diversity

D&I isn’t dead, it just smells funny

Posted on by Blog

The desire to make workplaces more diverse and inclusive has been going on for at least as long as I’ve been in a job. As a Personnel Officer, one of my early tasks was completing diversity returns to the Government, I’m not sure they ever achieved anything but the intention was there. I remember the IPM (as it was then) snowflake campaign, remember that? And I’ve seen the law change, develop and progress over the years. Are things better now than when I started in work? Yes. Are they as good as they need to be? No.

And throughout the majority of my career it is fair to say the broad consensus, in the UK at least, has been that fairer, more equal workplaces are a good thing. I think that still remains the case to this very day. If you asked ten people whether they thought selection, progression, and promotion should be based on ability and past performance, or whether it should be based on gender, race or some other characteristic I’m pretty certain they’d all say the former. And yet over recent years it has sometimes felt like one of the most divisive debates in the world of work. So divisive, that most people don’t want to write or talk about it.

Look across the pond and you can see this playing out in the proclamations being made by the incoming administration. Is this really one of the most important issues for the leader of any nation to address? Probably not, but then it really isn’t about that it is about throwing some proverbial red meat to supporters in the artificial culture wars. But on the other side of this argument, in the opposition trenches, there are people equally to blame; people making similarly ridiculous proclamations but without the established power. The people that declare that your personal behaviours and beliefs are not enough, the people that have denied large sections of the population a voice in the name of redressing historical unfairness, the people that make others feel scared to think, feel something different or to ask questions, the people who actively seek to divide rather than to unite.

And this is the nonsense that detracts from the real work that is happening in the vast majority of organisations across the UK, where people are still trying to create better, more inclusive and diverse workplaces because it makes good business sense and because it is the right thing to do for our communities. These are the hard yards that make a bigger difference than the soundbites or statements, the icons or the indices. Whatever the campaigners on either side say, do you think it will result in fewer women being employed or promoted? That it will setback our understanding of supporting neurodiversity in the workplace? That it will mean that we see fewer black and asian executives?

D&I isn’t dead, although there are parts of the current approach that definitely do smell funny. And that happens when the agenda steps into social engineering and unfocused activism rather than being about driving better business outcomes, driving organisational performance and customer satisfaction and moving slowly, but steadily closer to a meritocracy for all.

Inclusion means everyone

Posted on by Blog

I’m not sure how many of you saw the social media fallout from the Good Morning Britain debate that led to Iain Dale walking out of the studio. If you need to catch up with it you can here. It was supposed to be a discussion about mental health and wellbeing, but instead the discussion became more about the behaviour of the people involved.

As if we needed another reminder about the increasing sense of polarisation in our society…but we got one. The social media reaction was typical with accusations flying around. Iain is a middle aged, white male, so clearly “gammon”. Grace is a left wing, young female, so clearly “snowflake”. And Nihal – well he isn’t from round here is he?

What weighs on my mind and genuinely worries me is how we start to find a way to bring people together and what role organisations have to play. If we believe in inclusion, then we need to believe that everyone, that’s everyone, has a right to their view, their beliefs, their opinions, their religion. Everything.

That means we have to accept Donald Trump. We have to accept Bernie Sanders.  We have to accept Ilhan Omar. We have to accept Jeremy Corbyn.  We have to accept Diane Abbott.  We have to accept Boris Johnson. We have to accept Gerry Adams. We have to accept Marine Le Pen. And of course, I could go on.

We don’t have to like them, but we have to accept they have a right to their views, their opinions and their difference.

We have to find a way for people to bring their views and difference together in a constructive way, to debate and exchange views. To respect and include the multitude of difference that makes our society rich. We don’t do this at the expense of anyone, this shouldn’t be seen as a zero sum game, but instead as a means to grow and further our knowledge and understanding, to create more for everyone, not less for some.

Of course, I am a middle aged, white male. So I appreciate that immediately I stand here in a position of historical privilege and open to the accusation that I don’t understand what it is to walk in the shoes. But of course, none of us do, not really. We all bring something different, which is why inclusion really bloody matters and why we need to hear from all voices equally loudly.

So here is to understanding, tolerance, fairness and kindness to all. Whilst it might feel a long way away some times, it has to be worth the fight.

