. The other companies had nooses. It was only EllisDon — and I’m very proud of this but it caused us so much grief — only EllisDon and Daniels who came out and said there are nooses on these job sites, we’re going to do something about it.

There’s a problem in society, but there’s a problem in our industry, and we’re going to stand up and say to everybody there’s a problem and ask what are we going to do about it.

Everybody else, I can tell you, they cut the nooses down and they threw them in the garbage. We told the media there are nooses on our job sites.

We could have hidden them. But I think our employees would have known we’re hiding them and that was the, if anything, the number one thing. How do you say to your black employees, “Yeah, we have a racism (problem), what did we do about it? We cut the nooses down to throw it in the garbage, get back to work.” That’s just unacceptable.

So, for a long time you got the impression that this was an EllisDon problem. It was not. It was EllisDon who said this industry has a problem. We needed to say it publicly and we needed everybody to help fix it.

I’m proud of the way we dealt with it. We went to our employees and said you tell us how to fix it. We’ve got three different employee councils now. One around sexual identity and sexual preference. One around intolerance generally. And one around anti-black racism. These are the three main ones, and they get together and they tell us what to do.

CH: What are the takeaways from this kind of issue for other corporate leaders? I know you speak for your company, but you have dealt with these kinds of issues before when external events required some kind of discussion internally at least. What lessons are there for corporate and other leaders about how to respond to a conflict like this?

GS: Well, I would only give you two answers — and I’ve mentioned both already. One is to get the employees involved in how you respond in an open way. We’re a company of 6,000 salaried employees and obviously we’re not going to hold a plebiscite. But we’re going get the leaders in. We are going to get the leaders of these committees (I mentioned) in within a day. So, speed, right? Speed is key.

Having the employees not just meaningfully involved but openly and obviously involved. It’s allowing them to feel that this is what we stand for, because my fellow employees, who I respect, are on it. I think that’s important.

And just like I said to you, no running and hiding from this stuff. You’re better off if you put it on the front page of The Globe and Mail. That complete openness is one of our five character values. If you have a problem, put it on a billboard beside the 401 and beside the Deerfoot in Calgary. If you do that, you will get the problem solved.

If you take your time and if it comes from the corner office, I just don’t think that works. So, we do many things the other way, but speed is key. That’s what I would say. Openness. Embrace it. Get the employees involved but fucking well do it fast. Do not have an employee meeting next Tuesday.