[News] diversity equality and inclusion

cheshunt seagull · 2025-05-28T10:26:34+0100

The whole point of DEI in recruitment is to ensure that you are able to recruit from as wide a pool of candidates as possible and are not discouraging anybody with the skills you need. Apart from the selection process this means where you advertise, the requirements etc. I worked in a large public body and for many years we required a degree for roles that frankly didn't need it; it just made sifting easier. When that requirement went we were able to select from a much broader group in terms of both class and ethnicity. In the case of roles in which we required some supervisory/management experience; just specifiying that this could include community work, sports and church groups encouraged people to apply who may previously have been put off. When it came to selecting applicants to interview, names were hidden so we couldn't discriminate/favour any groups.

But, as others have said DEI is also about creating an environment in which everyone feels comfortable so they can perform.

This isn't about wokeness but about the efficient running of an organisation. I don't think I ever used terms like DEI as it was just common sense.

Harry Wilson's tackle · 2025-05-28T10:26:39+0100

Berty23 said:
The point that everyone seems to miss is that there is lots of research evidence showing that diverse groups make better decisions. So recruiting people based on gender or ethnicity could be the right thing to do to improve the organisation.

Matthew Syed wrote about this in his book Rebel ideas. Providing the example of the CIA missing the danger of osama bin laden because the people monitoring were basically all the same person. Taught at the same uni by the same people and had the same background so they all thought the same. Studies have been showing showing that people from different backgrounds approach problems in different ways.

Apply it to real life here. Teaching for example. If you have a black potential teacher with decent grades from a working class background vs a middle class white teacher who went to independent boarding school and has excellent grades applying for a role in a deprived urban and diverse school then does the person who looks best on paper have the best chance of getting the best out of those kids? Possibly not because they won’t have the full understanding of the complexities of life for those kids. Many kids living in deprivation don’t have people to look up to and emulate. Now imagine those kids have someone who they consider the be like them teaching them. They can engage and think “hang on, if they can do it then so can I” rather than battling against someone who does not understand them.

I appreciate this is far too nuanced for the “just pick highest qualified person” debate but hopefully useful.

I can’t recommend the book enough.

Thanks for your thoughts. I always liked Syed. I agree with your narrative.
If one is promoting diversity in the workplace, I personally would emphasize fairness of opportunity.
I would argue that of course any applicant should be considered only if suitable.
Then it is a case of deciding which suitable candidate is 'most' suitable.
That is where biases can come into play, and I am not sure how to deal with that issue.
So your point, I think it is correct and interesting to argue that a diverse workforce has positive impact.
The weakness of this narrative is that if someone can show that their workplace became less efficient,
or less harmonious once it became more diverse, this would fuel a counter narrative.
I am not sure there are many examples the latter, and suspect they boil down to nothing more than
"I hate my job now we have all these women, and you can't have a bit of banter without offending a Muslim or poof". So, yes, you are right.
But I would argue that because DEI is about protecting fairness and opportunity there is no need to invoke positive effects as icing on the cake. Occams razor and all that.
I always say that the strength of an argument is inversely proportional to its component parts.
The killer issue for DEI is that discriminating against people is wrong and should be illegal.
And unless DEI is operated in the workplace, discrimination is inevitable.

Berty23 · 2025-05-28T10:26:45+0100

hans kraay fan club said:
(ignoring the last line, where I presume you have missed a 'not')

This is awful, and I think you need to print it out, and read it back to yourself many, many times.

Literally, you are exposing your prejudice - that you BEGIN the selection process with a preconceived idea of who 'will be' the better candidate, and that prejudice guides you through the whole process.

The Portsmouth candidate will absolutely not be considered by you if they are the equal of the Oxbridge candidate (as the latter is 'bound to' have had broader experiences, yada, yada). Only if the Portsmouth candidate is objectively BETTER than the Oxbridge will you give them fair consideration.

Frightening.

And this is why lots of organisations remove details about uni and names etc from applications. You remove the bias before you start. Unconscious bias runs deep in all of us. It could simply be that someone looks like a friend of yours or speak the same as someone you know is brilliant. They might have the same interests as you etc etc.

Thunder Bolt · 2025-05-28T10:30:37+0100

I’ve seen references to gender, age, qualifications, physical appearance but nobody has mentioned disability.

