At a time when discussions about equality and diversity in the workplace are gaining momentum, having a pay structure in place has never been more relevant. A comprehensive approach to compensation not only complies with ethical standards, but also serves as a cornerstone for cultivating a positive and inclusive organizational environment.

Engagés discussed this with global compensation consultant Pierre-Yves Legault.

E: What exactly is a salary scale?

PYL: It’s the minimum and maximum salary – and everything in between – that an organization is willing to pay for a group of jobs of similar value.

E: How is this useful? 

PYL: To begin with, pay scales allow us to comply with the law. In Quebec for example, pay equity legislation is already in force, and if the trend continues, pay transparency legislation may be adopted, as is the case in British Columbia. Pay scales are useful tools for meeting these requirements.

On the other hand, having salary scales makes it possible to be objective in determining remuneration, to talk about remuneration and demonstrate transparency, and to satisfy staff by respecting three major principles of salary management: internal equity, external equity, and individual equity.

E: How? 

PYL: In order to set up salary scales that cover all jobs within an organization, you have to take the time to study these jobs in terms of their value to each other, their value on the market, and the individual characteristics of the people who hold them.

E: Let’s talk about setting up salary scales. How do you go about it?

PYL: Here are the main steps in developing salary scales:

• Determine where the organization wishes to position itself in relation to the market in terms of salary and total compensation;
• Describe and compare jobs within the organization;
• Identify the organization’s reference market and collect compensation data for this market;
• Determine the criteria on which to position the organization’s personnel within the salary scales.

In step 1, the organization needs to reflect on its compensation philosophy, which is shaped by its values and resources. This forms the basis for subsequent decisions.

In Step 2, each of the organization’s jobs must be listed, described and evaluated on the basis of a number of factors, including the following:

• Main job responsibilities;
• Skills required;
• Experience required;
• Level of education required;
• Complexity of tasks;
• Impact of job-related decisions;
• Effort required to achieve job objectives;
• Risk of work-related accidents.

Basically, step 2 enables different jobs to be grouped into common categories so that they can be equitably assigned the same pay scale.

In step 3, the organization asks itself who represents its competition on the job market. The answer to this question is really personal to each nonproft: some compare themselves to all the organizations in their region, in both the private and public sectors. Others compare themselves to organizations in the same field of activity, but across the province, for example. Still others choose to look at all nonprofits, putting aside companies. There are a number of ways to determine this reference market and the salaries against which to compare. The organization can :

• check the origin of its staff;
• check the origin of people who have applied for the most recent positions;
• use free data offered by recruitment firms (for Quebec: the Institut de la statistique du Québec) and the collective agreements of competitors or similar organizations;
• purchase salary surveys produced by specialized firms.

Finally, step 4 is based on an important principle to understand: pay equity does not mean equal pay. In other words, there may be differences from one resource to another for the same job, and these are justified by individual factors. The organization must therefore take the time to reflect on the criteria which, according to its values, justify such differences, such as :

• staff performance levels;
• the experience of each employee
• specific or specialized skills acquired.

E: Is it worthwhile for organizations to go through these steps to ensure well-constructed pay scales?

PYL: Absolutely! There are many advantages for employers.

I’ve talked to organizations that didn’t want to implement salary scales, because they said they couldn’t afford to increase their payroll anyway. That’s why reviewing your total compensation package and the working conditions you offer allows you to determine what you can afford to offer and sell to staff to recruit or retain. Salary is part of overall compensation, so an organization which, when comparing itself to its reference market, finds that it has less to offer in the way of salary can make the effort to offer more in the way of vacations, insurance plans, flexible working hours, and so on. And salary scales remain a sure-fire way of offering the best possible salary in a fair process.

Another advantage of pay scales is that they correct inequities that may have taken root despite good intentions. And, even when there is no inequity, staff have the right to ask questions and may have doubts about pay equity; an organization that has introduced pay scales is better equipped to discuss compensation transparently with its staff.

E: Which should help with staff retention…

PYL: That’s it. Nobody wants to feel cheated, and everybody wants to feel valued.

E: So you recommend disclosing salary ranges?

