Is recruiting with D&I in mind just ticking boxes?

In this episode of D&I Digest, Teagan and Henry talk about Michael Young's take on 'The Myth of Meritocracy' and whether diversity targets in recruitment are helpful.

You can read the two articles we discuss here:
MI6 hits the airwaves to boost ethnic diversity in recruitment
The Myth of Meritocracy: who really gets what they deserve?

Our D&I Spotlight this month is Michael Young of the second article.

If you have a question for us, then you can submit it through this form.

Music used is:
Who Do You Think I Think You Are? by Mini Vandals

Transcript

H: Welcome back to another episode of D&I Digest! I’m Henry, I use he/they pronouns.

T: And I’m Teagan, and I use she/her pronouns. We make up the Diversity and Inclusion team at Anchor, which is an organisation that specialises in housing and care for over 55s. This month, we’re talking about meritocracy and having diversity targets for recruitment, in particular. If you haven’t heard of this before, it’s kind of when jobs put targets around numbers of people that they hire from particular backgrounds, and they have to meet those targets of having X number of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, or X number of people from the LGBTQ community, or X number of people over 50, or whatever it might be. In opposition to that, meritocracy represents a vision where power and privilege are allocated by individual merit, not social origins. So this is a very interesting conversation, I feel.

H: It is.

T: What are your thoughts on those two schools, then, and do you fall into either one of those?

H: So I think my perspective on this has changed through time, because I remember when I first signed up to uni there was a box basically saying like “Are you a member of the LGBT community? Because we want that.” So I was really reluctant to tick that box because I was like “I want to get into university on my own merit.” Like I fully believed in meritocracy, I thought that was how it should happen. I do think to an extent that is how it should happen, like the best person for the job kind of gets it. Now I’m a bit more critical of who’s judging that merit.

T: That’s it.

H: Yeah.

T: Yeah, I’d second that. I think I would go as far as to say that I don’t think having diversity targets and meritocracy are mutually exclusive, if I’m honest. They can definitely work together really well. But to echo what you’ve said, it’s about who’s making those decisions. Who’s telling you that you’re the right person for the job?

H: Or not.

T: Or not, yeah. And it’s a decision that’s being made by a handful of people when actually we know that that can be quite tricky actually when it comes down to it. And you don’t have to look too far to recognise that, well apparently the right person for the job has always been a straight, older, White man, so something’s not quite adding up, is it? Particularly when you look at the UK and how diverse that’s been for so many years, decades now – how can it be that the only people in charge are those that look exactly the same as each other?

H: Yeah. It’s one of those kind of things where, as a theory, I think I buy into it a lot.

T: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

H: In practice? It doesn’t work that way. 

T: Yeah. You have to ask the question are people actually carrying out meritocracy properly, or is it have we just decided to label that because that’s what feels comfortable and convenient?

H: Yeah, it’s a really nice word.

T: Yeah.

H: That makes everyone feel really good about themselves, but only if you’re on the benefitting end of it.

T: Totally, yeah. And there’s just so many issues around this idea of someone being the right person for the job, and we know that you can see things like biases creeping into recruitment processes, you can see things that make it even more difficult for certain disadvantaged groups to apply for the job in the first place, so is it ever the right person for the job, or are they just meeting a certain threshold and ticking off certain bits of criteria, so to speak. But actually we’re missing this whole other picture of what somebody else could bring to the table. So, hm, meritocracy, not quite sure.

H: And as well with meritocracy, that kind of idea of, well yeah, it’s the  best person for the job, but if the job’s been created to be really hard for certain people to do?

T: Yep. Unnecessarily as well.

H: Yeah, unnecessarily, like if the hoops you’ve got to get through are unnecessary, then actually meritocracy doesn’t mean that you’re good for the job, it means that you’ve jumped through the right hoops.

T: Yeah, for sure.

H: Which is a different question entirely.

MUSIC

H: So our first article today is called ‘MI6 hits the airwaves to boost ethnic diversity in recruitment,’ and it’s from March this year so a pretty recent one, it’s a pretty short article, and it’s basically describing one of the first spies to give an interview about their job. Until this point, only Sir Richard Moore, the chief of MI6, has their name in the public domain to, you know, guard the identity of their officers – you’d be pretty rubbish spies if you were like, “Hi my name’s this.”

T: Giving everybody your Facebook and your Twitter handle!

H: Don’t tell anyone though!

T: Worst spy ever!

H: Would absolutely be me. So up until this point, it’s pretty much only been him who’s got their name in the public domain, so the person on the radio called himself ‘Kwame’. So he’s Black, and this interview was a bid to boost the ethnic diversity of applicants to MI6, so very much focused on that diversifying the recruitment side of things, and someone from an Asian ethnic background was also interviewed I think the week after this. So Kwame is the director of organisational development at MI6, and basically said that the popular James Bond depictions of MI6 officers, so White, middle class, straight men, wasn’t true. But, according to workforce figures, only around 9% of MI6 staff are from an ethnic minority background, compared to 15% across all civil service departments.