Many people with chronic illness or a disability find it hard to get work. That isn’t to say they can’t do the work.

Berty23 · 2025-05-28T10:32:12+0100

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Thanks for your thoughts. I always liked Syed. I agree with your narrative.
If one is promoting diversity in the workplace, I personally would emphasize fairness of opportunity.
I would argue that of course any applicant should be considered only if suitable.
Then it is a case of deciding which suitable candidate is 'most' suitable.
That is where biases can come into play, and I am not sure how to deal with that issue.
So your point, I think it is correct and interesting to argue that a diverse workforce has positive impact.
The weakness of this narrative is that if someone can show that their workplace became less efficient,
or less harmonious once it became more diverse, this would fuel a counter narrative.
I am not sure there are many examples the latter, and suspect they boil down to nothing more than
"I hate my job now we have all these women, and you can't have a bit of banter without offending a Muslim or poof". So, yes, you are right.
But I would argue that because DEI is about protecting fairness and opportunity there is no need to invoke positive effects as icing on the cake. Occams razor and all that.
I always say that the strength of an argument is inversely proportional to its component parts.
The killer issue for DEI is that discriminating against people is wrong and should be illegal.
And unless DEI is operated in the workplace, discrimination is inevitable.

But others have said they discriminate against people from certain universities. The person who got into Portsmouth might have come from a background with nothing. They might have had caring responsibilities all through school with a disabled parent. For them getting to university might have been a phenomenal achievement and show a sensational work ethic. Meanwhile someone with a silver spoon who went to independent school and coached to get into Oxbridge and given ridiculous support in their comfy accommodation could have it all handed to them on a plate.

Who has the highest bar and work ethic?

There is research which shows that kids who get the same grades at state school as independent schools do better at university than their independent school peers. so in reality by hiring someone with worse grades you might end up with a far better worker.

Sadly people don’t take the time to ask and make assumptions. A good skit about this in Ted Lasso with the darts scene vs Rupert.

AK74 · 2025-05-28T10:33:57+0100

at the ready.

Flounce · 2025-05-28T10:35:52+0100

Withdean11 said:
Yes, any preferential treatment based on skin colour is racism.

Best person for the job, irrespective of race/sex/religion.

Agreed, but by the same token I am not convinced that hiring people by race/sex/religion to tick boxes on percentages rather than ability is right or ideal either.

I won’t be getting involved in an argument about it, just expressing an opinion.

hans kraay fan club · 2025-05-28T10:38:36+0100

Berty23 said:
But others have said they discriminate against people from certain universities. The person who got into Portsmouth might have come from a background with nothing. They might have had caring responsibilities all through school with a disabled parent. For them getting to university might have been a phenomenal achievement and show a sensational work ethic. Meanwhile someone with a silver spoon who went to independent school and coached to get into Oxbridge and given ridiculous support in their comfy accommodation could have it all handed to them on a plate.

Who has the highest bar and work ethic?

There is research which shows that kids who get the same grades at state school as independent schools do better at university than their independent school peers. so in reality by hiring someone with worse grades you might end up with a far better worker.

Sadly people don’t take the time to ask and make assumptions.

Exactly. Fabulous post, that @Harry Wilson's tackle and others would do very well to ponder.

jcdenton08 · 2025-05-28T10:46:07+0100

Thunder Bolt said:
I’ve seen references to gender, age, qualifications, physical appearance but nobody has mentioned disability.

Many people with chronic illness or a disability find it hard to get work. That isn’t to say they can’t do the work.

An excellent point.

But again, there is a lot of generalisation about “work”.

Work could be making reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be able to do their job - such as having an accessible desk and computer set up in an office environment - wouldn’t be any good if a building firm had a so-called DEI requirement for a set percentage of their workers to be disabled.

Some jobs people just can’t do, which I’m sure we all agree on. Yet “blanket” policies don’t take these factors into account.

It would be quite impossible for me to hire someone who isn’t physically fit enough to climb up and down ladders, load in off trucks, and all the other parts of the job which would prevent a DEI hire in that category (physical disability preventing those work requirements).

Really, common sense is so, so important and I welcome broader hiring opportunities for everybody where doors will have be closed firmly shut in the past. But having that as a target is where I can’t get on board.