PYL: It depends on each organization. However, it’s becoming more and more common to indicate the salary range for a posted position, especially as candidates are becoming more and more comfortable with openly expressing their expectations in terms of compensation. For existing employees, knowing the salary range for their position allows them to consider advancement; it’s a source of motivation.

E: But do salary scales ever restrict an organization’s freedom of action to attract or retain a resource who would like to be offered more than the maximum scale threshold for his or her position?

PYL: Salary scales set the broad guidelines for determining fair compensation. But employers retain the latitude to negotiate compensation, taking into account individual wage-determining factors.

E: To sum up, we’d be crazy to do without pay scales!

PYL: That’s pretty good! One last point, though: it’s important to keep pay scales moving. Of course, we may decide to freeze a salary scale for a year, for various reasons. Otherwise, they will quickly become outdated, i.e. no longer in line with the market.

To make them evolve, we take into account :

• Inflation;
• annual reference market data;
• the organization’s ability to pay.

In this way, salaries remain as competitive as possible, which contributes to staff recruitment and retention.

This blog was originally published on Engagés, and translated from French.

“Toxic environment.” While the expression is well known, the concept behind it is not necessarily well understood. Engagés spoke to Marie-Hélène Chèvrefils, founder of Evō conseils, an organization specializing in employee experience, to help nonprofits learn more about toxic environments that can affect workplaces, and what to do when faced with it.

Nonprofits can refer to this fact sheet as a health info sheet to take care of yourself at work.

Definition

A toxic environment is a workplace in which one or more conditions significantly affect the atmosphere and well-being of employees. Toxicity can affect a relationship between a few individuals, an entire team or the entire organization.

Symptoms

There is a long list of signs that can indicate a potentially toxic work environment.

Here are the main ones:

• Burnout
• Excessive employee turnover
• Lack of collaboration between resources and teams
• Distrust between employees or towards managers
• Overreaction to situations or demands
• Irritability towards human resources department
• Lack of interest in relationships with peers

Chèvrefils insists on one important point: it’s not the multiplicity of signs that confirms the diagnosis. In other words, the presence of a single sign may suffice to qualify as a toxic environment when the frequency and intensity of the sign speak for themselves.

Prevention

To ensure that the organization they are interested in does not appear to be affected by a toxic environment, potential candidates can follow these tips:

Find out more about the organization before applying:

• Visit the website to learn about the organization’s values, and read employee testimonials if available.
• Get in touch with employees on LinkedIn to hear what they have to say.
• Use your network to find out additional information about the organization.
• Dig into Glassdoor and other social networking groups to find out more about the employer.
• During the interview process, ask questions that shed light on the organization’s culture (e.g., “How is team spirit promoted on a daily basis?”, “What is your turnover rate?”, “Do you do feedback surveys for your employees?”, etc.).
• Ask to meet future colleagues and ask them about work dynamics.

Causes

The causes that can lead to a diagnosis of a toxic environment are many and varied. Here is a non-exhaustive list:

• Lack of organizational support
• Lack of leadership
• Lack of mutual support between colleagues
• Internal communication problems
• Lack of transparency
• Lack of recognition for work accomplished
• Unreasonable demands on employees
• Unrealistic goals
• Work overload
• Exaggerated priorities and urgency
• Micromanagement and management rigidity
• Deviant or discriminatory behavior (including harassment)
• Conflicts that give rise to inappropriate attitudes (interrupting, raising your voice, being aggressive, sulking, excluding) and that are not managed
• Microaggressions (e.g., seemingly trivial but genuinely vexatious remarks; humiliating or insensitive comments, even though not intended maliciously; invalidation of problematic behavior or a person’s contribution)
• Toxic personalities within the team, e.g. Narcissistic person (believes they are always right and usually blames others); Liar or manipulator (uses emotional blackmail); Difficulty managing emotions (may shout, call names, etc.)

