Law firm sets 40:40:20 diversity target

[SlipperyLizard]

I saw this first on LinkedIn earlier - Baker McKenzie have announced a target that by 2025 they will have 40% men, 40% women and 20% “flexible” (men, women or non-binary persons) in senior positions.

www.bakermckenzie.com/en/newsroom/2019/06/gender-targets

I’d like to place a bet that if we check their stats in 2025 they’ll have (at best) 40% women, 60% men and a statistically insignificant percentage of non-binary persons.

Is this the best that women lawyers can hope for? To hold 40% of senior positions a quarter of the way through the 21st century?

If they can get half the men to identify as non-binary they can pat themselves on the back for only employing 40% women. Brilliant legal minds, obviously.

Bugger. A third of the men. Not got my maths head on.

But women will include men that identify as women in any case.

What a weird target. Are 20% of people non binary? Are 10% of lawyers non binary?

If they can get half the men to identify as non-binary they can pat themselves on the back for only employing 40% women. Brilliant legal minds, obviously.

And for that 40%, there's self-ID...

They're actually aiming to recruit 20% non binary/trans people even though the entire LGBT population is less than 10% of the actual population?
And that's LGB T which is less than 10%.
The population of non-binary or whatever people is probably lower than 2%.

Where are they going to get these people from and why should they employ a ridiculously large number of them compared to other qualified people?

That seems like a really weird target. 20% non-binary seems like they picked it out of a hat.

My lawyer friend is pretty cynical about the wokeness of law schools these days, and it certainly seems to be the case when I hear groups of lawyers speaking in the media.

It’s not 20% non-binary - it’s 20% of any gender, which basically means it will be men.

They will be hoping non-binary vagina havers are the kind that don’t tend to want kids...

Op doesn't say the want 20% nb. Sounds like they are leaving that 20% flexible, but any nb people will be counted there not under their sex. I expect all the categories are self Id anyway.

Ah, so more men then

It’s not 20% non-binary - it’s 20% of any gender, which basically means it will be men.

So they have a target of employing 40% women in senior positions, know it's a pathetic target, so are hiding behind a weird ratio?

I think that’s actually ok. If you remove the “20% other” bit, what it’s actually saying is that they should aim for a minimum of 40% of each sex in senior roles. Which is basically ensuring a good mix without being too rigid. It allows for natural fluctuations- unless your organisation is absolutely enormous there is unlikely to always be a perfect 50/50 balance in the mix of people most genuinely suited to those roles, and this system recognises that and doesn’t impose an artificial quota. I read something years ago that said you need a critical mass of 30% of women at cabinet/board/whatever level to have enough influence to genuinely break down barriers for the next generation coming through and stop “male thinking” from being the default. That makes sense to me, and this is along the same lines.

I don't think 40% is too bad, depending on where they are at just now. It's only six years away, so a lot of the senior positions will stay the same. It probably means that new posts will favour women to get to the 40%. It isn't realistic to expect half and half in such a short timeframe unless there is a high staff turnover.

The answer has been discussed here many times: we just all identify as men. No need to change appearance or preferences or anything else, we've been told you can't define 'meaningful transition' and we can just stretch the bandwidth of manhood.

I guess on reflection 40% isn’t too bad, but the woke-washing of the 20% “flexible” is ridiculous and disingenuous. If they said 60/40 men/women and ended up with more than 40% women (no chance), it isn’t like anyone would criticise that, it would (and should) be celebrated.

I doubt anyone self absorbed enough to adopt a “non-binary” identify would get very far in a city law firm. The competition for entry to training contracts at top law firms is fierce - and they are still mostly straight-laced, formal places to work. I expect they’d no more recruit an enby than someone with visible tattoos.

Ha well at least they are trying I was at a similar firm and in 2006 the stats for partners in finance dept were
49 Male
2 female (one on long term sick for mental health reasons)
Majority of the solicitors were women but most smashed against glass ceiling due to insane long hours culture

Baker McKenzie are a ever so slightly dodgy American firm and this is mere window dressing.

Law is actually becoming quite female heavy. Many smaller firms are majority female intakes at grad or NQ level now. Women start falling out of the profession when they have children (at which point these kinds of targets are pretty useless anyway). Law is one sector that is perfect for flexible working practices and should be a sector where women thrive.

What a load of crap considering the proportion of applicants who identity as 'other' will be minute. An excuse to justify a low proportion of female lawyers

I don’t think that people understand the meaning of proportionate. Half the population is female, so that should be reflected at every level of senior jobs. However, half the population is not BME, trans or disabled but I have seen people arguing for 50% representation of these groups before. I think that any organisation with a commitment to diversity should aim for its workforce to reflect the general population.

The 40% is only not too bad if one accepts that the proportion of women is usually likely to be far lower. Turn it around and try to imagine a firm saying it would aim to have (only) 40% men - it does not work.

I do understand the aim of the policy which is to create a space for those who identify as non-binary or trans which is not at the expense of either sex. But it straightaway runs into the issue of definitions (what counts as non-binary and why?) and why prioritise gender over other protected characteristics? Why not aim to have BAME or disabled staff, groups who arguably face more discrimination and hurdles? Why not recruit on merit?

No, it isn't that I accept the proportion of women to be lower, it's that in the real life context, the proportion is even lower than this and the timeframe short. Turning it around to 40% men is irrelevant as you aren't starting from scratch, you are probably starting from 20% or so.

If we "turned it around," and insisted 40% of teachers had to be men, within 6 years, can you see that it could only happen by getting rid of more qualified female teachers?

You have to assume a lot of the senior roles will be filled be the same people, in six years, or people already in senior roles moving sideways. Women will be moving up and space is only created gradually. If we insisted that men were demoted/fired to make it 50:50, I think that'd do more harm than good (especially for the women taking their places).

40% by 2025, then make a new target of 45% by 2030....

The 20% is daft, but if it does just fill up with males, that will at least demonstrate an important point. It'll also be interesting to see which category TW go into. If they are counted in this "third space" instead of in the female group, then that's good.

No, it isn't that I accept the proportion of women to be lower, it's that in the real life context, the proportion is even lower than this and the timeframe short. Turning it around to 40% men is irrelevant as you aren't starting from scratch, you are probably starting from 20% or so.

If we "turned it around," and insisted 40% of teachers had to be men, within 6 years, can you see that it could only happen by getting rid of more qualified female teachers?

You have to assume a lot of the senior roles will be filled be the same people, in six years, or people already in senior roles moving sideways. Women will be moving up and space is only created gradually. If we insisted that men were demoted/fired to make it 50:50, I think that'd do more harm than good (especially for the women taking their places).

40% by 2025, then make a new target of 45% by 2030....

The 20% is daft, but if it does just fill up with males, that will at least demonstrate an important point. It'll also be interesting to see which category TW go into. If they are counted in this "third space" instead of in the female group, then that's good.

Why not 20% disabled? I would guess there are a lot more disabled people in the population than whatever gender I feel like today. Disabled will not be represented in the working population proportionally either. I can see reasonable having the aim to get a 50 50 balance of people born XX and XY though.