Diversity at work

[GingerBrod]

My employer is buying into the "bring your whole self to work" school of thought and has recently announced a diversity charter. People who are "diverse" can join the group and wear special lanyards (which I find insidious in itself) to help everyone know that they're part of the group. It seems to cover all the protected characteristics, so you can join in if you're female, gay, mixed race, trans, disabled etc etc.

They're taking steps to make our work environment more inclusive. This mostly includes presentations at staff meetings about specific groups and challenges they face, all the usual stuff. They're going to have a "zero tolerance policy" towards micro-aggressions. This is baffling as this is honestly the nicest place I've worked. Everyone is polite and friendly, and I've only ever seen ONE person yelling at his employee. I know there could be stuff happening behind closed doors, but it just seems to unlikely, all people who move on talk about how they will miss the friendly and supportive culture we have! The pay is shit here but the company is good.

The other thing that came up, inevitably, is pronouns in signatures to normalise the discussion around etc etc. The comms they sent out were very loose, so we haven't been ordered to do this, but there's a general pressure to conform.

I really don't want to. I don't want to bring my whole damn self to work, I don't want to tell people about private things like my mental health, ethnicity, sexuality, disability. I certainly don't want to be singled out by a fucking lanyard. I've spent my entire life making a point of not being defined by things beyond my control, including my gender, and yet here we are, being encouraged to expose SO MUCH to 1000s of people!

My plan is to be an ostrich and just not join in, but I am worried that the day may come when I'm challenged directly and I just don't want to get into a fight about it. I want to do my job, get my pay, and have a private life.

Has anyone actually got away with doing this, or have they come for you eventually?

There's quite a lot of evidence that these sort of initiatives at work are not that effective although the initiative behind it at your company in particular sounds well intentioned.:

...Some researchers even suggest that asking people to fight stereotypes through training can make those stereotypes more prevalent in a person’s mind. And because there’s very little standardisation within the DEI-training industry, certain types of training can be harmful and even reinforce stereotypes.

www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210614-why-ineffective-diversity-training-wont-go-away

I’m not quite sure why you think you would get into a fight about it, and your use of the expression ‘have they come for you’ is a bit puzzling. What do you think they would challenge you about.

My organisation is very big on this, most of which I agree with. I have declared no special characteristic, I don’t put my pro nouns on my emails. We are encouraged but no one has ‘come for me’ pinned me to the floor or otherwise tried to force me to do anything.

I think I work in a very nice place, on the whole. But the surveys about bullying, harassment tell a different story. As do the data on pay differentials, BME staff in senior positions etc.

Absence of yelling does not mean absence of discrimination. Micro aggressions can be diffucult to spot, they can sometimes be unintentional because someone just doesnt realise the implication of what they are saying, and often they can be delivered very nicely and politely

I don't like this kind of initiative. I think trying to be 'inclusive' only works for people who want to be defined by their differences and that the scheme will exclude people, like yourself, who don't want your characteristics to overshadow you as a person.

I don't think they're ever compulsory though, so if you don't want to participate then just don't.

I work in this space at a large employer and while it's encouraged that you declare your diversity data - legally this can only be used in an aggregated way to establish trends to help the company improve it's diversity. You can't be identified unless you choose to be.

And as for this:

This is baffling as this is honestly the nicest place I've worked. Everyone is polite and friendly, and I've only ever seen ONE person yelling at his employee.

This statement is indicative of privilege. Just because you're not aware of microaggressions doesn't mean they don't happen.

I really hate this crap. I don't want to know about everyone's private lives and I value my own privacy. I don't want to bring my whole life and self into work. Work is work and I like to keep it separate from my personal life as much as I can. I would just take that approach-surely if they value diversity they should also value diversity of thought/approach/opinion? And if at any point you are made to feel uncomfortable for NOT sharing personal details then you should complain.

And I say this as someone who fits a number of the protected characteristics. They used to mean something and now it all just feels like a big joke.

@JonahofArk

I really hate this crap. I don't want to know about everyone's private lives and I value my own privacy. I don't want to bring my whole life and self into work. Work is work and I like to keep it separate from my personal life as much as I can. I would just take that approach-surely if they value diversity they should also value diversity of thought/approach/opinion? And if at any point you are made to feel uncomfortable for NOT sharing personal details then you should complain.

And I say this as someone who fits a number of the protected characteristics. They used to mean something and now it all just feels like a big joke.

Absolutely diversity of thought should be respected. But it's harder to get diversity of thought if everyone looks the same and comes from the same background. That's why large companies are trying to attract diverse talent. No one should feel compelled to disclose any diversity data - but those who want to should be given the right environment to do so.

@Ted27

I’m not quite sure why you think you would get into a fight about it, and your use of the expression ‘have they come for you’ is a bit puzzling. What do you think they would challenge you about.