Side effects

Employees in a toxic work environment may experience one or more of the following side effects:

• Feelings of incompetence and loss of self-confidence
• Disengagement and demobilization
• Increased absenteeism
• Resenteeism (i.e. staying at work while feeling bitter and expressing it to peers – not management)
• Reduced productivity, creativity and performance
• Resignation
• Irritability, stress, anxiety and emotional outbursts
• Psychological and physical discomfort
• Fear of making mistakes and loss of initiative
• Isolation and non-participation within the team
• A team loosened and fed by jealousy and low blows
• Burnout and depression

In turn, these side-effects have adverse effects on the health and future of the organization, including:

• Repeated recruitment and training of new recruits, resulting in higher costs;
• Reduced performance and difficulty in meeting annual targets, resulting in lost revenue;
• The employer’s poor reputation.

Treatment

While it’s true that leaders have a big impact on creating and maintaining a healthy, stimulating and positive work environment, employees struggling with a toxic environment can take individual steps to change their situation. Note that these are not steps, but options: it’s up to each individual to choose the one or ones that are right for them.

1) Document any problematic situation

Many of the factors that contribute to a toxic work environment involve a certain amount of subjectivity in the interpretation of a given situation.

To ensure that your analysis of the situation is as objective as possible, and that you have everything you need to bring it to the attention of others if you so wish, Chèvrefils recommends that you record the events and feelings:

• What happened? When did it happen?
• Who took part in the incident? Who witnessed it?
• How did it make you feel? What did you say or do?

2) Speaking out

In the context of a toxic environment, daring to say “no” or report problematic situations out loud can seem intimidating. That said, more often than not, the people at the root of these situations aren’t even aware of their involvement in a toxic environment! It’s important to inform them so that they can adjust. Chèvrefils insists, however, on your right, as an employee, not to opt for this measure – or any other for that matter – if you’re not comfortable.

3) Talk to your manager

If the toxic climate concerns one or more other employees, you can turn to your manager to inform them of the situation. If the climate relates to the manager himself/herself, the Human Resources department can be consulted. Chèvrefils is encouraging if you opt for this course of action: “The attention you’ll receive and the solutions that will be put in place to clean up the environment may surprise you”.

4) Find out about your employer’s internal policies and legal obligations regarding workplace well-being and conflict management

Keep in mind that employers have a legal responsibility to ensure compliance in the workplace. To this end, they adopt policies setting out the measures to be applied to preserve or re-establish a healthy work climate. Often, these policies also indicate the internal contact person responsible for receiving testimonials or complaints and treating them confidentially. Employees who are aware of their rights and of the measures supposed to be in place in their workplace to comply with the law as a minimum, will be in a better position to document problematic situations, with a view to reporting them if necessary.

5) File a complaint with an authority

You can file a complaint with a union, an ombudsman or an ethics line offering anonymous and confidential service. Depending on the nature of the body chosen, it may analyze the situation reported and decide to take further steps, depending on the diagnosis made.

In Quebec for example, you can turn to the CNESST, since every employer in Quebec has a legal obligation to foster a healthy and safe working environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of its human resources.

6) Get support

Employee assistance programs, telemedicine services, 24/7 helplines, friends and family… there’s no shortage of ways to find a sympathetic ear to confide in. “We’re not in solution mode here; we’re just asking you to listen and understand, to relieve,” explains Chèvrefils.

7) Take care of yourself

Scheduling breaks during the workday, disconnecting at the end of the day and taking vacations are excellent ways to take care of yourself and avoid getting caught up in a toxic environment.

8) Quit your job

Sometimes, the preferred choice is to quit your job. This is not a defection, but a perfectly valid and common solution for the individual who no longer wishes to navigate a toxic professional environment. After all, the onus for cleaning up the environment lies primarily with the employer, not the employees.

In the meantime, it’s important to maintain your self-confidence and organize your career transition properly: leave the past behind and focus on the future! 

A final word

The world of work has changed considerably over the last few decades, so that some professional environments once considered normal are now toxic environments. Employees, be careful to spot them and make the right decisions for your well-being and enjoyment at work.

This blog was originally published on Engagés, and translated from french.

Today’s workplace is filled with distractions, and the pressure for nonprofits to be productive while staying constantly connected can make it hard to focus on meaningful tasks. Imagine Canada recognized this challenge and took action to prioritize focused, uninterrupted work through our Deep Work Weeks (DWW). This initiative is designed to give our team the space to focus deeply on existing projects that need dedicated attention and creative thinking.

