Changing Perceptions of Flexible Working & Protected Characteristics - General - Diversity and inclusion

1 Changing Perceptions of Flexible Working & Protected Characteristics

24 Jul, 2024 09:35

Hello

Hoping to source some great ideas. How do you promote inclusivity without having unintended consequences?

Robey got me thinking with his post on the Labour Day 1 full employment rights thread when he said "Basically, it will become much, much harder to get an interview for pretty much everyone other than professional, white, middle-aged men."

I work in a sector where people are generally verbally "fully behind" EDI but in practice they fall short. We have contention over flexible working requests and reasonable adjustments, and inappropriate discriminatory comments/banter are rife from leaders and employees alike. As you can imagine, this leads to grievances/tribunal claims..

I have approached these challenges in multiple ways. Sometimes a bit of gentle influencing has been effective and sometimes a direct reminder of "you might disagree with the practice, but it is the law". We've also had external training commissioned and delivered that went down well. Sometimes I've had direct, brave conversations about how this is affecting me and about discrimination against me. Leaders have respected and encouraged me when I have directly challenged their behaviour - which is gratifying, but is really getting old as I don't see change in behaviour.

There is improved awareness of the consequences of their actions (or inaction) which has largely come from some sizeable settlements recently agreed. I have some "good news examples" where interventions have been really effective, but these simply don't create as much noise as the ones that go wrong; invariably those challenging us are seen to be "taking advantage". Honestly, a fair few of them are - but we keep giving them the advantage! Once a discriminatory comment is made, it is very hard if not impossible to claw it back and show that a decision was not unlawful when accompanied with that comment.

And these are the unintended consequences that Robey's comment alerted me to. I truly believe the leaders I work with want to be committed to inclusion and want to be fair, but when the pressure is on this doesn't follow through to their practice. I highlight the risks of their proposed course of action and these are frequently linked to protected characteristics - I give a lower risk alternative that is generally slower because we have to properly consult or complete an Occ Health referral or go through a formal process. It's always up to them which they pick, but they know that if someone didn't have protected characteristics the faster route would be within their risk-appetite. So I can already see that twitch towards not hiring individuals who have protected characteristics.

How do you tackle this?

220 views

Robey | 0 Posts

26 Jul, 2024 09:10

Sorry to see no responses to this, but seeing as Sophie has been so nice as to tag me, I'm going to stick my oar in.

First up, as you will see from my profile pic, I am a white man. More than that, I am a middle-aged, privately-educated, upper middle class, Christian, cishet white man. The only way I could be more privileged would be if I had a trust fund. I could talk about the journey I have been on to confront my own prejudice, but this isn't about me. I'm just putting this out there so that what follows is understood to come from a position of second-hand learning.

The main reason, in my opinion, that the EDI talk often fails to be reflected in the walk is because the people at the top of business have two major shortfalls in understanding:

First, they support EDI but they don't understand that this still means that they have to change their behaviour. There is an idea that, once you buy into the EDI philosophy, your work here is done. You pay for EDI champions, sit back and wait for the applause. Their understanding of EDI is only surface level. They accept its philosophical precepts but fails to understand that those precepts have significance for how they lead their day to day lives.

The second issue is that, even if they do take on board EDI philosophy on a deeper level, they don't understand that, fundamentally, it's not a social issue. They think that EDI is about ticking boxes for the ESG audit without realising that EDI is a bottom-line issue, that companies that walk the talk recruit better talent, retain it for longer, improve engagement and see these benefits leak through to productivity, quality and profits.

The first issue tends to lead to EDI remaining a talking point without it being reflected in day-to-day business practice. It's what means that you can tick all the boxes but managers still end up appointing the white guy. It's what means that you can say all the right things in policy, but when the successful sales lead gropes a colleague, they still have a job. It's why companies pay hundreds of thousands for the advice of external consultants (white, male, good hair), ignoring the fact that their female, brown colleagues have been telling them exactly what the consultant told them for years, but their input wasn't seen as credible, because...
- Cancel