Category: Navigator Black

As we begin to adjust the world of work to the realities of the post-pandemic era, it is critical to recognize that public expectations of businesses have also evolved with the times. From climate change mitigation to social responsibility, citizens expect corporations to articulate a clear view of why they exist and to make decisions about investments and behaviour that are consistent with that mission.

Included in these considerations are decisions about technology: when to use them, how to deploy them and to what end. Of course, the planning and adoption of technology are fundamental to the viability of any business. But technology adoption is not inherently good. Technologies are neither good nor bad – and it is in their use that organizations determine their impact. A purposeful company, therefore, determines the desired outcomes of technology adoption before it makes the investment.

In this thought-provoking new research paper, Dr. Sara Diamond and Dr. Cindy Gordon explore the relationship between technology and corporate purpose, specifically with regards to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). The authors examine why it is so critical that corporate leaders consider the impact of these technologies on their organization as a whole before any decisions on adoption and deployment are made. To guide these processes, they make specific recommendations for board executives and leaders for the effective adoption of AI and ML.

In their expert view, “a purposeful company is skeptical as to whether a new technology or a new use of existing technology is better than current practice. Purpose must look well beyond quarterly profits and instead speak to long-term sustainability and social balance.”

Technologies do not exist in a vacuum. Everything about them – from design to adoption to impacts – is shaped by decisions humans make. Before tackling technological change, therefore, purposeful companies lead by analyzing impacts on their multiple stakeholders and undertaking change in collaboration with communities, users and customers, keeping their investors, shareholders and boards well-informed.

In the end, Diamond and Gordon caution directors to not be swept away by technology for its own sake. Rather, they make a most compelling case that corporate leaders must ensure technology is embedded in a strategy that is genuinely guided by purpose.

The Israel-Hamas war continues to play out in Gaza, complete with searing images of death and destruction. This week the International Court of Justice is hearing arguments brought by South Africa that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

This conflict is entering its fourth month. No end is in sight. And many organizations in Canada continue to wrestle with how to respond. It is clear no single response is possible. No option perfect.

With that in mind, we spoke to four members of the Navigator Black community to discuss how they responded, and to share their insights in weighing how to approach this conflict, both inside and outside their organizations.

Their reflections are captured in the conversations below and offered exclusively to Navigator Black members.

Shelby Austin is the co-founder and CEO of Arteria AI. The Toronto-based firm works with clients around the world in the financial services sector to improve operational efficiency through digital documentation and data management.

In October she joined other Canadian CEO’s in signing an open letter to all levels of government demanding action to curb the rise of antisemitism and islamophobia in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel.

Chris Hall: What is Arteria’s approach to commenting on significant global issues like the Hamas Israel conflict?

Shelby Austin: I suppose typically Arteria doesn’t comment on any issues as an organization. That said, we’re in a little bit of a different position than others because we are, as individuals, sort of synonymous with our organization.

We will choose to publicly comment as individuals, quite often alongside the company name, so it’s almost a distinction without difference.

For example, I signed the Globe and Mail letter as Shelby Austin, but also as the CEO of Arteria which was a clear public statement around the issues in the Israel-Hamas war.

CH: So how did you arrive at that decision to add your name or your signature to the Globe and Mail letter?

SA: I mean, it was just the right thing to do. We have often had good discussions about what is the right role of management in these sorts of situations. And for me, personally, I believe that many people who work with us need to understand our purpose and our values as individuals.

When something happens in the world that we believe we need to speak out on, we’ll often post something that is meaningful, authentic and that reflects our values.

So, in this case, when someone called me and said, would you put your name to this, I gave it a read and thought, well, what could be a better use of my limited amount of influence? I was happy to do it.

CH: Is that the first time you’ve done something like that? To speak out or add your name to a statement on an international or global issue?

SA: No, no. I often, through my LinkedIn, through my Instagram, through any of my social media accounts, will speak out on issues that matter. Again, I’m not necessarily speaking for a corporate body, but when something touches my soul and I am educated about it and it’s meaningful to me, I’ll absolutely comment on it.

There’s no policy of commenting, by the way, no policy to always say something or never say something. It really is a judgment call, particularly if I’m hearing our teams speak about something. And you know, then we’ll often have a discussion.

One of the most unique aspects of Arteria is that we have a culture that we work on together as a company on a weekly basis. It’s quite a unique organizational construct that allows us to have discussions like this.

And really, it’s not that we get every issue right. I mean of course we’re trying to get it right, but the goal is not necessarily to say the “right thing” all the time. The goal is to have authentic discussions with our teams about what they may be feeling in their hearts or carrying with them. We want to make space for people to feel that they can bring their whole selves to work in a really authentic manner.

CH: Was this issue different from others in terms of how your team responded? Do more people who work with you have a connection to that region, have stronger views about Israeli and Palestinian causes than they do about Russia and Ukraine, for example?

SA: No. For us it wasn’t any different. I happen to be proud and Jewish, and people know that about me.

And so I think to some extent there may have been an expectation that this was different for me.

But the truth is I am pretty attuned to what’s going on in the world and often we’ll try and make space for our team.