My organisation is very big on this, most of which I agree with. I have declared no special characteristic, I don’t put my pro nouns on my emails. We are encouraged but no one has ‘come for me’ pinned me to the floor or otherwise tried to force me to do anything.

I think I work in a very nice place, on the whole. But the surveys about bullying, harassment tell a different story. As do the data on pay differentials, BME staff in senior positions etc.

Absence of yelling does not mean absence of discrimination. Micro aggressions can be diffucult to spot, they can sometimes be unintentional because someone just doesnt realise the implication of what they are saying, and often they can be delivered very nicely and politely

So what exactly has your workplace done to actually address the bullying/harassment/lack of opportunities faced by those colleagues that you have outlined? Not much I'll bet.

This is the problem. These 'diversity champions/schemes' etc do not actually deal with the issues that people with protected characteristics face - they are simply a very convenient way for organisations to plaster over the cracks and pretend they are progressive and inclusive whilst the bad behaviour continues.

After all, if challenged, an organisation can point to a thousand and one schemes and charters that it has joined and supposedly implemented as 'evidence' of the actions it has taken, regardless of the fact that they simply do not work. I say this as someone who has previously been directly involved in applying for and working to implement one specific diversity charter in a public sector organisation. Management very clearly viewed it as a tick-box exercise and it was abandoned in the end because they couldn't be bothered to implement any changes.

@IknowThisIsRidiculous but more and more people are feeling pressured into taking part in these initiatives which is an issue.

And I disagree with you that companies are interested in having a diverse workforce-they are really not. These schemes are not about changing hiring practices, whistleblowing policies, improving maternity pay, improving disabled access, challenging bullying etc etc. Knowing someone's protected characteristics does not change any of the above.

And an organisation should not need to focus upon the protected characteristics of its employees in order to start trying to improve working conditions. Why is that the starting point?

It's the "his employee" that worries me. Why are they not a staff member like you? It may be the nicest place you've ever worked, but what if it's not for others? I've quite often thought why am I spending a day on this course, what possible relevance does it have for me, to find I learned something and found it valuable.

For a start we have a number of programmes/ schemes from mentoring to coaching, career progression support only open to certain groups, peer support networks etc. We have very clear reasonsble adjustments for people with disabilities.

I have personally supported a member of staff through occupational assessment so he got a diagnosis of ASD, he was unable to do the job he was appointed to do. The easy thing would have been to fail him at probabtion and sack him. We didnt do that, we supported him into a job he could do where he became a very valued member of the team. I couldnt have done that with him unless the HR policies and organisational culture supported that.
In my civil service dept it doesnt feel like a tick box exercise. I’m not saying its perfect, some parts of the dept are better than others. But the data shows where things are going in the right direction and where there is still a lot to do.

[quote JonahofArk]@IknowThisIsRidiculous but more and more people are feeling pressured into taking part in these initiatives which is an issue.

And I disagree with you that companies are interested in having a diverse workforce-they are really not. These schemes are not about changing hiring practices, whistleblowing policies, improving maternity pay, improving disabled access, challenging bullying etc etc. Knowing someone's protected characteristics does not change any of the above.

And an organisation should not need to focus upon the protected characteristics of its employees in order to start trying to improve working conditions. Why is that the starting point? [/quote]
These schemes are not about changing hiring practices, whistleblowing policies, improving maternity pay, improving disabled access, challenging bullying etc etc. Knowing someone's protected characteristics does not change any of the above.

How do you know? The type of change that you describe doesn't happen overnight. Depending on the size of the organisation it can be like turning around a juggernaut. But you have to start somewhere.

@IknowThisIsRidiculous I agree with you that organisations have to start somewhere-my point is why should employees have to give up so much of themselves (their private information etc) as the starting point?

Why don't organisations start by working to improve conditions instead of wanting their employees to perform so much emotional labour?

And let's not forget the fact that these sort of schemes often lead to employees with those protected characteristics having to do more work. After all, as the OP stated, these groups tend to like people with protected characteristics to be heavily involved-that means more work for the very people who are already disadvantaged in the workplace.

So I should expend additional emotional labour and increase my workload to try and make my employer look good because I have protected characteristics? Is that really progress? More labour for minorities? While my colleagues are able to get on and focus on their actual jobs? No thanks.

@Ted27

For a start we have a number of programmes/ schemes from mentoring to coaching, career progression support only open to certain groups, peer support networks etc. We have very clear reasonsble adjustments for people with disabilities.

I have personally supported a member of staff through occupational assessment so he got a diagnosis of ASD, he was unable to do the job he was appointed to do. The easy thing would have been to fail him at probabtion and sack him. We didnt do that, we supported him into a job he could do where he became a very valued member of the team. I couldnt have done that with him unless the HR policies and organisational culture supported that.
In my civil service dept it doesnt feel like a tick box exercise. I’m not saying its perfect, some parts of the dept are better than others. But the data shows where things are going in the right direction and where there is still a lot to do.

