Ep. 8. Fixing the DEI damage: What should employers do now?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- How can employers fix the damage caused by bad DEI? And are DEI professionals part of the solution - or the problem? In the third and final part of our conversation with Neil Morrison, Group HR Director at British water company Severn Trent (which has 10,000 employees), we discuss these questions - and much more:
How did we get to a place where the people in charge of ‘inclusion’ at work are silencing questions and dissent from colleagues who don't share their beliefs or political agenda?
Is it ever okay to police people’s language at work - and how should this be done?
Were too many Heads of DEI hired for their charisma and big ideas, rather than their good judgement and business experience? Did employers rush to 'look good,' fast - rather than taking time to find someone who could balance the needs of the business with the needs of all employees (not just those they happen to agree with)?
Is DEI even a 'real thing' - or is it (in Neil's words) a 'false concept', grouping a constellation of employer practices aimed at improving inclusion? If it's not a real thing, how can DEI advocates defend it?
How can HR professionals with doubts about their organisation’s current DEI strategy, direction and leadership raise concerns in a professional way that minimises blow-back against them personally?
Why isn’t Neil more worried about DEI critics such as Matt Walsh, Piers Morgan and the Free Speech Union, channels like Unherd and SpectatorTV, and podcasters like Andrew Gold and the Triggernometry boys?
What will it look like when employers start fixing the damage caused by bad DEI - both externally and internally? What will be quietly shelved, what will be salvaged - and what ‘performative’ practices will businesses be happy to bin?
If the UK’s DEI industry is set to shrink dramatically, should DEI professionals (including staffers, external consultants, and poor-quality DEI trainers) start considering their career options?
Enjoy the episode...
PS. For more from Neil, don't miss Episodes 6 and 7! We discuss how DEI went off the rails, and who is to blame for the DEI lawsuits...
Watch/listen on RUclips, Spotify or Apple Podcasts
linktr.ee/this...
Fascinating for HR professionals, and essential viewing. For the wider audience of Joe and Jane Public, I’d like to see more real life examples discussed.
Additionally, I do believe keeping causes and campaigns away from company policies is the safest way to maintain a neutral workplace.
Thank you Stephen, so glad you found this valuable. What sort of examples do you mean - anecdotes, or stories/ cases that have made the news?
The problem is that people have been sacked, disciplined, investigated because of this. Employment tribunals are costly and very stressful
Agreed! When this stuff goes wrong, it goes *really* wrong - and the impact can be enormous. If you haven't listened to it already you might enjoy Episode 7 - 'Who is to blame for the DEI lawsuits?' Neil has some interesting things to say about why so few DEI people understand the law... He estimated less than 10% understand the basic principles of the Equality Act...eek. This starts to explain why we're seeing the mess we are seeing, at some organisations... He also talked about the trap of 'zero tolerance' policies. They *feel* good, if you want to send a message... but if a court finds that the employer had multiple less extreme options available to them, but didnt' take them because they wanted to 'look tough', that is unlikely to go down well with a judge!
A lively and useful conversation. Worth a listen.
Thank you - that's very kind! It's so important to get these conversations started, and to normalise discussion about topics that have become taboo. Although sensitivity will be needed, it's become clear that a lot of people simply can't do their jobs properly - and organisations can't flourish - until we work out what's gone wrong, and how to go about fixing the muddle that so many workplaces seem to have got themselves into!
@@This-Isnt-Working There's a great need for clearing the way for open conversations between people. More open dialogue, more debate, more seeking common ground and shared goals. .
I would push back on the 'targets not quotas' support... They're tied to bonuses. They're on the scorecards. The internal messaging is very clear it's considered a fail if they're not met. The regulators very much have things to say about them. ESG market funding will take a view (despite ESG funds not showing to perform, they still dominate)
Perversely, it's highly likely to encourage people to take biased decisions to meet them. Also, when do they end? If we meet them once is that considered done? Do we have them for ever now?
And there really needs to be stronger evidence than 'fewer of x means discrimination'. I'm quite prepared to entertain the idea that imbalances might need to be addressed in some manner... but you need to really be sure if you're asking part of your workforce to accept the people sat next to them for years and doing the same job... have a magical elevator to the top that nobody can actually describe.
Hi, can you give some examples of this please? (Genuinely interested, not having a go!) Thank you
@@This-Isnt-Working Sure... I work for a UK bank. We have % of women in senior roles and % of non-white employees on the scorecard in the People section (white men must simply accept this). If we don't hit green on all scorecard metrics then the bonus pot is a reduced amount for all employees. Leader roles have a formal ESG objective and one part of it is to take action to address the diversity makeup of their teams. The FCA & PRA mandate firms must have targets in this area. They've also consulted on tying senior bonuses explicitly to diversity performance. In terms of messaging, you will understand how a suggestion can be delivered strongly and repeatedly, but bonus pots are a clear motivator regardless of further instruction. The magical elevator in this case would be Women in Finance - give me some solid data that we have issues and we can talk, no bank has provided that data that I've seen (they haven't even shown they've done any investigation beyond a current head count).