Our team is very multicultural. It’s overwhelmingly diverse from all walks of life, and that includes different genders, races, religions, etc. So, we don’t come to this as a homogeneous culture. Really, for us, it’s just about being hyper respectful and making space for people to have authentic conversations, because in truth many will say there’s no place in their job or in the boardroom for these sorts of opinions.

I think that people come to work with what’s going on in the world in their heart. To not make space for that, I think, is a critical misstep. Not doing so can be the cause of real risk items for our business, like attrition, like recruitment fees. I mean it’s a business issue in my point of view, to be both diverse and to put our values first.

CH: What kind of feedback did you get? For example, did you expect you might have some people applauding you for being part of the statement, or did you worry that some people would say, look, I don’t think you should have said anything.

SA: Well, I suppose I’m always open to feedback and I don’t always say the right thing, so there’s always a possibility that people will come out and say that was wrong and I was keenly aware that that might be a challenge.

But you know, if you speak from the heart, if you’re really speaking from your own place with respect and great capacity for understanding, I think that that’s an OK outcome because, really what you’re saying is, these are my views. I hold them strongly enough to speak out, and if you disagree, let’s have a conversation because it’s obviously something I felt strong enough about to say something publicly on a whole bunch of different channels.

And, as a result, I’m happy to have conversations or educational moments on any of these issues, whether it’s the Israel-Hamas war or really any item that’s come up, of which there have been many in recent days. Issues where I felt strongly that it was important to share views or to share empathy most of all which is really what we’re trying to do.

CH: Could I come back to your statement that you don’t have a policy for or against speaking out. As you consider this now, is it time to have a policy or are you thinking of having a policy for Arteria about when it’s appropriate to speak out?

SA: Listen, I have worked for very large corporations where there have been many policies.

I think one of the gifts of being below the Dunbar number, below a certain threshold of folks within an organizational structure, is that it’s mostly about providing people space and ensuring, of course, that you’re fulfilling all your legal obligations and all the other various items.

But apart from that, which is a wide berth, I think it’s good for us that we want people to show up in a way that makes sense to them. For us, the more forums the better. The forum we can create to debate and to generate great conversation or great thinking around culture or the future of the company or what’s going on in the world or what’s going on in their families is all positive.

I mean, sometimes people carry things with them that have nothing to do with a war but have to do with having kids at home or a sick parent or, you know, people have a lot going on. We don’t ask people to check their personal lives at the door and that’s important to us.

CH: One of the things that has come up is providing that safe space for people to have a discussion to express how they feel. Did you need to do anything to make sure that people understood there was a safe space at Arteria to be able to do that?

SA: I think the nice thing about starting little and being in our third year is that you kind of know what you’re getting on the way in the door. We wear our hearts on our sleeves.

I think anyone who’s worked with me in organizations large or small will tell you that. My cofounders and I have worked for many, many, many years together. In one case, close to 15 and another close to 10. I mean, the three of us have worked together for an extraordinary long time. We are all visibly diverse and we all just try and let people have space.

People often laugh, but our entire company comes on a call for an hour once a week to talk through things like: is kindness an imperative in the workplace, or should we ask for advice rather than feedback to generate a better sense of value both from the receiver and the giver of that advice? Or are we feeling heavy with what’s going on in the world? I mean, these are all issues that would be considered taboo within larger constructs.

But in our construct, it’s the most natural thing, and it’s really organic and it’s something that we talk about. Significantly, we also ask: how do we maintain this culture as we grow?

One of the benefits or scary parts of being a venture-backed backed company is that you’re always aiming to grow. And as we see a rapid headcount growth, for us, we worry more about how we maintain this breath of fresh air, this true, honest-selves-first policy as we get bigger. You know, at some stage when we’re 500 people or more, maybe we’ll move to a policy approach, but right now we run more like a pirate ship than the Navy. At some point that perhaps changes.

But right now, it’s one of the things that I certainly believe is the secret of our success.

CH: I’m still trying to get a sense of how you align those values you just spoke about. With stakeholders or the venture capitalists, for example, who might have a different viewpoint on you speaking your mind on issues like this?

SA: Listen, I think that they know us very well before they invest, right, these are very, very well-vetted decisions and I think they know that we are clear on who we are and that, one of the most important things about being Arterians as we call ourselves is, you know, having that sense of personal purpose.

That means we don’t all have to agree, because that doesn’t make sense to me. I’d like to think we all agree on certain things like we shouldn’t be antisemites or Islamophobic. Obviously, I hope that’s table stakes.

But I think that if what we’re saying is, we need to make space to ensure that if I am from Iran and the events of the past year have touched me, that I have a place to say that. I come to work with a lot on my plate and I need to have this space for people to recognize that. I’m not just carrying the stress of the work today, I’m carrying this stress of my world, whatever that is.

If we don’t make space for people to bring that into their workplace, to have a recognition that the burdens they’re carrying are not just the ones of the next meeting with a customer, that’s a clear negative.

And I would say we’re careful to not enforce homogeny for sure, but we need to ensure that we are making space for authenticity.

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.