BAME Equality in the Workplace with the Westminster Employment Forum

On 15 June, with the Black Lives Matter movement very much at the forefront of the news, I joined the Westminster Employment Forum for a workshop on BAME equality in the workplace.

Lord Sheikh, Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Race and Community opened the event and described how he had never personally experienced racism in the UK himself. That very morning, a new race commission had been announced by the Government and he was looking forward to clearer details on what that would entail.

David Isaac, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said that for him, the Public Sector Equality Duty and ethnicity pay gaps are key ways to assess inequality, even though pay gap reporting can be a rather crude tool. He called for ways to measure recruitment, retention and progression as well as pay and for data collection to be mandatory.

For example, only 23% of organisations collect data on pay and progression broken down by ethnicity and disability and only 3% analyse this data. Overall, the pay gap between white and BAME colleagues is 3.8% but this varies greatly between ethnicity, genders and whether employees were born in the UK. Black and Asian people are most likely to experience discrimination in recruitment, promotion and pay reward decisions. Office of National Statistics figures show that on average employees from Chinese and Indian ethnic groups are paid more than White British employees but this is not the case for Black employees. Isaac would welcome practical guidance for employers on collecting, reporting and using their data and a requirement to include a narrative and action plan with time-bound targets.

Sandra Kerr from the Race at Work Charter told us that there is a stubborn unemployment gap for BAME job seekers. Around 1 in 8 people in the UK are BAME, but they represent only 1 in 10 of the workforce. Representative employment could potentially lead to a £24bn boost to the economy. Organisations with ethnically diverse boards outperform non diverse boards by 33%. Currently, the Race at Work charter has 228 signatories across the UK, who have pledged to support 5 principles:

• Appoint an Executive Sponsor for race
• Capture ethnicity data and publicise progress
• Commit at board level to zero tolerance of harassment and bullying
• Make clear that supporting equality in the workplace is the responsibility of all leaders and managers
• Take action that supports ethnic minority career progression

During the COVID19 crisis, businesses should be aware of any disproportionate impact on furlough and redundancy pools for BAME staff. More generally, they should look at critical skills and capabilities and ask themselves whether BAME staff are in place to progress and pivot into these roles. Respondents to the Race at Work survey report increases in racial discrimination from other staff and customers. Organisations need to make managers responsible for equality and inclusion, throughout onboarding, training, performance appraisal and promotion. Kerr called on leaders to consult with staff, listen and act. Allies need to stand up and speak up and connection with employee networks and communities is vital.

Katy Bennett, D&I Consulting Director at PWC is pro data collection but points out that employees cannot be required to provide this. Global companies may have additional issues with data collection, as the legal environment is very different between countries. Data collection is an exercise in trust and employees must be confident their data is gathered safely and kept securely and legally. It is important to communicate that data will be looked after, and that positive things will happen as a result. Building trust can be achieved through employee networks and by understanding your company and local culture.

While data collection is important, Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett from ENEI (Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion) reminded us that insight comes from understanding intersectionality rather than siloed information, while avoiding the ‘small group’ data anonymity problems. An EHRC Research report found that 51% report barriers to collecting data on ethnicity. Karen Flynn Macfarlance said that Natwest has nevertheless achieved a disclosure rate of 78%, which enables them to put meaningful targets in place. This was partly achieved by adding a link to the data disclosure page into EDI training, and by reminding employees that better data collection leads to calculating accurate pay gaps.

Wilf Sullivan from the TUC was keen to point out that improvements in the workplace are not just about gathering data but also making a commitment to change people’s lived experiences. The TUC has used data to analyse trends and be transparent with the workforce about whether things were getting better or worse. Equality policies are useful but you need to be able to monitor whether they are working or not – people need to see the evidence of change or they won’t trust the system.

“You see a very different working population at 5am on the tube or bus than you do at 10am,” he pointed out. The increase in insecurity during the last and current crisis has disproportionately affected BAME employees.

Too often, Sullivan sees a deficit model at play, where BAME people are told they need to change to fit the organisation, not the other way round. When it comes to complaints, it’s important to take them seriously and analyse the trends and patterns to see how the company itself can and should change. “Diversity can be a nebulous concept if you don’t have targets or clear ideas on what you are trying to achieve,” advised Sullivan.

Dr Doyin Atewologun outlined the results of the Parker Review 2020. All-white FTSE 100 boards have reduced from 53% in 2016 to 37% in 2020, increasing BAME representation from 92 seats to 98 seats. However, only 7 or 8 companies account for the bulk of these changes. Few companies report ethnicity compared to gender, have objectives for ethnic diversity or mention it in succession planning, evaluation or pipeline initiatives.

