Do they have quotas at GCHQ?

[MsGreying]

At GCHQ diversity and inclusion are critical to our mission. To protect the UK, we need a truly diverse workforce that reflects the society we serve.
https://recruitmentservices.applicationtrack.com/vx/appcentre-a36/brand-0/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/6/opp/3625-Cyber-Practitioner-Development-Programme-Ref-3625/en-GB?

Why do they not operate on a meritocracy?

Will they put a load of TIMs in place and say they are diverse?

I don't think quotas are legal in the UK.

I can't open the link , but judging from the sentence you quote, it looks like they want to broaden the range of applicants they get, and then the merit kicks in - the best candidate gets the job, but the best from a wider choice of candidates.

No.

Many organisations have targeted recruitment campaigns to encourage applicants from under represented groups - but thats done on the basis that you can only genuinely select the best candidate if you’re getting applicants from across the potential candidate pool. If a portion of that potential candidate pool are ruling themselves out because of assumptions about stereotypes then you can’t operate on a meritocratic basis.

The Equality opportunity section below for any who can't open the link. Looks fairly standard to me

Equal opportunities
At GCHQ diversity and inclusion are critical to our mission. To protect the UK, we need a truly diverse workforce that reflects the society we serve. This includes diversity in every sense of the word: those with different backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, ways of thinking and those with disabilities or neurodivergent conditions. We therefore welcome and encourage applications from everyone, including those from groups that are under-represented in our workforce such as women, those from an ethnic minority background, people with disabilities and those from low socio-economic backgrounds.

You do need diversity in jobs like intelligence though. It's not wokeness. The lack of diversity (and possibly being stuck in cold war patterns of thinking) was thought to be a factor in the CIAs failure to see 9/11 or correctly assess how much of a threat Bin Laden was. If course, Bin Laden also misjudged Americas reaction because he didnt understand American political culture.

You need people with a wide range of language abilities. But also a knowledge of cultural nuances. Even the UK and the US have had massive misunderstandings (e.g. over what "tabling an idea" or "a spot of bother"). And that's two countries with a shared language and close history. There's no point decoding the enemies secret communications if no-one understands the subtle nuances.
A really tragic example would be that in Iraq people sometimes signal to go forward by stretching their arm out with their palm open and closing and opening their fingers in a beckoning motion. In America standing with your ✋ like this means Stop Now. An obvious recipe for disaster when you have soldiers at check points nervous about car bombs and families trying to cooperate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49582852

My workplace guarantees an interview to candidates who meet the essential criteria for the job and who have a protected characteristic. I think this is a reasonable approach.

Thanks for posting this.
As I thought, they are looking for applications from a wider spread of candidates, but that's just getting your foot in the door, not getting the job.

I think there is an increasing misunderstanding about attempts to make sure a work force is more representative of the community it serves.

And lets not forget that women have benefited from this.

Its really stupid headlines from chronically ill informed statements like Trump (trying to imply a fatal air crash was because of what the US calls DEI).

And as others have said, given that in the UK we have a very diverse population in terms of beliefs, culture, etc., etc., the idea that white public school boys will give us the best service is ridiculous.

Because some employers may drift into positive discrimination, which isn't legal in the UK, doesn't mean that others shouldn't make an application process open and accessible so as to end up having a work force that is representative of the community.

have you not understood how this is supposed to work?

if you have 2 equally applicable candidates and one is a middle-class white bloke, and the other is a black woman, you employ the black woman because at GCHQ black women are a minority.

It has nothing to do with ability - they are both equally able.

The number of people who simply don't understand this (and i include many DEI officers in organisations) is staggering.

MI6 is also very woke these days.

Charlie Higson wrote a James Bond novel a while ago where the villain was a thinly veiled Nigel Farage and Bond's inner monologue (fretting about "populism" etc) was remarkably similar to a David Aaronovitch column.

It was not popular with Bond fans, but the intelligence services do reflect the state ideology.

What do they mean by "protected characteristic"? The way protected characteristics are defined in the Equality Act means that everyone has several of them, so they would guarantee that all applicants who meet the essential criteria get interviewed. I guess that's not what they mean so they must have their own definition. Do you know what it is?

Equal opportunities applies to ALL protected characteristics. It's to ensure that all candidates are treated equal irrespective of their characteristics. It's not just about gender reassignment, it applies equally to age, disability, race and so on. It is meant to encourage people to apply. And there are no hardcoded quota for companies to follow. It is meant to encourage a broad, diverse and well-balanced work environment but there are no minimums of any kind imposed.

Yes it is about encouraging applications from under represented groups. There is a hell of a long way to go after applying, until you get your foot in the door.

it applies equally to age, disability, race and so on

Also, assuming employers are collecting for some purpose, not just because everybody else does, it should help an employer know that within the area they are based how sucessful they have been in recruiting to reflect the community they are based.

For instance if say they are located in an inner city area where a number of different communities live, then it should show how sucessful their outreach has been to that community.

That is why employers, with out saying it is perfect, should use the categories that match the census ones, so that you can then compare your recruitment response to the locality.

But I suspect many just go through this as a paper exercise and dont do anything with it at all. And if that is the case they shouldn't collect in the first place.

well, for eg, i didn't see that many wheelchair users there.

We had some training on this recently. What you describe is only legal if the recruiter has exhausted all reasonable means for differentiating the candidates, including inviting them back for second interviews.

We offer this only to disabled candidates.

Offering it to everyone with a protected characteristic makes no sense, because we all have the protected characteristics of age, race, and sex, we just all occupy different categories within those characteristics.

that doesn't refute or negate anything i said.

Because the way people harp on you get the impression that the VAST majority of people think "oh i can only employ someone off this list..."

ETA: I literally said if they are down to the last 2 and they have to choose they will take the one who is least represented.

I was adding to your statement, not contradicting it. The two candidates must be neck-and-neck with all reasonable means of differentiating them on merit exhausted.

If two candidates are neck-and-neck, one is a man and the other a woman, and the job is one with a shortage of men, would the man automatically get the job? I'm thinking of something like primary teaching or nursery assistant.

In some instances, and not sure if this is legal, the ad will say something like this or that group is under represented within the company or what ever.

So it is possible that if the ad said that about men, it could be seen to be something that would be taken into account.

Although, and I have no personal knowledge of this, how many schools worry about men being under represented as teaching staff, let alone in a nursery.

I think I read an article / attended a talk ages ago about GCHQ in particular attracting a lot of neurodiverse talent. Basically if you are going to employ maths or crossword geniuses you’ve probably got some neurodiversity in the mix but that brings amazingly different perspectives to problems. This might also mean adapting your hiring process or staff support offer to make sure you don’t screen such people out.

I think I read something a while back about the probation service wanting to recruit more men as the majority of people working as probation officers were women and sometimes a man might be better for a particular case. So that would be an example of them openly trying to recruit more men
But the probation service is al understaffed anyway I think it's kind of academic.

If they were already employing a high proportion of neuro-diverse workers, would that imply that the neuro-typical are underrepresented and extra measures should be taken to attract neuro-typical applicants?

Organisations like GCHQ are also interested in people with SpLD like dyslexia because they often have different and enhanced pattern recognition skills so they will see something that others don’t in a data set.

That depends on whether you guys are good at the job

If you are NT, the world is your oyster, most jobs are designed for you. Don't begrudge us the few jobs we are good at.