T: Okay.

H: So I must say the James Bond thing definitely hit my assumptions. That’s exactly what I assumed that every MI6 agent looked like. And acted like. It fully got me!

T: In my head I feel like the best MI6 agents are people who are completely hidden in plain sight. Like I want it to be someone who’s 86 on the Tube, you know, doing some sort of really chill hobby.

H: Crosswords.

T: Yeah! Who’s just really hidden in plain sight. But yeah, we have no idea who is a spy amongst us, that’s kind of the point, so.

H: Although I do find it really interesting, or kind of ironic I guess, that that is the assumption? Because it kind of implies that actually you know what, if there is a South Asian person spying on me, I would have no idea. Not even the slightest suspicion because I’d be like “Ah, you’re not James Bond.”

T: Exactly.

H: I wonder as well if that’s why James Bond is now like opening up the role?

T: Yeah!

H: To be like – MI6 whispering in their ear being like, “You’ve gotta- you’re ruining our rep, guys!”

T: It is interesting, isn’t it? And I’m not at all surprised that only 9% of MI6 staff are from ethnic minority backgrounds. To give some more figures around that and some more context, around 20% of the UK working population are from ethnic minority backgrounds, so in comparison they’ve got some work to do really to improve that. And we spoke about this when we were talking about the police force some episodes ago. And how they need to be representative of the communities they serve – this is obviously exactly the same situation. It’s a government institution, and we expect government institutions to look and feel like the societies they’re living in, right? So I’m really pleased to see that they’re actually going out there and saying “Can you come and join us please? Because we need to do something about our lack of ethnic diversity, and poor Kwame’s like, you know, just getting himself on the radio trying to draw in the punters for MI6. I guarantee some of the applications they’ve had after this was hilarious.

H: It does kind of surprise me though that diversity is so low in MI6 because, like you say, the point is to blend into plain sight. If every one of your workforce looks like a White man in a suit jacket, they’re not going to be able to blend in very well with like, most people.

T: It’s very Matrix, isn’t it?

H: Yeah, exactly!

T: For sure.

H: Like if you’re wanting to kind of get into different places naturally, you need to look like different people?

T: Yeah, absolutely.

H: That seems really obvious to me, so it does – I mean it doesn’t surprise me because it’s a big institution – but it does surprise me because I’m like surely that’s job number 1 is to blend in, and if you don’t, you’ve failed?

T: Yeah, absolutely. So I guess with this article as well, it doesn’t actually tell us but I’d be interested to know if they then put quotas or targets in place that they want to achieve because how are they then going to start plugging that gap and making that 9% closer to that 20% that we were talking about?

H: Yeah I wonder how they’re doing it other than two radio interviews.

T: This is it! You know, it really doesn’t happen by accident, and this is one of the things that I try to get across when we do sessions around inclusive recruitment. When we talk about creating a truly diverse team, it has to be done with purpose, and it doesn’t happen by accident. So, with those two things, you have to kind of be really intentional with what happens next.

H: Yeah, and there’s lots of follow through that comes with it as well, you can’t just be like, “Well, we’ve done the quota! Nailed it!”

T: That’s it. You know, and there’s so many questions as well about people who join teams who previously weren’t that diverse and how do you then integrate yourself into that team when you’re the one that’s so different?

H: Yeah, especially like the first few people.

T: That’s it.

H: Yeah. It’s hard, yeah.

T: So you’ve got to lay the groundwork as well for that situation to manifest itself positively. So you can’t just say, “Let’s just bring a load of Black people in.” That’s not going to change the culture in a positive way – it’ll probably have the opposite effect. So it has to be calculated and meaningful and strategic in the way-

H: Because you want to keep the people as well, don’t you?

T: Exactly. 

H: You don’t want to be just like, “Well, we’ve got them! Oh they’ve all left.”

T: Can you imagine?

H: Which is why it surprises me that it’s so low because surely you want people whose culture is different to yours because then you can diversify the situations that your spies – can I call them spies? Is that? Officers? Sounds really formal.

T: Yeah! I think spies.

H: Spies is more fun, let’s call them spies. Yeah. You can spy on more people, right?

T: Yeah, absolutely. And we see, we have historical evidence of where a lack of ethnic diversity has been a massive failing on government institutes like MI6: Osama Bin Laden. So when they were deciding whether Osama Bin Laden was a true threat, there was nobody, in that government agency at that time, who had the lived experience, who were able to understand the language that Osama was speaking, to understand the cultural gravitas that was behind the operation that Osama Bin Laden was leading, and ultimately they decided that he wasn’t a threat.

