Turn diversity on its head: inclusion is an opportunity, not an obligation
If you search for news stories on diversity and inclusion, you will see a theme running through the reporting. Look at the key words: “inequality”, “victimised”, “discrimination”. We see the issue through the lens of mending our ways, correcting bad practice and attempting to tackle the overarching and structural problems of prejudice—whether on grounds of race, gender, faith, class, economic status or educational achievement. Essentially, we frame it as an obligation, something employers are required to do for the sake of those against whom there is or has been discrimination.
We need to rethink this approach. Let me make one thing clear at the outset: I’m not suggesting that discrimination doesn’t happen, that it isn’t a real problem, or that employers should not work to reduce or eradicate it. But our narrative is inherently a negative one, and by that token it will always be seen as slightly grudging, often backward-looking and an obeisance to be made to liberal, progressive values.
Let’s flip that on its head. What is inclusion, from a business perspective? At its heart, it is, or should be, the elimination of artificial, unjust or illogical barriers to the way people are employed and promoted. It is a quest for the purest expression of talent and creativity. Candidates for jobs should not be held back because they are from an ethnic minority, or because they grew up poor, or because they are gay. They should be assessed primarily on the capabilities they bring to the position for which they are applying, and then for their wider potential contribution: fluency in an additional language, perhaps, or an extra qualification, or just some aptitude which will allow them to punch above the weight of their job.
When you set it out like that, it is overwhelmingly obvious that employers should be not only in favour of the idea, but zealously, almost obsessively promoting it. We are told time and again that the economic climate is more competitive than ever. Which business, then, would willingly leave stones unturned in search of talent? You can be sure that your rivals will not do so. Why would you give them that head start?
There was a minor media storm when it was revealed that June Sarpong, the former presenter who is now the BBC’s “director of creative diversity” is paid £267,000 a year for a three-day week. It was a story which slotted neatly into an existing culture war narrative, of liberal “wokeism” gone mad, a part-time celebrity paid so much money—pro rata, it’s in touching distance of the director-general’s salary—for a role which many see as peripheral, the notoriously liberal BBC assuaging its conscience.
Imagine it differently. Imagine Sarpong was employed by a private sector organisation, and was not director of creative diversity but chief talent officer or similar. Imagine that her role was not framed in terms of “allowing their employees to feel empowered to share their experiences and be heard”, as one HR expert described the BBC role; but instead was tasked with recruiting, retaining and developing the best, most able, most creative and richest in potential workforce in the sector. Sarpong’s job would then be to get the best people both to benefit her company and to deny them to the competition.
Then it starts to look rather different, I think. It is less self-flagellating, certainly, and less overtly cognisant of historical inequalities and discrimination. But it focuses much more on outcomes. It’s very obvious why you should want to get and keep the best people. It’s less clear, and less easy to articulate, why you should want your employees to feel able to express themselves or be, in some nebulous way, respected.
Narrative matters. It matters to outside observers, because we should always be able to explain what we’re doing and why, but it matters internally too. If we understand our aims and objectives clearly, and can see the potential or actual benefits, we work harder and more efficiently to attain them. Diversity and inclusion is too important to be a pose we feel we have to strike. Let’s speak plainly and clearly, and by doing so demonstrate that getting rid of barriers is good for everyone. This really is a win-win situation. There is no need to complicate it.