If you’re looking for ways to bring more focus and innovation to your organization, here’s a closer look at what we’re doing at Imagine, along with some tips on how you can implement this strategy in your workplace.

What Are Deep Work Weeks (DWW)?

The core idea behind Deep Work Weeks is simple: set aside specific periods where team members can focus on tasks that benefit from uninterrupted time. Whether it’s a long-term project that requires deep thought or a task that has been sitting in the backlog, DWW provides the perfect opportunity to dive in and make real progress.

In his book Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World, author and computer science professor Cal Newport defines deep work as focused, distraction-free activities that push cognitive limits. This kind of work leads to higher productivity and innovation. In today’s distracted world, deep work is rare but more valuable than ever. 

Importantly, DWW is not about adding new tasks to the agenda—it’s about giving employees the time and resources they need to advance work that’s already in progress. This initiative is designed to reduce distractions and increase the quality of work, which can ultimately drive organizational success.

For DWW to truly succeed, it requires full buy-in across the organization. Everyone needs to be committed to pausing non-essential meetings, adjusting timelines, and embracing flexibility. If some people aren’t on board, others may find it difficult to maintain focus.

Key Considerations for Implementing Deep Work Weeks

1. Alignment is Essential: DWW is most effective when the whole organization is aligned and supportive of the initiative. Everyone should be willing to rethink schedules, push back non-essential meetings, and focus solely on tasks that require deep work.
2. Expect Adjustments to Output: During DWW, teams may need to adjust their usual communication and content schedules. For example, newsletters, updates, or other regularly scheduled outputs may be deferred or canceled to make space for focused work.
3. Communicate Clearly: Prior to DWW, encourage open conversations with your team about what will be prioritized, delayed, or paused. This will help ensure everyone is clear on expectations and can maximize their deep work time.
4. Continuous Improvement: After the DWW period, gather feedback from your team. What worked well? What didn’t? Use this feedback to improve future DWWs and fine-tune the process for maximum impact.

Tips for Making the Most of Deep Work Week

1. Use Your Discretion: Empower yourself to make decisions about which activities can be postponed or canceled. If you’re unsure whether a meeting is essential during DWW, ask your supervisor for guidance. Take the opportunity to challenge the norm and see if the meeting can be rescheduled—or even skipped.
2. Set Clear Expectations: Let others know that you’re committed to deep work by setting up calendar blocks and “out-of-office” alerts. Use an auto-response to communicate your availability and manage expectations.
3. Plan Ahead: To ensure a smooth DWW, adjust project timelines well in advance. Avoid scheduling extra meetings before or after the deep work period to “catch up” on lost time. If your role involves tasks that will be paused during DWW, consider using the time to refine processes, focus on professional development, or revisit previous work to identify areas for improvement.
4. Set Personal Goals: Before DWW begins, work with your supervisor to set clear, achievable goals. Whether it’s refining workflows, learning new tools, or reflecting on past projects, setting goals will help you stay focused and make the most of your dedicated work time.

The Takeaway: Create an Environment for Deep Work to Thrive

Deep Work Week has been an essential strategy for fostering focused, high-quality work at Imagine Canada. By aligning as a team, setting clear expectations, and planning ahead, we’ve been able to tackle important tasks and move closer to our collective goals without the usual distractions. We hope you can give it a try and share your strategies with us and other Canadian charities and nonprofits.

Cybersecurity attacks have become a feature of life for many businesses in the past few years, and sadly, nonprofits have not been spared. Recent targets that have drawn media attention include community foundations, community service providers, library systems, school districts, post-secondary institutions, and hospitals. So, what are nonprofits doing to avoid cybersecurity attacks and/or mitigate their impact if they do occur? Imagine Canada recently acquired data on nonprofits from the 2021 Canadian Survey of Cyber Security and Cybercrime, which shed light on the state of cybersecurity in Canada’s nonprofit sector.¹ This blog post discusses some of the survey’s most interesting findings.

Statistics Canada has conducted the Canadian Survey of Cyber Security and Cybercrime every two years since 2017. Nonprofits have been included in the survey since its inception, but the data for nonprofits are not publicly available. Imagine Canada recently acquired the data for nonprofits from the 2021 survey (results from the 2023 survey have not yet been released). It is important to note that this survey only includes organizations and businesses with ten or more staff. Statistics Canada defines small organizations/businesses as those with 10 to 49 employees; medium-sized organizations/businesses have 50 to 249 employees; large organizations/businesses have 250 or more employees.