 

 

Lionel Shriver is wrong

Posted on by Blog

It was with a level of incredulity that I read the comments by Lionel Shriver over the weekend about the inclusivity agenda being championed by Penguin Random House. For those who know me, I spent the best part of 9 years in the business and would like to think that I was in some way responsible for the creation and direction of many of the approaches – not least the removal of the requirement to have a degree.

Shriver, writing in The Spectator, presents a shambolic and intellectually inarticulate assessment of the work that is being done, summarised by the BBC article here.

Anyone who has ever tried to champion inclusion will tell you that these arguments are nothing new. But they are almost always entirely articulated by those in positions of power. I have yet to hear from an underrepresented group who says, “do nothing, the best people are already in place”. And in a sense, that is the first major challenge that you  face.

In changing any system to be more inclusive and diverse, you are ultimately dependent on those in power to cede their right to that position and to change the system that has perpetuated their dominance. That’s why social mobility has been so hard to tackle, because in many ways you’re asking the rich wealthy and powerful to make things a little harder for generations of their family to come.

The aim of our work, wherever we are and whatever we are doing, is to make the world of work fairer and more transparent. We have to do everything we can to ensure that the best succeed, regardless of their background. That’s what inclusion is about and to suggest in any way it is dumbing down is insulting, ill-informed and naive. The system in which we operate is unintentionally rigged towards certain groups and certain backgrounds and all we are doing is unpicking that bias.

As a note of caution, we do have to be careful to ensure the work that we do remains true to that goal – to allow the best to succeed. Diversity and inclusion programmes that become tokenistic displays of good intention are as unhelpful as the problem they are trying to solve. Where Shriver is right is to call out the risk of losing focus on the real change that needs to be made, increasing fairness and allowing potential to shine, on pretty much everything else she is wrong and woefully out of touch.

 

 

Are you sure you’re recruiting the best?

Posted on by Blog

Its back to a favourite topic of mine, education. Last week parents up and down the land were waiting to hear which secondary schools their children had got in to. As any parent who has ever been through the process will tell you, it is full of uncertainty, angst and unpredictability.

And unfairness.

The socio-economic bias in the education is already well established at this point and based on your background, your educational outcomes are already being influenced. In a wonderful piece of research carried out last year, the Sutton Trust highlighted that,

“The top performing 500 comprehensive schools in England, based on GCSE attainment, continue to be highly socially selective, taking just 9.4% of pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), just over half the rate of the average comprehensive (17.2%).”

There are a couple of factors at play, a fair amount of this (about half) is down to the catchment areas, with the same report highlighting that, “a typical house in the catchment area of a top 500 school costs £45,700 more than the average house in the same local authority” but the rest of it is simply down to social selection in admissions processes, “85% of schools in the top 500 admit fewer FSM pupils than live in their catchment area, with over a quarter having a gap of five percentage points or more.”

Let’s just take a moment to consider this. In order to get into the top 500 comprehensive schools you need to live within the catchment area, which is likely to mean that your parents are probably going to have to either earn more, or borrow more. And if that doesn’t apply and yet you still manage to live within the catchment area, if you’re eligible for free school meals you’re less likely to get a place, even living in catchment.

The reason behind this is the over indexing of schools which are in control of their own admissions policies, with voluntary converter academies, faith schools and single sex schools all over-represented in the top 500 schools.

“Faith schools are among the most socially selective group of top schools, more than three times as selective as non-faith schools, and make up 33.4% of the list. Converter academies admit the lowest rate of disadvantaged pupils of the main school types, and comprise 63% of the top schools, compared to just 40% of all secondaries.”

What does the mean in terms of educational outcomes? In a separate report the Education Policy Institute found that, “In 2016, disadvantaged pupils were on average 19.3 months behind their peers by the time they took their GCSEs – meaning they are falling behind by around 2 months each year over the course of secondary school.” Put simply, if you are a pupil from the least advantaged backgrounds your educational outcomes are nearly two years behind your peers when you get to take the first publicly recognisable qualifications.

Of course you don’t need me to tell you that this bias continues into A-levels and then to University, with the gap between those from lower socio-economic groups attending university widening even further over recent years.

Which begs the question, when you hire based on qualifications are you really sure you’re recruiting the best? Or just the luckiest?

References:

https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Selective-Comprehensives-2017.pdf

https://epi.org.uk/report/closing-the-gap/#

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/01-02-2018/widening-participation-summary

https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/applicants-uk-higher-education-down-5-uk-students-and-7-eu-students