Work has a ‘Leadership Development Programme’ for Women and Ethnic Minority People

[LaundryLoop]

Right, so I’ll admit that when I’m writing this I’m emotional. I wasn’t sure where else to go to express and check this. I’ve posted and lurked on here for a while under a different username but want to remain completely anonymous so posting this under a new name.

I work for a big company (I’ll stay vague on which one) which has a Leadership Development Programme for Women and Ethnic Minority people. They are grouped together for the purpose of the programme. We’ve been getting communications about this programme recently but it’s been going on for a while I think. After following the Supreme Court clarification closely, I’ve read up a lot about the law in this space and positive action and I don’t understand how this programme can exist. Surely the programme should be for women or ethnic minority people. In my view, women face very specific barriers to career progression which need to be addressed separately. It does a disservice to both groups and they should split them out.

I checked this with ChatGPT (I’m no lawyer) and it seems to be right:
Even if different groups (e.g. women and ethnic minority groups) each have their own evidence of disadvantage and their own proportionate justification, you still cannot lawfully treat them as a single positive action group. The Equality Act 2010 requires that positive action be based on a specific protected characteristic. Combining different characteristics into one undifferentiated group obscures the legal basis for action, risks unlawful discrimination, and fails the test of legal clarity and proportionality under Section 158.

That accurately reflects what I’ve read on here.

So…I raised it. I was immediately shut down and told that I didn’t understand the law and that so long as there is justification which shows systemic disadvantage for those two groups then it’s okay. This morning I was pulled into a room full of men and belittled and spoken down to. I’m writing this having just stopped crying. I was made to feel stupid in front of my manager who I feel already dislikes me for reasons beyond my control and related to gender. I tried to make it clear that I think the programme is a good idea, the groups should just be split out.

Can any legal experts on here confirm if I’m right in this? I would appreciate any advice on what to do next, although I’m not sure I can continue raising concerns in this kind of environment.

I don't understand why you think it is illegal to offer a programme for two protected characteristics.

Are you misunderstanding the significance of the Supreme Court decision? That absolutely did NOT say anything of the kind. It just clarified that an allegedly 'single sex' space that admitted both women and trans women was not in fact single sex at all.

Sooo much misunderstanding around this simple decision.

Just to add, I can see LOADS of ways in which you could run a programme of this sort that was equally useful to both ethnic minorities and women. It could focus simply on leadership skills, networking opportunities, etc., rather than on the specific challenges faced by each separate characteristic. Or, if it wanted to include such a focus, it could have within its timetable a couple of women-specific or ethnic-minority-specific sessions that did address these sorts of specific issues.

Why on earth would you think that there was something illegal about such a programme? The mind boggles.

I think the law and the SC ruling are red herrings here.

The issue is more about the appropriateness of the training and how it would deal with the different and specific barriers for each group properly. There is often a false equivalence in understanding oppressions, inequality and prejudice and what leads to barriers in career progression. It's not all the same.

While there may be a few basic similarities, once you get into the details personal experiences and the issues faced it would be very different. Maybe a fantastic facilitator could use this to encourage empathy snd understanding between the different groups- but that isn't really the point? I am also very suspicious of anyone who claims to do "diversity" training but attempts to cover all groups. The most they can effectively do is explain the law and your organisation's policy to you. I have also witnessed the most awful and pointless derailing of these sessions by people who really aren't experiencing the same difficulties.

This all sounds like poor practice on the part of HR and senior managers. Squishing two groups together like this suggests lazy and poor thinking around DEI and a more performative than genuine attitude by the business. I have done a fair amount of workplace training and each time it has been really specific to the protected characteristic - within disability training for example it has even been divided up further- around deafness, learning disabilities and physical ones.

i think your strongest argument is if the progression of these groups is to be genuinely addressed then they should be separated, otherwise the programme can only deliver the most superficial level of support. And yes women of colour can/should go to both.

As for the dressing down by a group of men the irony of that is just gobsmacking, and I would say another example of poor practice and a lack of genuine concern or understanding.

They have shown that they really do need a "Women in leadership" program if they are shutting you down/ belittling you for speaking up and making a suggestion. Oh the irony.
Awful for you. I hope you can turn this around into something positive at work.

I was on a similar scheme for women, ethnic minority and people with disabilities. In practice it was run together to save money, as there was a huge amount of overlap of content. But sessions often turned into rows on victim hierarchy so it wasn't that useful. But it's a DEI tick box, and some people got lots out of it.
It might not be exactly legal correct, but cost and practically will always play a part in a voluntary scheme. And it's better than nothing.

It would depend on the program. When I was big 4 we participated in a reverse mentoring program with partners. Mentors were women and ethnic minorities, they were all underrepresented at senior levels, all groups seen as having less ‘organic’ contact and influence with the partnership and less vocal in the workplace, and this was to give partners insight into their background and perspective as well as give them the opportunity to connect directly at partner level. This seemed reasonable to me and it was a decent program run by people trying to make things better and participated in by partners doing the same.
the way they told you off is unbelievably totally not ok though.

Lets assume an organisation is genuinely interested in providing training for career development (or some such phrase).

It is quite clear that those offering these type of services say the first thing you need to do is survey the workforce.

And assuming they know how to collect annonymous data that can be related to the protected characteristics, whatever training etc is offered should be based on what seems to be most needed linked to those protected characteristics.

Without doing that it is just tokenism by management, or as others have suggested a money saving exercise.

And in fact if this type of survey was done regularlly it would also reveal what progress the employer had made in creating a more equal work place year by year.

No, I don't think your analysis makes any sense OP, and I'm not sure why you'd even think that.

Also, ChatGPT isn't reliable even for simple facts, much less anything more.

Leadership training like this probably has nothing much to do with facing barriers. In my experience a program like this is the same as the one they would offer to anyone identified as being able to benefit from leadership training. They are just targeting groups they think are under-represented as leaders in the company.