He outlined 4 recommendations:

• Report figures on ethnicity and race that are not subsumed within culture, nationality or geography data
• Include the ethnic diversity of the board in board evaluation
• Focus on diversity at board level AND diversity in the pipeline to the board (not one or the other)

In reporting, he has seen an unhelpful focus on culture, geography and nationality rather than ethnicity and race, coupled with broadbrush statements that overlook actual data.

“We need to move to having confident, informed discussions about race. We need to build our race confidence muscles,” he said. “Meritocracy is not the opposite of diversity – they go hand in hand.”

If asked to pick three things that it would be vital to do tomorrow to make improvements, he would choose:

1.            Build awareness of the experiences within your organisation e.g lived experience data

2.            Articulate why this is important for everyone

3.            Develop people’s understanding of what is going on

Other ways to diversify your organisation are to include at least one person of colour in recruitment panels, listen to your network groups and then take action and reach out to universities to recruit graduate talent, perhaps through workshops.

Cynthia V Davis from a BAME recruitment platform, Diversifying Ltd said, “It is an excuse to say that there is no talent out there. There is unequal access to opportunities and we need equity in the process.”

Rob Neil, Head of Embedding Culture Change at the Dept for Education reminded us that it is a myth that homogenous teams are easier to lead. Vast sums of money are spent on EDI consultancy compared to just listening to in-house talent.

“Ask yourselves how widely do you advertise? Do you hire for difference?” suggested Neil. “The myth of meritocracy is rooted in the limited life experience of many senior leaders.”

For the panel, most of the debate around diversity is a distraction, leading to under-represented groups having to explain over and over again their reason for being. In their view, systemic racism is about discrimination plus power.

Rather than commission yet another report or review, now is the time read what has already been written, listen to your communities and start actioning the changes. Now is the time!

Carers Week: Making caring visible with the Wellcome and UCL carers networks

This week is Carers Week, an annual campaign to raise awareness of caring, highlight the challenges unpaid carers face and recognise the contribution they make to families and communities throughout the UK. Caring is often a hidden responsibility and the COVID-19 crisis has robbed many carers of their usual support networks such as childcare, volunteers and extended family. My own son has special educational needs and requires 1:1 support at school. In my household, the overnight switch to home schooling has meant that we are now juggling two busy jobs and many hours spent helping him to access remote lessons and engage with online materials.

Personal experiences of caring

The carers networks at the Wellcome Trust, UCL and Wellcome Sanger Institute joined together for a timely discussion of the emotional cost of caring. Speakers included Dr Manolis Mavrikis (IOE, UCL) who shared his experiences of caring for his mother whilst juggling a full workload and home schooling children. Like many of us, they developed Zoom fatigue after a few weeks of attempting to keep in touch via video. They found that playing games together online gave them a better sense of togetherness. Personally, I’ve switched back to plain old-fashioned phone calls with my parents after many months of separation, just to make keeping in touch as simple and hassle-free as possible. We also share photos and videos on Google photos on a day-to-day basis so we all feel more included.

Dr Anna Middleton (Connecting Science, Wellcome Sanger Institute) shared her own personal experiences of the UK education and care systems and discussed how the helpful adaptations at work such as a Carers Grant have made a difference. She described how the skills she has learnt have fed back into her work, such as resilience and persistence! Her coping mechanism is to grow a thick skin against what other people think of how she juggles her different roles. She places huge value on both her professional role and her family life and is grateful for both.

Lia Chappell (Wellcome Sanger Institute) spoke about a different kind of two body problem, as described in her blog post ”My Postdoc and my dad’s dementia ”. She recommends taking a longer pause than usual when you ask how someone is – give them time to give an honest answer. Equally, you should hold back on the personal questions if the time or setting is not right. Lia said that she is happy to discuss why she may not be able to attend a particular conference for personal reasons, but not in front of a room full of people at a team meeting. Her tips for supporting carers during the current challenging times is the same as at any other time – look after the humans you know well, and keep chocolate ice-cream and Netflix to hand!

Coping with caring

Dr Georgina Charlesworth (UCL) is a chartered clinical and health psychologist. She discussed some of the research that underpins the role of a carer and its emotional cost. This research looks at the balance between different types of stressors relating to caring, whether these are direct (day-to-day caring duties) or indirect (reduced access to working outside the home). The impact of caring will be different for everyone and is a balance between the ‘burden’ of caring and the positive aspects. Whether this balance leads to distress or satisfaction will vary with the carer, the circumstances and probably day-to-day.