Regarding "It's a fight that doesn't actually exist": Critical Race Theory An Introduction, is a secondary school level text that could probably be read in an afternoon. If HR heads cannot spot people that they employ are applying an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to a wide sweep of basic British values, then they're either, a) Very lucky that these people haven't gained access to an organization with 10,000 employees b) Are blind to what is happening in terms of workplace entryism. If your organization is vocally 'anti-racist', then a large wooden horse has been wheeled in and you're under attack.
I personally have access to our training slides which claimed that Angela Davis (supported the Maoists, the USSR and the Jonestown Cult) represented 'our values' that we should 'be uncomfortable' and just accept what we're being told. This also contained the work of Ibrahim X Kendi and various Communist fists.
I have no doubt that Mr Morrison is a highly skilled and experienced HR professional, who is normally very good at his job. If he isn't safeguarding his organization from this stuff, then I'm afraid he's not understanding what has happened within some major British organizations.
The easiest test of all of this is ensuring clear definitions of words within policy documents. It may seem silly to define 'inclusion', however you probably don't want a workplace culture where the majority are assumed to be 'dominant' and can therefore be ignored, abused or silenced.
Publicly and loudly pinning down definitions is DEI's kryptonite. Anti-Racism as you say... most people think one thing and nod along (and this is by design as woke activists always play with language as they believe it constructs reality)... the creators of Anti-Racism mean something entirely different:
Basic Tenets of Anti-racist Education
- Racism exists today, in both traditional and modern forms
- All members of this society have been socialized to participate in it
- All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions; intentions are irrelevant.
- No one here chose to be socialized into racism (so no one is “bad’). But no one is neutral - to not act against racism is to support racism.
- Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done
- The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?”
- The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect. If you are white, practice sitting with and building your stamina for racial discomfort.
Robin DiAngelo
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
Ibram X. Kendi - and his 'Dictatorship of the Anti-Racists'
@@rescyn1190
@boltvanderhuge9764 What would you say to the suggestion that the vast majority of the proponents of DEI are led less by politics and more by their personal feelings, insecurities, etc?
@@This-Isnt-Working I would say if you're in DEI leadership positions I don't believe for one second you don't know a good portion of the radical politics behind the literature. I'd be highly suspicious of those that are heavily involved in networks (writing the key articles, producing inclusivity guides and consulting on policy decisions). And I'd say the foot soldiers are ignorant, good-hearted, and heavily left-leaning.
It's not an accident that Critical Social Justice aims/terms are injected, recommended reading by CSJ scholars promoted, sex-based language and data recording removed, policy, language and spaces 'queered', etc. I know due to slipup in a complaint that staff in my business did a lot of this as I was told in passing 'we'll be working with a specialist firm next year'. Haven't been able to find out if we did and who that is... activism of the sort I describe has increased in the last 2 years regardless.
@@This-Isnt-Working All humanity-leveling revolutionary movements need raw material that feels rather than thinks. The organized vanguard will always be in control of the disorganized mass.
Critical Social Justice is built as a power-grab. They've worked out that liberal societies have taboos that can be exploited to take over institutions. We're all on the road to the land of 'equity' now. Imagine what kind of monster would be opposed to such things and what would be morally permissible to do to such a person.
When your employer (A British public body) is handing you documents essentially saying "we agree our ideology is opposed to liberalism and we just think it's reasonable to impose it onto you", then it becomes rather starkly obvious that the ground under ones feet has shifted.
What would we call someone that isn't an 'ally' comrade?
I am terrified that he says only 1% of his time is DEI. It's HR's role to protect staff and make sure rights are applied fairly and in-line with the law. If they don't bother to involve themselves directly in DEI, and if the rare times they do they can't read the literature accurately, then I don't see how they can perform that element of the role.
Do they even know work like 'Don’t Get Caught Out A Summary of Gender Critical Belief Discrimination Employment Tribunal Judgments Ruth Birchall and Jo Phoenix 2024' exists?
I'm just interested from a rights issue and even I come across articles in Personal Today and such about this stuff. They are employed in HR and don't?
Yes that was striking - and seems to create obvious cracks in systems and processes in this area - especially as Neil mentioned in Ep 6 that his Head of DEI doesn't report directly to him, which means he is highly reliant on ability of the staff member who sits inbetween them in the reporting line. The principles of the Equality Act aren't that difficult to grasp... Surely it's worth sending more people on a 2-day course... especially if it ends up saving the organisation money on lawyers' fees! The Lloyds Banking Group case cost them £1m in the end! Oof...
You're missing some knowledge on the Marxism front. Intersectionality is the politics of the people who work in DEI and related staff networks. It's actually the politics of the entire industry.