H: Yeah. 

T: And you then look at that situation in hindsight and think, “Wow, if only you had the right people in the room to recognise that this was very serious, and you should have been taking it very seriously from day dot.” But actually, because you were lacking that diversity of thought, experience, culture, whatever it might be, you absolutely tanked that.

H: Missed it, yeah, absolutely.

T: Missed it by a mile. So it is really important to make sure that you have those people around the table and, I suppose the question for today is do you have to have a target in place to make that happen?

H: Yeah. Definitely one we’ll come back to I think- that’s one of the concluding questions, so bear that one in mind while we’re talking! But yeah, I find it really funny that James Bond has such an influence on this, it really makes my day, because the next thing that Kwame says in this interview is that the agency’s head of technology as well as her deputy are both women. So the perception of James Bond being everywhere isn’t necessarily true, but also that matches Q, right? That’s – so it does match James Bond. But yeah, so essentially the purpose of this is Kwame kind of saying, “Look, our institution is more diverse than people think it is, but not as diverse as it should be.”

T: Sure.

H: And so they want to reach out to people and say that the Secret Intelligence Service and MI6 is a place for everyone, because obviously as outsiders to that institution we can’t see that, because it’s secret! So they’re kind of putting it really explicitly and going, “Please trust us!” But yeah, the full interview is on a podcast called ‘Inside MI6 with Nihal Arthanayake’ on BBC Sounds, so I think I’m definitely going to go and have a listen to that.

T: I’m going to have to listen to this.

H: I think it’s – yeah, interesting, because maybe the full interview does, but this article doesn’t necessarily speak to having those targets in place, the representation increase is still very much the desire, so like you say, it would be interesting to know like how they’re doing that. And as you say, what steps they’re putting in place to follow through with those things.

T: Yeah.

H: And also I wonder whether those things get published as well, because it’s MI6?

T: Mm, yeah that’s interesting.

H: Like I’d be  interested to know how much they reveal, because surely that’s kind of giving you information about the institution? Like if you say, “Actually our diverse representation’s really bad,” You’re kind of safe if all of your circle of your nefarious group is people who don’t look like James Bond, you’re fine, right? Sorted!

T: Yeah, yeah. Interesting, yeah, I’d be interested to know what’s said in that interview. And it certainly sounds like they are operating on this idea of meritocracy but also aware of the fact that something’s got to change.

MUSIC

H: So article 2 today  is from The Guardian and it’s an older one, and classed as one of their ‘Long Reads’ so we very much skim the surface of this, I really recommend going and reading the full article because it is really interesting, and it’s called ‘The Myth of Meritocracy: who really gets what they deserve?’  by Kwame Anthony Appiah, and I really hope this is the same Kwame.

T: Can you imagine!

H: Connected!

T: Oh the coincidence! Love that.

H: The second life of, in inverted commas, “Kwame.”

T: “Kwame.”

H: So yeah, the subtitle of this article claims that sorting people by, in inverted commas, ‘merit’ will do nothing to fix inequality.

T: Hear hear!

H: So the article says that as a whole, people tend to subscribe to the idea that jobs should go to the people best qualified for them, regardless of their background. Occasionally we allow for exceptions, in the form of positive action for example, to help undo the previous effects of discrimination, but the idea generally is that when those bigotries are gone, the exceptions will also go.

T: Yeah.

H: The article centres around a man called Michael Young, who has been called the greatest practical sociologist of the past century, and he’s the one who actually coined the term ‘meritocracy’ in his career.

T: Slay.

H: I know, right? He’s a really intriguing person, actually, the article goes into so much detail. He essentially, in his career and his travels, he set up a community studies institute in Bethnal Green, identified various social needs – most of these were to do with class and education background.

T: Okay.

H:  And he created loads of programmes and organisations to help with this, so for example, The Consumers’ Association, and their magazine Which?

T: Oh, okay.

H: Which you often see with Which University and Which Jobs, yeah, he’s responsible for all that.

T: Excellent.

H: His brainchild was the Open University.

T: This guy’s impressive, man.

H: Honestly! Like, he’s so interesting! I kind of started reading and was like “Ugh, another one,” I’m fully team Michael Young at this end of this! What a guy!

T: Absolutely.

H: So yeah, he’s very much on the bench of education matters, not just as a means of mobility and social mobility, but as a way to make people more forceful as citizens.

T: Love that.

H: I love that phrasing so much.

T: Love that. Because it’s true, isn’t it?

H: Absolutely, yeah.