Herr Tubthumper · 2025-05-28T10:48:53+0100

jcdenton08 said:
wouldn’t be any good if a building firm had a so-called DEI requirement for a set percentage of their workers to be disabled.

If the quota is down, maybe overlook H&S for a few weeks to get the numbers back up again?

Harry Wilson's tackle · 2025-05-28T10:49:41+0100

hans kraay fan club said:
(ignoring the last line, where I presume you have missed a 'not')

This is awful, and I think you need to print it out, and read it back to yourself many, many times.

Literally, you are exposing your prejudice - that you BEGIN the selection process with a preconceived idea of who 'will be' the better candidate, and that prejudice guides you through the whole process.

The Portsmouth candidate will absolutely not be considered by you if they are the equal of the Oxbridge candidate (as the latter is 'bound to' have had broader experiences, yada, yada). Only if the Portsmouth candidate is objectively BETTER than the Oxbridge will you give them fair consideration.

Frightening.

Yes, a 'not' is missing.
And yes, I admit a preconception. But as I said I don't let my preconception influence what I do.
I never said I only give fair consideration to Oxbridge candidates. If I gave that impression I retract it.
I have been on unconscious bias training. The first thing we learned is we all have unconscious biases.
So we need to recognize that and know what they are.
Then we can mitigate against them.
When we sit on a selection committee, the applications are judged by around 10 staff.
We score the applicants around specific defined criteria.
These are intended to be objective.
My experience, when I look back at outcomes, is that with this process, the Oxbridge candidates tend to come out on top even though some selectors are heavily biased towards selecting 'disadvantaged*' students..
On that basis my hypothesis is that they are more likely to be the more 'fitting' candidates,
according to the predefined selection criteria and definitions of 'fitting'.
(This is one reason why some colleagues unhappy with selection outcomes want to change the selection criteria, but they have been unable to achieve this goal because ranking lower achievements and potential higher than higher achievements and potential is hard to map to an arithmetic scoring scale.....).
This is an observation. It does not mean that I just look for the Oxbridge candidate and give them the top mark.
In fact (I may be wrong - can't remember) I think we now disguise the alma mater when selecting for interview.

*This includes candidates with disability or a history of social disadvantage as well as 'lower ranked' uni.

jcdenton08 · 2025-05-28T10:50:30+0100

Herr Tubthumper said:
If the quota is down, maybe overlook H&S for a few weeks to get the numbers back up again?

Yeah, H&S is woke gone mad anyway. Broken Britain, etc.

Did make me laugh that time mate I’ll admit

But can we somehow make this about Wetherspoons?

Harry Wilson's tackle · 2025-05-28T10:52:49+0100

hans kraay fan club said:
Why is positive discrimination on the basis of which University they attended, any better than preferential selection on the basis of gender or race?

It isn't. I have simply acknowledged a bias and have explained how I mitigate against it.

Berty23 · 2025-05-28T10:53:26+0100

jcdenton08 said:
An excellent point.

But again, there is a lot of generalisation about “work”.

Work could be making reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be able to do their job - such as having an accessible desk and computer set up in an office environment - wouldn’t be any good if a building firm had a so-called DEI requirement for a set percentage of their workers to be disabled.

Some jobs people just can’t do, which I’m sure we all agree on. Yet “blanket” policies don’t take these factors into account.

It would be quite impossible for me to hire someone who isn’t physically fit enough to climb up and down ladders, load in off trucks, and all the other parts of the job which would prevent a DEI hire in that category (physical disability preventing those work requirements).

Really, common sense is so, so important and I welcome broader hiring opportunities for everybody where doors will have be closed firmly shut in the past. But having that as a target is where I can’t get on board.

Is this a real example? Has someone who is wheelchair bound ever applied for a job that means they need to climb a ladder or load trucks?