Nonprofits lead for-profits in technology adoption and cybersecurity measures

While nonprofits may perceive themselves as behind for-profits regarding technology adoption, the survey results indicate this is not the case. In fact, they show that nonprofits outpace for-profits in technology adoption across nearly all categories, including websites, social media, e-commerce, and cloud computing. This pattern holds for all sizes of organizations, but the gap is largest among small ones. For example, 81% of small nonprofits use social media compared to only 66% of small businesses, and 70% of small nonprofits use cloud computing or storage compared to only 52% of small businesses.

Nonprofits also lead for-profits in the adoption of most cybersecurity measures. Eighty percent of nonprofits report using email security, compared to 72% of for-profits; 79% report using anti-malware software, compared to 74% of for-profits; 72% report using network security, compared to 67% of for-profits; and 60% report using web security, compared to 50% of for-profits. Less commonly used cybersecurity measures include mobile security (48% of nonprofits), data protection and control (42%), and software and application security (33%). The widespread use of email security and anti-malware software may be attributed to the availability of free and discounted resources for nonprofits from major providers such as Microsoft and Google, which have these features built into their platforms.

Cybersecurity incidents affect organizations of all sizes

Despite their precautions, nonprofits are as likely as businesses to report experiencing a cybersecurity incident that impacted them. Eighteen percent of nonprofits reported experiencing a cybersecurity incident in 2021, as did 18% of businesses. The average total cost to recover from cybersecurity incidents was $19K. The likelihood of experiencing a cybersecurity incident increases with organization size. Still, no one is immune: 16% of small organizations reported incidents, compared to 25% of medium-sized organizations and 35% of large ones. While small organizations may feel they are unlikely targets for cyberattacks, holding internally-valued data may be sufficient rationale for an attacker. The increasing automation of cyberattacks also allows potential vulnerabilities to be discovered and exploited at scale without regard for the size of an organization.

Beyond dollars: Nonprofits face disruption during cybersecurity incidents

Beyond the direct costs of cybersecurity incidents, there are also indirect costs. Among nonprofits reporting a cybersecurity incident, 27% said the incident prevented the use of resources or services. For many nonprofits, this could mean that key service delivery, fundraising, and communications functions become inaccessible due to cybersecurity incidents. Additionally, 21% of nonprofits that experienced a cybersecurity incident said employees required additional time to carry out their work, and 16% said it prevented employees from doing so.

Nonprofits spend half as much as for-profits on cybersecurity prevention and detection

Even though nonprofits are as likely as businesses to experience a cybersecurity incident, they spend significantly less on cybersecurity prevention and detection ($21K annually, on average, compared to $55K). This may be due to a lack of unrestricted funding and/or specialized funding for cybersecurity in nonprofits. Overall, 36% of nonprofits have no employees with regular tasks related to cybersecurity. More than half of these (53%) say they use consultants and contractors rather than staff, but 39% say they have no staff because they lack the resources to hire them.

Cybersecurity training gaps put small nonprofits at risk

There is a significant disparity in rates of cybersecurity training among nonprofits depending on their size. Only 14% of small nonprofits provide cybersecurity training to their IT staff, compared to 31% of medium-sized nonprofits and 65% of large ones. Similar differences exist for training non-IT staff, with only 17% of small nonprofits providing such training, compared to 27% of medium-sized nonprofits and 60% of large ones. Training is certainly an additional cost for cash-strapped nonprofits, but it’s important for risk mitigation, and insurance providers are increasingly requiring at least basic cybersecurity and phishing training.

Lack of awareness of cybersecurity standards leaves many nonprofits vulnerable

Adhering to cybersecurity standards is a way to reduce risk, yet most small and medium-sized nonprofits are unaware of these standards. Only 7% of small nonprofits and 15% of medium-sized ones said they were aware of the existence of cybersecurity standards, compared to 54% of large nonprofits. This may be because large nonprofits are more likely to have dedicated cybersecurity staff who would be aware of standards. There are, however, several standards that small and medium-sized nonprofits can use (see Resources section below).