T: Like it all stems from that point where we are educated while we’re young, and how we come across that education, what education we receive, the level that we receive, et cetera et cetera. And when you are unable to get the right level of education as a child, your social mobility, it just becomes so difficult to try and –

H: There’s absolute correlation, isn’t there?

T: Yeah, to navigate your way through life, so I absolutely agree with Michael that it really does start with education.

H: Yeah, and like that whole idea is nothing new either, and I mean Michael Young was born in 1915 or something, but even before that like, I don’t know, Dickens was huge on the idea of like, actually education is the thing that makes people resort to crime.

T: Yeah, yeah. Or rather, the lack of!

H: Or not! Yeah, backwards! So yeah, it’s nothing new, so it’s quite interesting that there’s always been this real focus on “Look at the correlation between the two, why is nothing happening about it?” So, in his book, ‘The Rise of Meritocracy’, the long-term effects of this idea became really dystopian, and this is the bit that I found really interesting, because the article gets very technical on this. So initially, he says that the ideal ruling class would be determined by the formula “IQ + effort = merit.”

T: Fine, yep.

H: Basically society is kind of ruled by the cleverest, I guess.

T: Yeah, so it’s almost IQ, ability, plus application.

H: Yes, yeah, exactly that. Basically Young said that this would create a country where “the eminent know that success is a just reward for their own capacity.”

T: Yep.

H: So basically that kind of idea of worth is innate.

T: Yes. 

H: He basically said that one immediate difficulty was that if you know you’re going to be boxed into an immoveable class, nearly all parents would try to gain advantage for their children.

T: Of course.

H: Yeah, and when you therefore have inequalities of income, which you would in a meritocratic society, that formula is no longer ‘IQ + effort = merit’. The formula changes instantly.

T: Michael has literally predicted the future.

H: Yeah, and nowadays as well there’s an American sociologist called Daniel Markovits. He argued that “American meritocracy has become precisely what it was invented to combat: a mechanism for the transmission of wealth and privilege across generations.” So, yeah, what should have been mechanisms for mobility really just solidified privilege, and the idea of ‘merit’ just made those on top immune to shame or reproach, which I love the phrasing of that.

T: Wow. Okay.

H: Which, yeah, you do see it, don’t you?

T: Oh absolutely, of course!

H: That kind of entitlement that comes with being on the top of something. Of course you’re going to think you earned that, because otherwise you didn’t earn it. And that’s bad.

T: We know that we live in this current society because you can go onto the street today and you could ask anybody on the street, “Where do you go for the best education? And who, in this country, is at the top of their game, where do you think they went to school?” And what would they say?

H: Eton.

T: Yes. Cambridge, Oxford.

H: Cambridge, Oxford.

T: So you know, we have this system in place.

H: Absolutely, and it’s interesting because Daniel Markovits, being American, he’s done a lot of work on like this situation but in America. And actually in the article there is loads of mention on like actually if you look at the intake of Yale, for example.

T: Yeah.

H: They take more students from the top 1% of the economy than they do from the bottom 60%. So exactly what you’re saying, like it’s true, we know this happens.

T: Just doesn’t work, does it?

H: Yeah, exactly! It’s kind of that idea of judgement with it which is an interesting one because add into that perception and judgement and you suddenly get a very, very tilted stage on which these people are acting.

T: Oh absolutely.

(19.39.11)

T: Can I come in with a tangiential anecdote actually, just around this? So my dear friend that I grew up with is an incredibly intelligent young woman, and she had the opportunity to go to Oxford on a – basically her social mobility was much like the rest of us. We all grew up in a tiny working class mining town, you know? None of us came from any money or any great wealth and she was given her place after she’d wrote about wanting to move up through the social class and how this would be a really good opportunity, and she’s honestly the most intelligent person I have ever met, ever. And she went down to Oxford for her taster session, so you like get to know the uni a little bit, have a look at the grounds, and whatever else, and maybe attend an actual learning session to see what it’s going to be like. And I remember getting a phonecall from her when she was down there and she was like, “I can’t go here.” And I said, “Why?” She was like, “This is not my people. I can’t do this, like this is not the world I live in.” She said, “I’m sharing a room with a girl and she said that she’d forgotten her towel, and she said “I’m just going to nip out to Cath Kidston and pick a towel up.” Kind of thing.” And it just felt worlds apart for her to the point where it – well, she didn’t go. She decided to go to a different university. She still went to a red brick, and she still had a fantastic education, but the idea of being there for three years in an environment that she felt was so alien to her, and so-

H: And alienates her as well, like, quite actively.

T: Yeah, and so exclusive, yeah absolutely. It meant that she decided not to pursue what could have been the best education that you can find in Britain.

H: Yeah, on paper anyway.

T: Or on paper, of course, absolutely.

H: Yeah.

