Diversity targets in the workplace?

[Chicken_Satay]

I know of several large corporations that have specific "diversity" targets in their organisation. In one example, their target is that 15% of all leadership positions should be from BAME backgrounds.

Given that the UK BAME population is less than 15% (as far as I'm aware), isn't this an unfair over representation of that particular demographic, especially for leadership specific positions?

If you work in an organisation that has these targets and you're white, does that mean at some stage in your career, you are likely to be unfairly discriminated against because you are white? The organisation must hit its diversity targets after all?

[crofty1984]

Yes, probably.

[deckster]

That's a very simplistic view but typically you either:

• Believe in diversity as a positive influence and a goal in its own right, and
• Believe in and understand the concept of white privilege

...or you don't.

[Hoofy]

I guess there's also the problem that a BAME candidate won't be taken seriously when recruited. "Oh, she's just there to meet a diversity quota." Which makes it harder as they then have to prove themselves even more than a new person would when there's no quota.

That said, if the next PM role specifically requests, in the name of diversity, a chinese man with an interest in cars and an inability to take anything seriously, then I will happily let people whine about being there to meet a diversity target.

[Chicken_Satay]

deckster said:

That's a very simplistic view but typically you either:

• Believe in diversity as a positive influence and a goal in its own right, and
• Believe in and understand the concept of white privilege

...or you don't.

That doesn't really answer the question.

[Countdown]

Chicken_Satay said:

I know of several large corporations that have specific "diversity" targets in their organisation. In one example, their target is that 15% of all leadership positions should be from BAME backgrounds.

Given that the UK BAME population is less than 15% (as far as I'm aware), isn't this an unfair over representation of that particular demographic, especially for leadership specific positions?

If you work in an organisation that has these targets and you're white, does that mean at some stage in your career, you are likely to be unfairly discriminated against because you are white? The organisation must hit its diversity targets after all?

It depends on how the organisation tries to hit the target.

Hypothetical example - Org decides to also start advertising vacancies in media targetted at BAME people. Is that anti-white discrimination?

[Crafty_]

Never mind self imposed targets, what if its law? not BAME but it could eventually go the same way https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/22/g...

I think its a tricky subject - personally I don't care if the person is luminous green and wears a hat on Tuesdays, if they can do the job thats good enough. I'd hope that anyone or any group responsible for hiring people would think in a similar way, wishful thinking perhaps ?

[Countdown]

Apologies if this is taking things off-thread;

Mr Investment Banker gets his son internments/summer jobs/work experience at his bank. He also lets him know when / where the vacancies are being advertised. He also provides him with interview coaching by asking the HR Director to carry out mock interviews. As a result Mr Investment Banker Jnr gets a lot of interviews and job offers.

is that a fair/reasonable recruitment process?

[Chicken_Satay]

Countdown said:

Hypothetical example - Org decides to also start advertising vacancies in media targetted at BAME people. Is that anti-white discrimination?

I'd assume it would be. Companies aren't allowed to list job adverts stating "no black people" so I don't see how doing it the other way round would be any different.

[Countdown]

Chicken_Satay said:

Countdown said:

Hypothetical example - Org decides to also start advertising vacancies in media targetted at BAME people. Is that anti-white discrimination?

I'd assume it would be. Companies aren't allowed to list job adverts stating "no black people" so I don't see how doing it the other way round would be any different.

They're still advertising in all their usual channels. However as they want to hit their diversity target they are trying to attract more BAME applications.

So there is no impact on any white applicants from applying, but it might increase the number of BAME applicants.

is it discrimination?

[klan8456]

Countdown said:

Apologies if this is taking things off-thread;

Mr Investment Banker gets his son internments/summer jobs/work experience at his bank. He also lets him know when / where the vacancies are being advertised. He also provides him with interview coaching by asking the HR Director to carry out mock interviews. As a result Mr Investment Banker Jnr gets a lot of interviews and job offers.

is that a fair/reasonable recruitment process?

No it is not fair, which is why it doesn’t happen.

[deckster]

Crafty_ said:

I think its a tricky subject - personally I don't care if the person is luminous green and wears a hat on Tuesdays, if they can do the job thats good enough. I'd hope that anyone or any group responsible for hiring people would think in a similar way, wishful thinking perhaps ?

Again this is simplistic thinking.

There is a significant body of evidence that shows that diverse organisations perform better at every level; just having people who are different in background, in outlook and in experience makes your company more successful. Left to their own devices, people hire people who are like them (again, this is just a fact) and this leads to departments which are homogenous - full of people that think the same way. That's a sure-fire ticket to mediocrity. Therefore, even if person A is technically better at producing widgets than person B, the fact that person B is from a different social or ethnic background, might mean that they are the better choice for the job just because they are different.

And that's before you get into the fact that person B might actually have been better at producing widgets than person A, had they gone to a better school, or had parents that weren't living hand-to-mouth, or had been given a job over person A last time round.