Resources

There are several free resources that organizations can use to improve their cybersecurity.

A Cybersecurity On-Ramp for the Settlement Sector
A great resource to help nonprofits take initial steps to strengthen their cybersecurity and mitigate critical cyber risks.

Foundational cyber security actions for small organizations is a great starting point for organizations looking for a list of basic actions they can undertake.

Baseline Cyber Security Controls for Small and Medium Organizations CAN/CIOSC 104: 2021 is another helpful resource. This document outlines a national standard for baseline cybersecurity controls to help guide implementation efforts. Appendix B also contains a basic cybersecurity assessment list.

The Bigger Picture

It’s important to remember that cybersecurity is part of the bigger picture of digital transformation. Robust technology practices and policies should support cybersecurity efforts. Fortunately, there are some helpful tools to assist in the broader journey of digital transformation. These include NTEN’s Tech Accelerate and the CanadaHelp’s Charity Growth Academy. Both offer free assessment tools to evaluate technology adoption, practices and policies, and resources and recommendations to improve.

As nonprofits continue to embrace technology to drive their missions, effective implementation of cybersecurity and digital transformation necessitates efforts from funders, policymakers, and nonprofit leaders to increase awareness, provide training and ensure that these efforts are properly resourced.

The Canadian Centre for Nonprofit Digital Resilience (CCNDR) was established to help nonprofits become digitally enabled. If you would like to receive updates on digital transformation, tech, data, and cybersecurity, sign up for the CCNDR mailing list at CCNDR.ca and follow CCNDR on LinkedIn.

In late 2020, we started the ARAO Book Club as a forum and catalyst for courageous conversations about race, racism or other systems of oppression within society and our organization. While it successfully created space for these vital discussions, we found that the book-centric format limited full participation and engagement from our staff. Two years after its inception, we reimagined the Book Club into the ARAO Learning Club, allowing for greater accessibility to staff through a wider selection of formats and mediums. Learning Club members choose from a selection of podcasts, documentaries, videos, or books that delve into anti-racism and anti-oppression themes they’d like to cover for the upcoming months, and staff engage with these materials on their own time. We then gather for a monthly online meeting with a facilitated discussion where we reflect on key takeaways through prepared questions and explore how we can apply what we’ve learned to Imagine Canada’s ARAO policies. This learning opportunity is part of the work we are doing to further the ARAO objectives of our organization’s mission internally.

In this post, we share five pieces from the past year that sparked particularly impactful conversations and some of the questions we explored to frame these discussions. We encourage you to engage with this content and the questions provided to further your understanding of anti-racism and anti-oppression.

Communities of Wealth – Philanthro-WHAT

This podcast episode, the first in the Communities of Wealth series, explores the origin story of the Ontario Indigenous Youth Partnership Project, an Indigenous youth-led granting program. The creators – of both the podcast & the project – discuss the challenges of operating within a colonial granting structure while striving to create a space for Indigenous youth to share experiences and have difficult conversations without fear of repercussions. During our conversation, we discussed our own funding relationships and criteria for determining when to pursue or discontinue funding relationships.

Questions for reflection

• How can funders and fundees work to build trust with each other?
• What would the “ideal” fundee/funder relationship or granting process look like?

Giving Black Episode 12: Kerrite Bedward: You Always Have To Put Something Back In The Community

This episode and the meeting that followed were especially memorable as we were joined by Mide Akerewusi, the founder & CEO of AgentsC Inc. and the creator and host of the Giving Black podcast—the first podcast in the world dedicated to Black philanthropy and generosity. His presence enriched our discussion, offering firsthand insights into the themes of reciprocal giving and community responsibility highlighted in his conversation with his close friend Kerrite Bedward. In our discussion with Mide, we reflected on how Imagine Canada can encourage more reciprocal giving and foster stronger connections within our communities.

Questions for reflection

• Are there any customs from your culture that are common ways you give back to your community or family?
• Can you think of anyone who has given back to you through mentorship?