T: And it’s things like that where what Michael’s saying is absolutely rings true. This is just a way for people to continue to further their privilege and status and wealth.

H: Yeah, it just solidifies it.

T: And keep it! Keep it in this tiny little box and nobody else can then touch it and get anywhere near it. And I think that’s the saddest part when it comes to it because that’s not really what education was supposed to be about, or what it should be about.

H: Exactly. And especially in the context of jobs. Your employer is obviously going to see your worth, probably in the same way that they see their worth.

T: Yep.

H: Because otherwise it means they’re worthless, and nobody wants to admit that about themselves, so that kind of affinity bias? Yeah, that affinity bias really kind of comes in there, doesn’t it? If like you see ‘Oxford University’ on your CV and the employer went to Oxford, obviously they’re going to think that “Oh, that person knows what they’re about. Cracking education, that.”

T: Oh yeah, exactly – top notch education, and clearly they’re going to be the best person for the job.

H: Yeah. The article also kind of adds in that really interesting comment on American working class and how it kind of ties in. Obviously Michael Young was English so a lot of this situation, the economic systems, are based in England. But there’s a real American parallel, and you can kind of see it a little bit more in the American parallel, especially nowadays, because the sense of financial vulnerability is really consistent with feeling superior in other ways. So the article, for instance, mentions that working-class men often see themselves as more manly than middle- and upper-class men. However, that same group of White working-class Americans have also been persuaded that in some sense, they don’t deserve the opportunities that have been denied them. There’s still that idea, especially in White American working class nowadays that minorities have unfair advantages in the competition for work and distribution of benefits, but simultaneously that they don’t think it’s wrong that they’re not getting jobs or that they’re being paid less. So it’s a really contradictory situation which there’s such cognitive dissonance in there.

T: Yeah, absolutely. 

H: But the two of them hold really firmly.

T: This comes back to something that we spoke about – that idea of empathy gap.

H: Yeah! Yeah, exactly that!

T: It’s so interesting to me how someone who is from a socio-economic class where it’s primarily difficult for them to reach top ranking jobs, it’s difficult for them to become CEOs, for example, because that’s not how life was paved for them as someone who’s working class. It’s interesting to me that they can also be from a majority community, like they’re White, for example, and they can’t draw the parallels between the difficulties they face as someone from the working class, to the difficulties that someone who is Black, for example, might experience. And that, for me, is just so illustrative of this empathy gap that we seem to have got ourselves into as a society where we can’t see that, and we can’t join the dots, and I find that just- 

H: Yeah, confusing.

T: Very very confusing! 

H: But there’s that real anger that minorities are getting “handouts” (in inverted commas) but there’s no thought that the solution being, “Well actually we should probably deserve that as well?” Like, “We need that same kind of help” – it’s not, it’s all pushed out and it’s like “Yeah, but if I was well trained then I would get that job, naturally. But I’m not deserving of it.” So yeah there’s a real dissonance and the solution isn’t really to demand that same equitable practice, it’s to lash out at the people that are getting the equitable practice? Which-

T: Yeah, or trying to.

H: Or trying, yeah.

T: It is odd, and I do and have heard the phrase quite a number of times recently in my personal life around how hard it is for young, White, straight boys at the moment, and then going into the world of work, and conversations around people saying “My son’s just about to get ready to leave university, he’s 21, he’s never going to find a job because all they want to hear from now are the Blacks, the gays, et cetera, et cetera,” and like. [Deep exhale].

H: There’s a lot to unpack there!

T: Yeah! Where do we begin? Um, no?

H: Firstly, no.

T: So firstly no, that’s not really how things look. Because if that was truly the case, wouldn’t we be seeing the scales tip?

H: Yeah, exactly!

T: And I don’t know about you, but I’m not seeing any scales tipped.

H: Nope!

T: I’m seeing the same thing that we’ve been experiencing for years and years, with a fractional difference if people want to make that difference.

H: I was about to say, I’ve never really seen it coming from the top. I mean, maybe it’s the narrative that’s been shifted on it, but it’s always been “This person was really driven so they’ve done it. They’ve made it.” It’s never been like “We fundamentally changed the structure of our institution, and therefore, oh look at all this talent!”

T: Yeah.

H: Like it’s never been that, it’s “This is an exceptional person, and they made it.” That’s not universal.

T: No, it’s not. Yeah, you’re absolutely right, it’s that idea of being exceptional, it’s not that they were ever, ever, in the same standing as their counterpart.

H: Exactly, but they’re different!

T: Yeah, they’re exceptional. Very very damaging narrative.

