The unintended consequences

The more that diverse individuals conform to the cultural norms, the more convinced organisations are that they don’t need to change and that benefiting from diversity is painless and untransformative. Focusing on individuals as indicators of change has another unintended consequence: organisations are more inclined to believe that systemic discrimination does not exist—because if it did, then the diverse individual would not have been able to gain a leadership position. This places the responsibility for lack of progress on individuals, leaving organisations with little motivation to explore and eradicate systematic discriminatory processes.

When diverse individuals gain leadership positions they often do so against the odds. This creates another belief system—that to lead as a diverse individual you have to be exceptional, with no room for error. Representatives of ‘outsider’ groups may well find themselves held to a higher standard. While on the surface hiring the most excellent candidate seems exactly what we ought to be doing, it has the effect of raising the bar higher for diverse individuals in comparison to those who are usually included as part of the recruitment process. The standard is not equally applied—but recruiters believe that it is.

Our actions to increase diverse representation lead us to an over-reliance on ‘deficit models’; that is, initiatives that assume that individuals impeded from growth, progression and leadership positions need additional support to rise. This reinforces and maintains our belief in what we call ‘leadership material’ and we often persuade those who fail to meet this standard that they should do the necessary work to reach it. Although we would agree that appropriate development opportunities and support are required to progress, the fact is we ignore the subtlety of networks, coaching and opportunity as means by which potential leaders are made ready for leadership. And, more importantly, we tend not to notice who casually gets these opportunities and have been too uncritical of the decision-making processes behind them.

In the grand scheme of things, because we ‘see’ that someone from a black and minority ethnic background can, for example, obtain a lead position, setting targets to increase representation appears pretty logical. Our assumption is that increasing development opportunities, mentoring and sponsorship and more outreach advertising processes are the means by which we improve our numbers. We often ignore measures that speak to the negative experiences of marginalised staff within our organisations and often view this information independently from our ability to recruit more diversely.

The linear way in which we offer analysis and explanation can prevent us from seeing challenges more systemically. This ‘plug and socket’ approach to addressing complexity moves us quickly into a basket of solutions, fondly called the equalities action plan. Very often these plans are made up of five types of activities—outreach, development opportunities, further consultation, further analysis and targeted activities to support the under-represented groups. The majority of activities can easily be matched against these headings—regardless of what data we collect against performance or experiential measures. We have been wedded to these ‘old school approaches’ despite the increased diversity of ethnic groups; despite the increased numbers of ethnic groups; despite the fact that in two of our cities, minoritised ethnic groups, have become the majority; and despite the fact that these activities have done little to change the equalities landscape in favour of sustained equity.

Our belief systems appear to be largely unaffected by whatever data exists or whatever new information is introduced. We are conditioned to accept interventions and activities, without much interrogation as to whether they address the ‘problem’. Not being able to think more independently and more critically about what information is telling us is in part a reason why the equalities dial does not shift.

Moving beyond the individual

We do not have to believe in systemic discrimination to recognise that more is at play than just a substitution of one identity for another. We know that the culture of organisations also impacts on how we experience it. Increasingly, we talk of inclusion as if it is another ladder for organisations to climb, without recognising how existing information and data can erode any attempts to address it. Inclusion is a foundation on which diversity can exist and equalities can be sustained.

In our quest then for inclusion, we often try to ignore the areas of equality that we find more challenging. ‘Race’, for example, is an issue that we have attempted to disguise a multitude of times by framing it under headings of ‘multiculturalism’, ’cultural competence’, ‘cultural intelligence’, ‘difference’, ‘diversity’ and now ‘inclusion’. ‘Race’, and by implication racism, is uncomfortable. We are reluctant to discuss it. Representation is the means by which we abdicate responsibility for racism. As long as we are chasing the numbers and trying to increase representation, we can be content that our efforts to address racism are well founded. Progress is clear—we can ‘see’ it and as a consequence we believe that increasing numbers in places and spaces where they were once scarce is the ultimate sign of progress.

While wedded to the belief that nothing much will change, unless the numbers change, we are relatively content that there is nothing much more we can do to shift racial disparaties—indeed evidence over the last 40 years has ‘proven’ as much. Instead, we recycle existing practices, under ‘new’ headings. It is a practice that results in a continual lack of understanding, poor organisational memory and the reward of tick box practices that do very little to change the status quo.

Although our society is far more complex, we haven’t got better at holding complexity. Yes, increased representation is great, but let’s not celebrate quite yet. There are still some hard questions that we need to answer. Has the organisation developed greater ‘ease’ around the equalities agenda—especially with regard to race? Are we convinced that individuals are able to progress through our ranks—or are we risking simply placing people in positions because it makes our organisation ‘look’ better ? What are the experiences of marginalised staff within our organisation—and are we attempting to ‘drown’ out their narratives by signposting the success of representation? These are all questions that need to be held and answered—because they speak to the culture of organisations.