It's a Critical Theory and was created by a bunch of Marxists, filtered through Post-Modernism, a dose of Maoism and then served up as 'woke'. As such it analyses society in terms of privilege and oppression, not liberal Enlightenment principles. It doesn't trust Enlightenment principles as it thinks all knowledge is a social construct and Dominant Discourses oppress marginalised groups:
'Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.' Critical Race Theory - An Introduction Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic (Foreword by Angela Harris).
So it doesn't see the world the same was as you do! It has the same words but a different dictionary, for example when we're talking about racism they're using this definition of race:
'A misleading and deceptively appealing classification of human beings created by White people originally from Europe which assigns human worth and social status using the White racial identity as the archetype of humanity for the purpose of creating and maintaining privilege, power, and systems of oppression.' Lawrence, K., & Keleher, T. (Eds.). Proceedings from Race and Public Policy Conference 2004. Chronic disparity: Strong and pervasive evidence of racial inequalities. (p.1-6). Berkeley: CA.
Do the people work in DEI know this? A hardcore most certainly do, and they understand the Critical Theory mandates the praxis as well; being an Intersectional activist requires creating more Intersectional activists - awakening Critical Consciousness in others (woke, you have woken up to this reality). The rest are a mix of social science people that have been taught at least part of the framework but don't have a true grasp, women who overwhelming share this politics and dominates DEI roles, and Useful Idiots that don't have a clue but want to 'do good'.
Intersectionality is in my very well known UK company and mandatory training. I know this stuff inside and out and I can't ANY OF IT in the door despite several years of trying.
The vast majority who talk about DEI - even some paid experts - are useful idiots who haven't a clue. You are right though, your description is accurate and fulsome. That is why DEI is conceptually dangerous and ill understood even by policy makers. For example, on the Civil Service public website, DEI stands for Diversity, Inclusion and Equality embraced as part of the CS Code of Practice. This acronym is a nonsence concept within a new framework, when couched in these terms. That is becuase it is little more than reinforcing anti-discrimination legislation and embracing the Equalities Act to broaden its spectrum of minority groups who should not be discriminated against within an 'inclusive' framework (misuse of this re-purposed term) that seeks not to shatter and destroy societal norms - merely to support the Government of the day. That is an attempt to remain politically neutral. So they want to maintain the status quo but they use the language of disrupters becuase it is fashionable and expected to embrace Woke terminologies like DEI. Only the E = Equality version is entirely different to the real purpose of DEI
DEi - to use the term correctly - is a purpose built acronym with a very specific meaning. Some have caught on and ignore the Equality part to embrace the true purpose of E which is Equity. That is why the Civil Service are undoubtedly peddling an Equity framework based DEI culture with mandatory sessions for all staff that includes promoting and celebrating LGBTQ+, and explaining what Micro-aggressions are, promoting anti-bias training, and even seeing bullying and harassment along intersectional lines. The Civil Service staff who are still clueless and want to have a conversation about what DEI actually means with all kinds of fudgy, fuzzy and hazy discussions (like the one in this video) to iron out misunderstandings (as if activists are going to agree to that) repeatedly trot out expressions like Lived Experience which does not mean 'personal experience'. It is a very specific 'identity orientated' phrase that indicates that the person that understands and uses that term correctly sees themselves as part of an oppressed group. That is why there are terms like 'my truth' and 'your truth' - which is a denial of objective reality (another sign of white oppression which must be discarded). This whole development disrupts society, fragments it and destroys it. The very purpose it was intended for.
That is why this video discussion is relevant: there are two schools of thought on what DEI actually means in practice.
For that, there is a silver lining. The more clueless these people are, the more frustrated the aims of the activists will be and DEI might very well fizzle out to nothing eventually, when more and more well meaning but gullible people grasp the nettle and discover what it really is about and how much they were duped into thinking they were actually doing good when they were actively being used by hard core neo Marxists as 'useful idiots' to help further a march toward the destruction of Western Civilisation, judeo Christian culture, toward a Communist outcome - aided and abeted by the destrucition of our liberties and changing of our constitution (David Starkey speaks well on this). They should bin the term Re-set too. This isn't North Korea.
The reason why DEI is not working is precisely because it is working and a bit too well, for some to like, hence the purpose of this video.
It's interesting to consider how much of this is driven by political v personal motivation, and how that differs at different levels of seniority, or perhaps even across industries. Do you consider 'be kind' to be a political or personal motivator? (Genuine question!)
@@This-Isnt-WorkingI think 'be kind' is most often a thought-terminating cliché. Usually uttered by people who have done what it asked (switched off their brain and act emotionally), or by those that are trying to emotionally manipulate (microaggressions, or catechisms such 'trans women are women' or 'diversity is our strength').
Be kind is for cultural conversations (helping your elderly neighbour, holding doors, charity days at work) and I don't see it as being particularly useful when it comes to rights (where we are trying to be fair).
I love the idea of an induction for new employees to make it clear that policing language and offence seeking is not welcome..