H: Yeah. So going back to the article then, Young believed that the problem wasn’t just with the distribution of social prizes and the end results, but with the prizes themselves. A meritocratic system would still, in his view, be a class system that involved a hierarchy of social respect that could either grant or take away dignity and respect. He basically concluded that living well is decided by three things: your capacities, the circumstances of your birth, and the things that you decide are important to do. So he’s kind of still stuck with that idea of using IQ, effort, and merit, but actually kind of said they don’t work as a formula.

T: No, they don’t. 

H: Which, agreed.

T: And I also think this is interesting here, so he says the circumstances of your birth, which we know, absolutely. What also is interesting to me is “the things you decide are important to do” because somebody who’s from a working class background, their priorities are so different. When you live in survival mode, your priorities are going to be totally different to that of someone who’s middle class, living in Surrey. Worlds apart.

H: Exactly. And even if you take in the circumstances of your birth as well, admittedly a lot of what you decide is important to do, is probably going to be influenced by your parents, but then you’ve still got that, “Well actually do I want to follow that, or change?” That’s still hugely determined by your birth and your circumstances, so yeah. Interesting one that it’s kind of made a distinct point, but they’re all so ingratiated with each other, absolutely. So, because there’s no comparative measure of a life that is better or worse, the idea of a hierarchy is flawed. But yeah, Young understood that meritocracy confuses two different concerns – efficiency and worth. Jobs that take longer to master have to be allocated that time and investment, so it’s less that people have ‘merit’ but that they’ve been allowed that time and investment. So yeah, that formula of IQ + effort is a flawed way of measuring meritocracy because neither of those things are earned – they're results of endowments and upbringing. 

T: Absolutely.

H: So yeah. As his kind of conclusive piece, I guess, Young wrote that it’s good sense to appoint people to jobs on their merit. What is not good is to judge a person’s merit on their job or class. So that’s probably, I think, the bit that I do agree with. Disregarding like diversity quotas and stuff, so. Yeah, thoughts on Michael Young?

T: Very interesting. Very interesting, I think there’s so much good stuff that you can pull out of here and, like you’ve said, this is a long article and there’s so much to read in it, and I guarantee that-

H: I feel like I’ve learned so much.

T: Yeah, I guarantee that there are so many things that we can pull out on it. But for me, it’s that idea that seems to be heavily coming through here – and I think that’s kind of the point – it’s around that social mobility. And there are so many deciding factors to your social mobility that are totally beyond your control.

H: Yeah.

T: And things like your ethnicity, where you’re born, whether you’re from the LGBTQ community, these are all things that will tie into that idea of social mobility. Which is absolutely why more organisations are leaning towards trying to track social mobility now as well. And I think that’s going to look very different in sort of a corporate landscape in around 10-15 years, but I think he’s really, really-

H: He’s on it.

T: Yeah! He’s brilliantly articulated the key issue that we have in this country, and it’s around our class system.

H: Yeah, and I think for me that idea of like it’s all very well to focus on meritocracy, but be aware of what you’re judging merit to be? Like if it’s something that they’ve been taught, it’s not merit, like you can’t just have pure innate worth, because there’s no way of measuring or comparing that. Because we’re people!

T: Yeah, and then it’s just, it’s even funnier still when you then tie that into education and you think about the UK education system. And it’s built in one way for a very specific type of child, to succeed in that environment.

H: Yeah, and it hasn’t changed really, in a fundamental way, since the 1800s when it was set up, which was to stop people from being imprisoned. So, yeah, we’re kind of due a bit of a rehaul!

T: Yeah, it needs some work, it needs a tweak, perhaps!

MUSIC

T: Yeah so I mean the obvious spotlight for today is Michael Young – a really interesting person and definitely worth your time to sit and read this article in full. And you can find the link on the podcast episode as well.

MUSIC

T: We do have a couple of FAQs that have come in, which I think are going to spark a bit of conversation too. So our first one is: should I take a job opportunity if I know that a workplace is looking to diversify?

H: Yes. To be honest, I think my answer to this would have looked very different ten years ago, or so.

T: Sure.

H: But now I’m like, yeah.

T: Take the job.

H: Yeah, take it. Things aren’t made fairly, fundamentally.

T: No.

H: So actually if you can get an advantage where you can, take it, because it’s already advantaged to other people.

T: Yeah, absolutely.

H: So yeah. Nab it.

T: I totally agree with you. I have said this for so long, and I’ve had this question more times than I can count from other people saying to me, “Well, I know that they’re just giving it to me because it looks good for them.” And I’m like, “So? You’re the one that’s going to be doing the job, you’re the one that’s leading the charge, you’re the one that’s so capable of doing this job that it doesn’t matter whether it’s going to make them look good or not. Do it, do it to the best of your ability, and go out there and smash it. And like you say, take advantage of the fact that someone has decided that it’s time to implement a bit of equitable practice, you know?