Getting hold of ‘race’ is also an immense opportunity. And one which we are beginning to recognise can bring great rewards. Instead of wishing things got better, and undertaking endless rounds of consultation, we can understand and apply evidence of what works in this area. We can grow in our understanding of our own belief systems and practices and what types of leadership practices are required—to lead beyond the lens of stereotypes and discrimination.5

We know there has been criticism of anti-racism, that it is all political correctness ‘gone mad’ and that our society is basically fair and that racism is a thing of the past. But, like sexism, the root cause is generated by what individuals think, how they then act on this thinking and the result that it has for the experiences and positioning of women in our society. By the same token, our thinking about race has been inculcated in a belief system that rationalises the experiences of people who are ‘racialised’ as normal. It justifies how our society looks and behaves. While most of us would be outraged by individual acts of racism, we are less able to notice and be concerned about the systems that keep racism in place. At the heart of these systems are individuals and what they believe. This is the substance of anti-racism, it invites a recognition of root causes and creates the conditions for us to be more courageous about our ability to address it.

We do not need to do very much at all to keep these beliefs alive. We maintain them with ease. It’s change that we find hard to do. Anti-racism offers a different perspective on change—by questioning previous approaches to addressing race discrimination and by recognising how systems of oppression are easily maintained as part of our culture. You can’t get to inclusion by simply being ‘nice’ to people. There is a need to address culture and by implication the beliefs and behaviours that we all hold. Substituting under-represented groups into positions of hierarchy within an organisation can be a tokenistic response to not addressing cultural change.

Addressing discrimination takes effort, which may be why organisations place an over-reliance on representation and the images that it generates. Because social justice and inclusion are not equally valued, under-represented groups are more likely to stay silent, be marginalised or vote with their feet.

Creating diverse representation without thinking more critically about how inequality is maintained, will not lead to sustainable representation nor leverage the potential advantages of diverse thinking for social justice. The National Health Service (NHS) has focused on more diverse representation without, as a system, understanding this. While the diversity of trust boards, for example, has increased in recent years, the increase is most marked among non-executive directors. We frequently hear that black and minority ethnic board members lead on diversity or that the existence of a more diverse board is itself evidence of major change across an organisation when it may self-evidently not be.

In summary, there is not a short cut to culture change. Increased diversity at more senior levels of society and individual organisations may have very substantial benefits. It can prove that marginalised or under-represented groups do indeed have talent and can progress. They may act (wittingly or not) as role models. But if we want to change the systematic discrimination and exclusion that has huge implications for social justice we need to go much further. In particular, organisations should consider the following:

• Both ‘inclusion’ and ‘representation’, as concepts, require critiquing. Those with responsibility for progressing equality should be able to explain what they mean, why they are often talked about together, and the pitfalls and opportunities associated with the models. In particular, organisations should understand that our current approach to equality means that individuals from under-represented groups who advance in their roles often do so by ‘covering’ aspects of their personality and identity. In doing so, organisations lose the ‘difference’ that prompts the advantages of diversity.

• Alongside existing (and important) representational measures of equalities progress, organisations should devise indicators that reflect the complexity of how inequality manifests itself. Some of these indicators should measure the experience of marginalised staff in senior positions to understand the extent to which they feel it necessary to ‘cover’ (and in this respect may be similar to those used by Yoshino3 4). However, more innovative indicators are required to measure aspects of organisational culture and leadership behaviour that perpetuate inequality. These might include the extent to which leaders feel at ease discussing ‘race’; their ability to undertake root cause analyses to deploy evidenced-based solutions to entrenched inequalities; or their understanding of how systemic inequality is maintained.

• Organisations should place less emphasis on activities that purport to upskill ethnically marginalised staff but which leave the culture and systems of that organisation intact.

• Instead, organisations should support leaders to wrestle with the root cause of inequality: the privileging of particular social categories (male over female, white over black and so on). In this respect, leaders should be supported to understand how beliefs (about race, sex, class) develop and are hardwired into our systems. The normalisation of these beliefs creates and reinforces what we see around us and further embeds the status quo. An understanding of anti-oppressive practice, use of evidence and understanding of our personal power can lever change—but only if we are prepared to do the work. There is a danger in proclaiming a commitment to anti-racism but not following this through. Not only does it make equalities efforts appear tokenistic, but it means organisations miss out on a great opportunity to practically reframe workplace practices so that all can enjoy.