That all sounds great, but my point still stands. It would be possible to do all of that without needing your employees to reveal personal information publicly in the first instance. Policies should be updated as standard to reflect contemporary society, not just when certain groups join a workplace.

So if you're a white, straight, male with no disabilities, you're automatically singled out? I hate stuff like this.

Could you focus in a different area of diversity and inclusion. For example, does your company provide a service to people? Is it accessible to all or only certain demographics? Is that something that needs to be changed?

Because having a policy isnt enough.

If I had followed ‘policy’ my team member would have lost his job. We bent every rule to keep him, because that was the culture

I bet they’re also doing a lot of stuff on unconscious bias training and so I’d point out that this is totally at odds with that. Fuck it, I would not t be wearing a lanyard and it can’t be enforced

@Ted27

Because having a policy isnt enough.

If I had followed ‘policy’ my team member would have lost his job. We bent every rule to keep him, because that was the culture

Great, so I'll keep othering myself in the workplace over and over and over again in order to hopefully be treated with some dignity and respect. I cannot speak for others in a similar situation but I for one am exhausted with this sort of approach.

It means that people like me can never fit in, can never just be. We are always expected to perform additional labour (emotional or otherwise) in the workplace. We are always set apart. Our differences must always be highlighted and are a constant topic of conversation. It's utterly depressing.

@JonahofArk you're not forced to disclose anything. But you can if you want to. And companies can't measure how 'bad' things are (and where they need to focus their attention) without some form of measurement. Not all diversity is visible remember. And as for these sort of schemes often lead to employees with those protected characteristics having to do more work...this is true, but in my experience these employees are often the ones driving the agenda within the organisation as they want to see the change.

[quote IknowThisIsRidiculous]**@JonahofArk* you're not forced to disclose anything. But you can if you want to. And companies can't measure how 'bad' things are (and where they need to focus their attention) without some form of measurement. Not all diversity is visible remember. And as for these sort of schemes often lead to employees with those protected characteristics having to do more work*...this is true, but in my experience these employees are often the ones driving the agenda within the organisation as they want to see the change.[/quote]
Every organisation already collects a lot of data relating to protected characteristics from their workforce, so they already will have a very good idea of how diverse their workforce is and would be able to plan/change things as necessary. Call me cynical but this move to more visibility is not about making improvements to employees' lives, it's about the optics.

In terms of the additional labour issue, I am reminded of a tweet I saw a while ago (when I was still on Twitter). It was from a black PhD student, and went something like this:

'I told my dad that I had been approached to become a diversity champion in my department. My dad's response was "so the only black PhD student in the department will have additional work and duties while the white students are able to focus on their research and studies?" I turned down the 'opportunity'.'

This summarises it for me. Additional labour for those who are already disadvantaged while everybody else is able to focus on their actual work. This is not progress.

Horrible schemes ultimately resulting in more division, fear, and paranoia. Micro aggressions are subjective and really just need grown up discussions to discover if the slight was intentional or not. If this isn’t possible and it’s frequent or repeated behaviour then it’s bullying already protected against. Micro aggressions cover so much and are straight out of communist regimes where the party check that you have the right expression on your face at all times or a jealous co-worker can denounce you for not looking enthusiastic enough about their idea they mentioned in a meeting or someone else’s presentation or a million other possible things. Where this ends is not a good place.

@JonahofArk

He wasnt 'othered'. The simple fact was that he could not do the job he was employed to do. My son had ASD. I saw something in this young man. After many months of building trust, he decided to go after the diagnosis. No one else in the team knew until he decided to tell them.
For the first time in his life he had answers, explanations. He could hold down a job.
He has since gone to be very active in the LGBTQ+ networks. His choice.
This person is one of the most individual, flamboyant characters I have ever met. He is completely himself, and no one bats an eyelash. Because of the culture that has been created.
I am part of a project around race issues.We are all volunteers, no one tapped on our shoulders because we were black, white or Asian. There are as many white people involved as BME

Agree @PerkyBlinder and @JonahofArk

@PerkyBlinder

Horrible schemes ultimately resulting in more division, fear, and paranoia. Micro aggressions are subjective and really just need grown up discussions to discover if the slight was intentional or not. If this isn’t possible and it’s frequent or repeated behaviour then it’s bullying already protected against. Micro aggressions cover so much and are straight out of communist regimes where the party check that you have the right expression on your face at all times or a jealous co-worker can denounce you for not looking enthusiastic enough about their idea they mentioned in a meeting or someone else’s presentation or a million other possible things. Where this ends is not a good place.

I think you need to read up on what a micro aggressions is,

It doesn’t matter whether it was intentional or not. In fact these often are not intentional slights. It is about unconscious bias. Eg, like telling a Chinese colleague “you speak perfect English”. Well, perhaps he is as English as you.

And the point of calling out micro aggressions is not to blame anyone. But to call for greater reflection into biases. We all have them.