H: To be fair, I do think that it’s a tricky one to approach, especially like, I don’t know, like for instance I found it really tricky to shift this mindset and I think that I’d feel a bit different about it if I wasn’t in a diversity and inclusion job? Because I do think having people with different lived experiences in diversity and inclusion jobs is sensible. Call me crazy, but!

T: Yeah yeah, I agree.

H: Because I- to use my example from earlier, like when I went to uni, the application form and for this I was 18 when I was filling it out? For a 17 or 18 year old who’d been at a private school, who’s White, who’s only just kind of worked out that they’re queer. Having to sit there and look at a form and go “I might only get this because I’m queer,” and even I don’t know if I fall into that bracket really yet?

T: Just didn’t sit comfortably?

H: It felt like imposter syndrome. And I don’t really like that phrase now, but there was a lot of assumption on me that I kind of had to sit and really pick apart. And in the end I don’t think I clicked the button that said I was trans because little 17 year old Henry was like I don’t want to get my university position because I’m trans. I want to get it because I’ve earned it. Which, again, looking back I’m like, “Nah, just click the button!”

T: “Just click it!”

H: But at the time I was really like, “I’ve worked so hard to be clever and to get these good grades, that’s what I want to be rewarded for, as opposed to something I had no input into. I didn’t want my worth to be attributed to something I couldn’t help. So for me it was a really really hard thing to unlearn that, I think.

T: It’s self-worth, isn’t it?

H: Yeah. I’ve grown in confidence, grown as a person. Now we’re fine!

T: It is, it’s attributed to self-worth, and that’s what Michael was saying in this article, you know you’ve got to let go of the things that you’ve been told and you’ve been taught that are linked to your intrinsic value, because they’re not.

H: I think that was the thing as well like I was part of the majority? I was a White kid in a private school.

T: Yep.

H: So the thing that set me apart was that I was getting good grades. So I didn’t want that to be knocked.

T: Overshadowed.

H: Yeah! Exactly that, overshadowed. It’s an interesting dichotomy, I think.

T: Absolutely. And one thing I would also say as well is nobody is getting the job if they’re absolutely terrible at the job, regardless of their lived experience, background.

H: Yeah, your CV still comes into it.

T: Protected characteristics, whatever it might be. Just because somebody is Brown and they’ve gone for a job, they’ve not got the job just because they’re Brown, they’re also incredibly capable of doing said job. Because no company in the world, ever, is just hiring people for the mad craic who actually have no way of knowing how to do the job.

H: Otherwise there wouldn’t be an application process.

T: And ultimately, what a waste of money that would be? When this person comes in and realises they’ve not got a clue how to do the job they’ve just been recruited to do. Bizarre. So I think that that’s one of the things that I think people are missing as well. As a lot of the time when organisations put diversity targets in place, a lot of it is to just get them thinking slightly differently about who they’re going to interview in the first place.

H: Yes, it’s the mindset shift for the people already in that role, isn’t it?

T: A hundred percent.

H: It’s not, “We’re only going to look at these people if you’re White, cis, straight, et al,” it’s a “Oh wow, we’re really lacking this kind of experience, maybe we should think about that a bit harder!” Yeah.

T: Yeah, definitely. So yeah, take the job!

H: Yeah, do it.

T: Absolutely. That’s the end of that one! And the second question is what should organisations be doing to attract more diverse talent?

H: I feel like we’ve covered this one in previous episodes, like, a little bit.

T: Yeah.

H: I’m a big supporter of talking about stuff and making things explicit. So Kwame from the MI6 I think has got the right idea actually in kind of saying like, “This is the make-up of our organisation, honestly you don’t have to look like Daniel Craig to join us.

T: To join us, yeah.

H: I think that transparency is really helpful.

T: I agree. And like you say, as well, when companies are really forthcoming with what it is that they want to see and how they want to transform their organisation it makes it feel a lot more welcoming as an organisation that you’d consider working for. Like I mean specifically for Anchor, we make sure that we’ve got diverse imagery when we go out when we’re trying to recruit, we put an explicit message at the end of each job advert to say “We want to hear from X, Y, and Z.” Because you’re right, sometimes you have got to be really explicit and put your head above the parapet and say, “Yoo hoo, us, come and join us, we actually want to be an organisation that looks and feels like the world outside!” You know, not just all of us walking around doing the same, thinking the same, eating the same.

H: Yeah, and I think one that I’ve seen a few times is “If you don’t think you meet the requirements, apply anyway with what you do have and we’ll decide.”

T: Yeah.

H: And I think that’s really good to say because the people who are going to apply are going to apply anyway.

T: Of course.

