Last week, an independent report from the Inclusion at Work panel, requested by the government, was published. Unfortunately, the PR for that report was cynical and intended to grab headlines, rather than a thoughtful analysis of its key findings.
When we read the report, there was much to agree with in there.
Some of the emerging themes are:
- Companies aren’t investing in evaluating interventions, so we have little data on their efficacy
- People are misinterpreting the equality legislation
- There are politicised and polarised DEI debates
We couldn’t agree more. The first two are pretty straight forward. More data is needed across the whole sector, and it is certainly true that people are engaging in positive discrimination at the moment, which is illegal. We’ve been working with companies to help them understand the difference between positive discrimination (illegal) and positive action (legal).
The final point about politicised and polarised DEI debates is also something I agree with. I feel that my role as a DEI facilitator is to hold the space for the multiplicity of perspectives around these topics – even those that dismiss diversity initiatives as snake oil. We take a systemic approach that ‘everyone is right only partially’ and see all voices as important voices of the system. I would be wary of DEI consultancies who are ‘picking a side’ on any of the polarised DEI debates.
The report then sets out some guiding principles for DEI practice. These are below:
Principle 1: ‘Heterogeneous’ – or meaningfully diverse – workplaces are desirable and beneficial
We can all agree with this I think! “…heterogeneous workplaces can be associated with improved problem solving, tolerance and a culture of positive challenge, increased trust and collaboration, and improved performance (all correlated with access to a wider talent pool)”.
Principle 2: Visible diversity alone does not automatically make an organisation meaningfully diverse or inclusive
Absolutely this too! We’ve been saying for a while that employers seem focused on gender and race. Yes, there are systemic issues around gender and race that need solving AND “employers must also consider less visible diversity, including socioeconomic and educational background, and problem-solving style”. It’s a big ‘hear hear’ from us at THC.
Principle 3: Diversity and inclusion (and equity) decisions are rarely impartial. Concerted efforts should be made to mitigate the impact of ideological biases
THC supports this guidance too - that there are subjective judgements around what some of the terms mean. This is why our approach is a coaching one e.g. ‘What do you think this term means? What does the research say? What do you think needs to shift?”.
We also know that inclusion is frustratingly difficult to measure. The report doesn’t suggest we should walk away from inclusion, but we should focus on making decisions that are “rooted in evidence as far as possible and be context-specific, rather than be based on abstract, social-theoretical, definitions of privilege and disadvantage”. We applaud the quest for a more evidence-based mindset, however we strongly believe that some of the most important matters in the workplace are extremely difficult to measure and shouldn’t be neglected as a result of that.
The earlier point about focusing on gender and race is, I believe, because those are easier to measure than, say, socio-economic diversity. I think that socio-economic diversity has taken a back seat because of this.
Should we use terms such as ‘privilege’ and ‘disadvantage’? I think they are useful frameworks for digging into how we can create change. I also think they are misused by many. An example might be shaming a straight, white man for his supposed privilege, when we all know his community also faces challenges and struggles.
Principle 4: The impact evidence on D&I is mixed and often inconclusive. Initiatives grounded in robust evidence should take primacy and employers should be open to learning and change
We absolutely agree here. Causality is very difficult to discern and we would like to see positive correlations between interventions and for outcomes to be more consistently observed. All DEI strategies should be designed to allow ongoing scrutiny and embed regular reviews and evaluation of impact.
Principle 5: Positive, not just negative, stories on D&I in the workplace should be widely recognised and effective practice should be shared
The panel is right in that there has been significant positive change over time and we could do better at highlighting this rather than just sharing the negative stories.
Principle 6: D&I activities should be cost-effective. Employers have a responsibility to use money dedicated to D&I in a way that demonstrably achieves intended outcomes
The panel says, “Done well, more scrutiny of D&I interventions and their return on investment will prevent the proliferation of poor practice and of waste”. Again, THC couldn’t agree more. We push for evaluation and are also in the process of getting our workshops and e-learning CPD accredited (three have been completed to date) to give you further confidence in their robustness.
The report then goes on to explore how we can collect more evidence and data, along with some recommendations here. It also suggests an Inclusion Confident tool that would use metrics such as strength of evidence, cost of implementation and impact.
Our commitment is to dig deeper into this part of the report so we can work with our clients to show the impact of the interventions that we offer.
As soon as we come to any conclusions, we will of course share!
Team THC x