Can you provide any examples of where people have been forced to appoint someone who is clearly incapable of doing a job? I bet there are far far more examples of where well connected people have got family and friends into jobs that they were unsuited for or clearly not the best person. There is a saying that exists for a reason “it’s who you know, not what you know” and this is why independent schools will continue to thrive with people keeping their networks in place. As much as anything you are paying to meet the right people.

darkwolf666 · 2025-05-28T10:55:34+0100

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Indeed.
Having somehow managed to get a diverse range of applicants, the next step is shortlisting.
Here, one must shortlist on suitability.
However (and I am on a selection committee) some will favour minority candidates (wrong in my view),
while others will favour qualifications and a subjective assessment of 'potential'.
Call me old fashioned but I am bound to favour an Oxbridge candidate over a red brick candidate*,
albeit of course I will also look at other markers of potential (there are many),
but the Oxbridge candidate will normally win.
I am sure similar 'sifting' occurs across the piece.
My overall take is that recruitment seems to work fairly albeit there will be biases.

Being 'encouraged' to select the woman, the black person, the disabled person and so on, however, is simply wrong.

Edit *As explained in a later post, this is my bias (conscious or unconscious). I have explained elsewhere why it is important to recognize biases and mitigate against their influence. I don't see 'Oxbridge' and tick 'appoint'.

Boris Johnson falls under this category - just saying!

Harry Wilson's tackle · 2025-05-28T10:55:56+0100

Berty23 said:
And this is why lots of organisations remove details about uni and names etc from applications. You remove the bias before you start. Unconscious bias runs deep in all of us. It could simply be that someone looks like a friend of yours or speak the same as someone you know is brilliant. They might have the same interests as you etc etc.

Nailed it

Really important to acknowledge one's biases (or prejudices) and then seek ways to mitigate against.
Much better than pretending we don't have biases, and getting all shirty when someone admits to one.

jcdenton08 · 2025-05-28T10:58:16+0100

Berty23 said:
Is this a real example? Has someone who is wheelchair bound ever applied for a job that means they need to climb a ladder or load trucks?

Can you provide any examples of where people have been forced to appoint someone who is clearly incapable of doing a job? I bet there are far far more examples of where well connected people have got family and friends into jobs that they were unsuited for or clearly not the best person. There is a saying that exists for a reason “it’s who you know, not what you know” and this is why independent schools will continue to thrive with people keeping their networks in place. As much as anything you are paying to meet the right people.

Did you read my first hand example? I can only speak from my own experience.

I wasn’t “forced” to hire anyone, because I would’ve walked and claimed breach of contract and unsafe working conditions (hiring wasn’t even meant to be my job), but I was very strongly encouraged to make a certain type of hire. I explained all this.

When I failed to do so, I was chewed out (insomuch as anyone can do at work in the public sector as a freelancer).

I didn’t have the candidates.

I appreciate this is an important issue for you, but I’ve experienced the bad aspects this stuff personally. I’m personally pleased that you haven’t.

Harry Wilson's tackle · 2025-05-28T10:58:25+0100

darkwolf666 said:
Boris Johnson falls under this category - just saying!

Luckily, as noted, I take steps (as does our process) to not let this be the clincher.
Anyway, exceptions may disprove a rule, but they have very little effect on a probability. :wink:

Harry Wilson's tackle · 2025-05-28T10:59:44+0100

hart's shirt said:
I'm going for one full scale argument by the end of page 2 complete with name-calling and at least one mention of either 'gammon' or 'woke'.

Unless I have missed it (someone on my ignore list) the discussion so far has been very civil....

Harry Wilson's tackle · 2025-05-28T11:01:47+0100

PILTDOWN MAN said:
I recently went for a job in the civil service, application process insisted that I couldn't give any personal information and had to remove any link to my identity from my CV. I passed the isometric tests bettering 94% of people who took the test. I passed the managing people test. The next process was to answer questions on a video link. I was sent an email saying a full interview would soon be confirmed.

Finally received an email saying I would not be offered an interview on the basis of not being in a "protected group". I asked for clarification but am yet to receive any feedback.

I haven't got a criminal record, never even been stopped as a driver (never had any points), I have passed an enhanced CRB check. I don't belong to any political party and have never done so.

I have always said that people from all backgrounds should be encouraged to apply for jobs, diversity is key to a balanced workforce but it should be the best person for the job who is offered it.

That's really bad. I agree with you.

[News] diversity equality and inclusion

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Bright-eyed. Bushy-tailed. GSOH.

Well-known member

The voice of reason.

Joel Veltman Fan Club

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Joel Veltman Fan Club

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Joel Veltman Fan Club

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Share this page