How does a computer discriminate? – Code Switch

“AI is susceptible to the same bias of the humans it’s simulating.” – Lori Lizarraga, host of the Code Switch podcast

Given Imagine Canada’s ongoing work in advocating for the ethical use of AI in the nonprofit sector in 2024, this podcast felt particularly relevant. The episode features a compelling discussion on the intersection of AI and race bias, exploring the potential pitfalls of relying on algorithms and technology as substitutes for human judgment. Engaging with this podcast allowed us to explore powerful and transformative policies related to AI technologies that we can implement as an organization to guide our ongoing ARAO journey.

Questions for reflection

• How are you using AI in your everyday life? How has it changed your everyday interactions?
• Have you come across discriminatory information through the use of AI? What steps can we take as AI users to avoid using such biased data in our work and research?

Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution

This feature-length documentary provides a powerful narrative of the Disability Rights Movement in the United States, a focus that aligns with our broader ARAO commitments for 2024 and 2025. The film showcases the intersectionality of oppression, particularly how racism and ableism intersect and reinforce each other. This session encouraged us to think more deeply about how we can continue to support disability rights and advocate for better inclusion and accessibility within our own policies and practices.

Questions for reflection

• How did the film challenge your perceptions and understanding of disability?
• How does the film depict the ways systems of oppression, such as racism and ableism, intersect and reinforce each other?

River Mumma by Zalika Reid-Benta

River Mumma is a magical realist novel that explores the complexities of family, identity, and inherited culture. Through its narrative, the novel offers a profound commentary on the impact of cultural legacies on the lives of descendants of immigrants, emphasizing the importance of preserving and understanding one’s roots amidst changing environments. The conversation that followed gave us the opportunity to reflect on some ways in which we as individuals, and Imagine Canada as a whole, can contribute to anti-racism efforts.

Questions for reflection

• How does the novel challenge or subvert stereotypes about Black women and impoverished communities?
• What is the importance of cultural folklore to a community?

Have a podcast, video, book, or other type of content you’d like to recommend for our Learning Club? Share it with us at info@imaginecanada.ca.

This article was originally published by Future of Good and is shared here with permission. It was made possible by HR Intervals, a comprehensive, bilingual free online knowledge base to help nonprofit managers, employees and board members better understand, address, and guide people management within their organizations.

As three quarters of Ontario non-profits faced staff turnover in 2023, more non-profits are implementing novel strategies to recruit and retain their staff. 

Statistics showing 93 percent of Canadians are interested in four-day workweeks have prompted employers to listen. 

While only 8 percent of Ontario non-profits have implemented a four-day workweek so far, those who have are seeing excellent results. 

Imagine Canada, an organization supporting Canadian charities and non-profits, has been a staunch supporter of the shorter-week model.

“It can feel like quite a dramatic change to bring about for an organization,” said Haley MacDonald, Director of Experience and Change at Imagine Canada, who helped the organization prepare for and implement its four-day workweek pilot. 

“But the benefits, in terms of staff feeling cared for and having more resources at their disposal, just through the gift of a bit more time, can have monumental benefits to your organization.”

Proponents say four-day workweeks are good for employers and employees alike, boosting employment levels and staff retention while increasing performance and motivation. Supporters also say the short week is beneficial to staff health and wellbeing while cutting down on costs from sick days, allowing employees to do things like schedule doctor appointments in their off time and return to work after a three-day weekend re-energized. 

While there are some challenges to overcome, such as rearranging long-standing schedules and maintaining a comprehensive list of services in a shorter week, organizations are making this change to benefit their staff without losing their ability to deliver critical services to their communities.

Since Imagine Canada launched the four-day workweek pilot in January 2023, they have noted a 66 percent increase in the mental, physical and emotional health of their staff, as well as a massive increase in satisfaction related to work-life balance, shown in frequent polling. They say sick days have been reduced by 40 per cent, and their staff retention rate is 94 per cent as of the end of 2024. 

Productivity also remains stable, decreasing in a few areas but increasing in others. For example, the number of policy briefs, op-eds, and other outreach to advance policy campaigns has increased 86 per cent. Membership has increased by 20 percent, too.

While MacDonald said staff and leadership alike have responded to the four-day workweek with “resounding optimism and support,” the flipside is that a critical mass of work still must be completed. 