H: But the people who are going, “Hm, I’m just not sure I qualify,” wouldn’t. And actually reading that might, and therefore might get a job, and it’s that kind of making it explicit and transparent – it doesn’t stop anyone from applying, it’s not saying “We don’t want cis, straight, White men,” it’s saying, “That person that doesn’t think they’re going to try, give it a go!” And actually that might work really well, so none of these things obviously are ever exclusionary.

T: No.

H: It’s literally just adding an extra line to say “Give it a go, you’re welcome here, be assured of that.”

T: Yeah. Absolutely, you’ve got to present the right image, you’ve got to put your best foot forward. And one thing I always like to say when it comes to recruitment, particularly to candidates, people who are applying for the jobs, is when you go into that interview, that interview is just as much for you as it is for them.

H: Yes!

T: They should be impressing you too, you know, and if they’re not then it’s not the right job!

H: Yeah, and I think in terms of what organisations should be doing to attract diverse talent is actually owning up a bit to what they don’t do well? And saying “Actually we’re working on this.”

T: Transparency!

H: Yeah! “We know that this is lacking, here’s what we’re trying to do.” I want to know that they’ve noticed-

T: What they’re not doing well at.

H: What they’re not doing so well, and that they’ve owned up to it, and that accountability, transparency is really important for me.

T: A very good point. Very good point. I just want to do a bit of a moan about something that I don’t think works particularly well, and this is a personal bugbear of mine, and I am willing to concede that a lot of people might not agree with me on this. But I absolutely cannot stand diversity job boards. I’ve got a real issue with them. 

H: Oh interesting, okay.

T: I have never in my life decided I was going to go on Jobs For Black People.com and see where my career was going to take me. I have spoken to a variety of other people from different walks of life, and I’ve said “When you were looking for a job, did you go on a specialist job board?” And they’re like “No? What do you mean? Like, why would I do that? I just, you know, went on Indeed, or LinkedIn, or...”

H: See, I did.

T: Really?!

H: Yeah! This is why I’m sat here like “Oooh”.

T: What! You are the first person ever.

H: I was trawling Stonewall Jobs.

T: Oh okay.

H: I wanted somewhere that had gone out of their way to say “We are trans inclusive.”

T: And that felt more comfortable to do it via Stonewall’s job board?

H: I wouldn’t say more comfortable, but I knew that they’d kind of been vetted to go on there? So it was a bit of an assurance for me, I think, especially in terms of I didn’t really know what a trans inclusive job looked like? So for me it was they’d already done kind of half the work, because I didn’t know what I was looking for. I guess it kind of goes down to like the accreditations of it, like you can’t rely on the fact that there’s a badge and therefore everything’s fine, but it does give you a bit of an idea of someone’s priorities?

T: Yeah.

H: And I think also, to be fair actually, the fact that I was looking for diversity and inclusion jobs, I knew that I wanted to work with specifically diversity, so I was looking for organisations, at first, anyway, that were like for the LGBT community, so those were the kinds of places that I’d be like “Oh, well they’re probably going to advertise there!” So I guess maybe I wasn’t necessarily looking at it for-

T: All jobs, but you were looking more specifically?

H: For all jobs, because my specific angle was going to be in that, but in those kind of job boards?

T: Yeah, I understand. Yeah, that makes sense.

H: But admittedly that’s probably in a very different position to like a job board for Black people, like that’s going to look really different because –

T: That’s genuinely a thing.

H: I feel like – is it really?

T: It’s called – well at the time when I was looking at it – BME jobs. It is an interesting take. 

H: And I wonder if like, you know, for specific jobs, it works a lot better maybe as opposed to just the blanket “We’re looking for a shop assistant.”

T: Sure. I think you’d have more success, honestly, if you went to a recruitment agency and said, “I am looking for this.”

H: I agree. Yes, I think that’s much better.

T: You know what I mean?

H: Because again, it’s a more personable approach, and it’s more deliberate. It’s not just “Yeah, whack it on a board!”

T: Yeah, bizarre.

MUSIC (41.50.00)

T: Loads of stuff that we’ve talked about there, and I think we’ve covered a variety of different topics, but mostly what we wanted to cover today is that idea of meritocracy and whether it really works – I think we’ve kind of deduced that it-

H: No.

T: Doesn’t! But I think it’s been really great to try and flesh out some of that conversation, actually.

H: Yeah.

T: So thank you for joining us for this episode of D&I Digest. Remember that you can follow us on our website and social media. You can also ask us questions! We always want to hear your questions.

H: Please ask us questions!

T: So use that link.

H: And also let us know what you think of things as well. Like especially on this topic, like have you used weird job specific boards?!

T: Yes, please!

H: Like do you think the idea of meritocracy is really great? Yeah, talk to us! We’re interested, we can respond as well which is lovely.

T: Yes please. So come back next month, it’s bye from me.

H: And it’s bye from me!

Both: Bye!