Now obviously I'm not saying that we should give minorities first dibs every time just because. But it is definitely the case that sometimes, to produce a genuinely level playing field, it has to look slanted from a few angles.

[JxJ Jr.]

Chicken_Satay said:

Given that the UK BAME population is less than 15% (as far as I'm aware), isn't this an unfair over representation of that particular demographic, especially for leadership specific positions?

Well according to 2011 census data shown on wikipedia, it's about 13% so no, it would appear to be a reasonable representation, although if you're considering 'large corporations' which are likely to be more based in larger urban areas then 15% may even be under-represented based on the local area and/or the company's own staff demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the...

[Crafty_]

deckster said:

Crafty_ said:

I think its a tricky subject - personally I don't care if the person is luminous green and wears a hat on Tuesdays, if they can do the job thats good enough. I'd hope that anyone or any group responsible for hiring people would think in a similar way, wishful thinking perhaps ?

Again this is simplistic thinking.

There is a significant body of evidence that shows that diverse organisations perform better at every level; just having people who are different in background, in outlook and in experience makes your company more successful. Left to their own devices, people hire people who are like them (again, this is just a fact) and this leads to departments which are homogenous - full of people that think the same way. That's a sure-fire ticket to mediocrity. Therefore, even if person A is technically better at producing widgets than person B, the fact that person B is from a different social or ethnic background, might mean that they are the better choice for the job just because they are different.

And that's before you get into the fact that person B might actually have been better at producing widgets than person A, had they gone to a better school, or had parents that weren't living hand-to-mouth, or had been given a job over person A last time round.

Now obviously I'm not saying that we should give minorities first dibs every time just because. But it is definitely the case that sometimes, to produce a genuinely level playing field, it has to look slanted from a few angles.

Let me put it another way, sex/race/whatever isn't a reason not to employ someone.

[Countdown]

klan8456 said:

Countdown said:

Apologies if this is taking things off-thread;

Mr Investment Banker gets his son internments/summer jobs/work experience at his bank. He also lets him know when / where the vacancies are being advertised. He also provides him with interview coaching by asking the HR Director to carry out mock interviews. As a result Mr Investment Banker Jnr gets a lot of interviews and job offers.

is that a fair/reasonable recruitment process?

No it is not fair, which is why it doesn’t happen.

So nobody in your class at School got work experience as a result of their parents' jobs and contact network?

[Pugaris]

Chicken_Satay said:

I know of several large corporations that have specific "diversity" targets in their organisation. In one example, their target is that 15% of all leadership positions should be from BAME backgrounds.

Given that the UK BAME population is less than 15% (as far as I'm aware), isn't this an unfair over representation of that particular demographic, especially for leadership specific positions?

If you work in an organisation that has these targets and you're white, does that mean at some stage in your career, you are likely to be unfairly discriminated against because you are white? The organisation must hit its diversity targets after all?

Corporate leadership positions tend to be a global market, not a UK market so exactly matching the representation of BAME-folk in the UK isn't necessarily what they would want.

As someone else says, it makes a lot more sense if you believe (as all the evidence suggests) that diverse teams create more business value.

[klan8456]

Countdown said:

So nobody in your class at School got work experience as a result of their parents' jobs and contact network?

That’s an entirely different question.

I didn’t graduate in 2020, and you mentioned investment banking specifically. It simply does not happen nowadays.

[MiseryStreak]

Hoofy said:

I guess there's also the problem that a BAME candidate won't be taken seriously when recruited. "Oh, she's just there to meet a diversity quota." Which makes it harder as they then have to prove themselves even more than a new person would when there's no quota.

Yep, this is nothing new though is it?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XgqUQ17sYm0

[Countdown]

klan8456 said:

Countdown said:

So nobody in your class at School got work experience as a result of their parents' jobs and contact network?

That’s an entirely different question.

I didn’t graduate in 2020, and you mentioned investment banking specifically. It simply does not happen nowadays.

Why do you think it doesn't happen?

I know for a fact that a lot of the children in the same class as my kids had work experience in their parents' firms. (I arranged work experience for two of my nephews in MY company). One of my mates is a Partner in a mid-tier Accountancy practice. Guess where his son and his daughter did their work experience? The son started working for PWC last summer....I could go on.

Do you think nepotism plays no role in opportunities?

[deckster]

klan8456 said:

Countdown said:

So nobody in your class at School got work experience as a result of their parents' jobs and contact network?

That’s an entirely different question.

I didn’t graduate in 2020, and you mentioned investment banking specifically. It simply does not happen nowadays.

What doesn't happen? People don't have access to internal job boards? People don't use their own knowledge to coach their children? People don't ask friends to advise their kids on how to perform best at interview?

All of these things happen and they always will. I agree the days of 'daddy got me a job' are largely gone, but there are still lots of more subtle ways that parents can influence the chances of their offspring betting a better job.