At first, MacDonald said, a major funder even expressed some skepticism, but extensive discussions ultimately reassured stakeholders that a four-day workweek would not diminish the service they had come to expect. 

In fact, Imagine Canada has added even more services to their roster since converting to a shortened workweek. 

“Monday to Thursdays now are very intense. I hear from a lot of folks that there’s still a lot of work being fit into those four days,” said Macdonald. “I think the good news is that hard work and that intensity is really offset by that fifth day off where folks are really arriving on a Monday morning feeling much more refreshed.”

Tim Richardson, a senior manager at Imagine Canada, was one of the early champions of the four-day workweek. Despite the intensity of the new Monday-to-Thursday schedule, the Fridays off empower him to take the time he needs to balance things like child care, hobbies, and chores. 

“It’s life-giving,” Richardson said. “I definitely feel more present and driven at work.”

However, in order to take this time off without compromising productivity, some things had to be removed from the agenda. Richardson said Imagine Canada had to cut down on excess meetings, which is not necessarily negative.

Indeed, a recent survey from Harvard Business Review showed 71 percent of managers say many meetings are unproductive and inefficient, and 64 percent said meetings cut into deep thinking.

“Meeting reduction was a big thing, and being more intentional about when a meeting is appropriate,” Richardson said, explaining many weekly meetings became bi-weekly, for example, when the week was shortened. 

Imagine Canada also instituted meeting-free Mondays and Fridays leading up to the four-day workweek trial to help prepare.

Now, Richardson said he receives numerous calls from organizations hoping to implement four-day workweeks for their own company. 

Apart from rethinking meetings, which Richardson said is a “really good way to prepare,” he recommended a solid trial period to determine how well it could work for a given organization.

“Make the pilot long enough and over a period that is representative of what your organization does,” Richardson said, adding it should be long enough to test the busy periods and the ebbs and flows of various seasons. 

“A three month pilot is way too short …you’re going to have all the adaptation and growing pains with none of the benefits.”

But, it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution, and implementing a four-day workweek may look different for organizations depending on their mandate.

For this reason, Silent Voice Canada, a charity serving the Deaf community with direct, week-round programming, had to think a bit differently when implementing a shorter workweek to partake, opting for a 32-hour week. 

Here, the staff have a choice of spreading those hours over five or six days, depending on their workload, or taking longer days over four days.

“I wanted to be part of the real cultural shift of how we manage our work,”  said Kelly Mackenzie, executive director of Silent Voice Canada, despite the fact that Silent Voice offers programming for their clients six days a week. 

As a result, a 32-hour week allows varying, staggered schedules to keep the services running.

“We do have the luxury of having enough staff that our client services was not impacted at all,” Mackenzie said, adding the flexible schedule has helped not only with staff retention but also attraction.

“More than 90 per cent of the staff of Silent Voice are deaf themselves. We have deaf community members coming up to us, saying, ‘When do you have a job vacancy? I want to work for Silent Voice,’” Mackenzie said.

And, while this is a fairly new practice for some non-profits, others have been operating under a four-day workweek for decades. 

When it was founded in 1990, the David Suzuki Foundation implemented a four-day, 34-hour workweek. The foundation maintains that this can also help it work toward its mandate and be beneficial for the environment. 

Their argument is that reduced work hours, flexible schedules, and telecommuting can also cut pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s associated to a direct reduction in the carbon footprint of an organization,” said Sabaa Khan, Québec and Atlantic Canada Director-General for the David Suzuki Foundation. 

While Khan said more studies need to be done in Canada, a study in the United Kingdom showed that a widespread four-day workweek could reduce the country’s annual carbon footprint by 21.3 percent. When dealing with problems as large and overarching as climate change, for example, Khan said it’s important for organizations to protect their staff from overwork, burnout, and pervasive climate anxiety.

“When you’re working in an area that’s mission driven – climate change, biodiversity protection – you’re looking at massive existential problems on a daily basis … There’s prevalent climate anxiety amongst people who work in the field,” Khan said, adding that how long you can stay in the social good sector depends on how well you can strike a work-life balance. 

“The four-day workweek, from this perspective, it can draw employees but also ensure that employees are staying longer,” Khan said.

This article was originally published on Future of Good.