FIRMS MUST IMPROVE THEIR SOCIAL CLASS MIX, NOT JUST ETHNIC AND GENDER
In 2014, what does a truly diverse workforce look like? And is it even visible to the naked eye, from a company’s gallery of staff photos?
In recent weeks, we’ve seen diversity hit the headlines, as household name brands try to improve the mix of staff that makes up their workforce. So far, the emphasis has been on ethnicity, gender and disability — but is there more to true diversity than meets the eye?
UPDATE 1: The government has just pledged £4m to boost diversity within the creative industries, funding internships for 300 young people from BAME backgrounds with 150 employers including Channel 4, ITV and the BBC.
UPDATE 2: Conservative MP Philip Davies has criticised the BBC’s “racist approach” to diversity, saying its new initiatives neglect white, working class youngsters.
First, the BBC director general Tony Hall announced plans to step up the corporations efforts to improve its record on diversity, by launching a range of initiatives including training internships and targets. The primary aim was to increase the numbers of BAME (British, Asian and minority ethnic) staff members working at the corporation.
Next, Google found its diversity record under scrutiny when it published stats showing only 17% of its global workforce is female and in the US, six out of ten ‘Googlers’ are white and three out of ten are Asian (just three per cent are Hispanic and two per cent are black).
But Graduate Fog thinks that singling out individual firms misses the point. Anyone working in TV or tech will tell you that the BBC and Google are no worse than their competitors — the problems employers have in hiring a good mix of staff are complex and endemic. Comedian Lenny Henry has previously called the entire TV industry’s record on ethnicity “appalling”, and insiders tell us all tech firms are as bad on diversity as Google — it’s just that Google was the first one to own up to it. (And in fairness, at least their spokesperson admitted: “We’re not where we want to be when it comes to diversity.”)
But will improving these crude stats really make these organisations any more diverse? What about social diversity? In 2014, it could be argued that a person’s economic family background can be just as powerful a factor in holding them back in life. Of course, it would be great to improve the numbers of ethnic minority, female and disabled staff at the BBC and Google. But if they’re all middle-class, privately educated or have had their parents fund their unpaid internships, how ‘diverse’ can those organisations really claim to be?
*SHOULD FIRMS IMPROVE THEIR SOCIAL CLASS MIX, NOT JUST ETHNIC AND GENDER?
Are big companies on the right track trying to improve the mix of genders, ethnic groups and disabilities in their workforce? Or should they make greater efforts to work on their social diversity too? For example, should they introduce targets for hiring a certain number of less privileged candidates each year, who grew up on council estates or attended comprehensive schools in the roughest areas? What is your idea of a truly diverse company?
A bit disappointing that Philip Davies has called the BBC’s approach “racist”.
I’m not sure it’s helpful to characterise this issue by using emotive and divisive language. I believe the BBC’s motives are good. But think that in 2014 skin colour seems like a pretty crude tool for measuring / improving true diversity in an organisation.
Britain’s social and economic make-up is increasingly complex and nuanced. As a result, methods for improving true diversity must become more sophisticated if organisations are serious about employing workers from all walks of life. You can’t tell just by looking at someone how poor they are, how disadvantaged their childhood was or how hard they’ve had to work to get where they are.
Tanya de Grunwald
Founder, Graduate Fog
Tanya you’re also missing the point when you say “skin colour seems like a pretty crude tool for measuring / improving true diversity in an organisation”. The BBC is seeking to improve its racial/ ethnic diversity (not based on skin colour by the way). To say it isn’t addressing other under-privileged groups is to distract from the real problems that racism causes.
The issue is that the work force generally doesn’t represent society. Instead of responding to attempts to remedy that by asking “but what about…” it would be better for us to say “this is a start. Let’s also look at …”
Tanya, I’m afraid I have to agree ever so slightly with Philip Davies.
I don’t agree with “forced” diversity. The society I want to live in is one where the best person for the job gets the job regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
The idea of creating or awarding internships / jobs to people simply because they’re BAME (or indeed any protected characteristic) isn’t meritocracy.
However, I don’t believe it’s “racist”. Racist is the wrong word. I don’t know what the word to describe it is, but I don’t believe it’s right.
@Rosalind – Firstly, sorry for the late reply! As I say in the post, I agree wholeheartedly that ethnic diversity is important. And I agree that even talking about diversity is a start – so you’re right, it shouldn’t be either / or.
I suppose what I’m questioning is for how much longer it is going to be appropriate to divide jobseekers up according to which diverse ‘box’ they tick. (When I talk to HR people, they do tend to use language like that – on diversity it’s gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability). You say it yourself: ‘underprivileged groups’. So what do we do – identify each individually and then start programmes to help a lucky few from each un-lucky (?!) group to break in to the industry? Is this really the future? That makes me pretty sad.
I’d prefer to see other steps being taken to level the playing field more, so it’s fairer to everyone. For example, tackling the barriers to entry which tend to be the kind of thing that trips up many applicants from these ‘groups’. One clear, screaming example to me is unpaid internships. If all internships were paid, if apprentices were paid more, and if travel costs were met for work shadowing placements, that would be a good start.
There are complexities here too. For example, we need to make sure that where organisations offer paid internships (hurrah), those candidates with experience gained via doing previous UNpaid internships first aren’t advantaged over those who haven’t been able to take up those opportunities.