The impact of caring

Coping mechanisms are key to balancing caring responsibilities with everyday life and Georgina described various coping strategies. A problem-focussed approach includes information gathering, problem-solving and organising. As a carer myself, this pragmatic approach is one that I feel very comfortable with. The second approach, emotion-focussed, which might include crying (yes, that is coping!), relaxation and confiding in others I personally find a lot harder to do. Other coping strategies can be relationship-focussed, such as empathising and negotiating compromise. A meaning –focussed approach is also possible, where a carer may adjust their goals, achieve acceptance or seek out faith and spirituality to support them.

The importance of support networks

Georgina reminded us that social relations and social support are proven to improve physical and psychological well-being for carers. This can include achieving social influence and social control. Many carers may find a sense of purpose in their caring role, which raises their self-esteem, as well as giving a feeling of belonging. I have met several carers who have adjusted their careers to become specialists in those areas of difficulty that overlap with their caring experiences. Without that personal experience, their careers may have taken a very different path. Joining a support network of similar carers can also give you a strong sense of having found a community that ‘gets you’ in ways that your other friendship groups may not.

Stress related growth can happen as result of taking on caring responsibilities. Post traumatic growth is in direct contrast to PTSD, where individuals do not benefit from their trauma, explained Georgina. This growth can lead to you feeling stronger, finding hidden abilities and skills and developing increased confidence to face new challenges. Your relationships may be improved and you might develop altered priorities and philosophies about the world – you start to see the world with different eyes.

Caring can make you older, wiser, stronger, kinder

In summary, Georgina concluded that caring is a complex situation that can have both harmful and beneficial consequences. In these very difficult times for all of us, caring roles aside, she described how grief, trauma and other difficult emotions can be opportunities for psychological growth. But, when caregiving takes us beyond our personal resources, we may need to accept the kindnesses of others (note to self!).

We should pay attention to those early signs of burnout or stress in ourselves and others – perhaps someone is overworking without being productive, missing deadlines they might otherwise meet or micro-managing. As I’ve already experienced myself, mutual aid thrives in the caregiving communities – it’s amazing how the person who does the most to help you at tough times is often the very person who is dealing with huge challenges themselves.

For more on these themes visit: http://empowered-conversations.co.uk/empowered-conversations-hosts-a-conversation-with/

Enhancing practice to support Athena SWAN charter achievement

On 14 May, I joined a virtual Advance HE networking meeting on enhancing practice to support achievements in the Athena SWAN Charter.

In what used to be my normal life, I had to work around school pick up times during the week. Getting to full day conferences was tricky, so I’m actually finding I can attend a lot more of the virtual variety than I can face-to-face events. As I am rapidly becoming a serious consumer of Zoom meetings, I’m always interested to see how organisations manage these.

I thought that Advance HE’s approach worked well – they fielded a few speakers via live video feed, kept a staff member on hand to curate the Q&A and we could use the chat box to raise questions or post links. In between speakers, we were allocated to small discussion ‘rooms’ with 5 or 6 others to discuss any challenges we wanted to raise with colleagues. Joining a video chat with 5 strangers made my anxiety levels climb rather rapidly, but it’s probably no worse than facing a room full of delegates during a ‘networking’ coffee. After some initial awkwardness about who was going to speak first, the discussions did start to flow and I felt like I’d made some new virtual friends by the end.

Job sharing in academia

The first two speakers described their experiences of working in (different) job share partnerships. Emma Watton is a Programme Director at Lancaster University and had very positive experiences to report. She felt that the role worked seamlessly across the two of them. She said there is a risk that colleagues can see a job share as more of a job ‘shirk’ but there were no issues with productivity for her, in fact quite the reverse. They have published their experiences in Flynn, Patricia M., Haynes, Kathryn and Kilgour, Maureen A., (eds.) Overcoming challenges to gender equality in the workplace: leadership and innovation. Greenleaf Publishing, Saltaire, UK, pp. 67-77. To find new flexible working opportunities, she recommended contacting DuoMe. Ginibee is another talent sharing platform you could try out.

Dr Claire Senner, Cambridge University reported on her time as part of a job share post doc role at Babraham Institute. Still a rarity as a job share model, she was lucky enough to partner with a researcher whose expertise as a bioinformation dovetailed with her own wet lab skills. She is very grateful for the opportunity that the job share gave her to continue with science while taking time out for family. She is struggling to move past the sense that part time research is still seen as evidence of a lack of commitment. Will the academic community ever stop seeing a career in research as a ‘calling’ that has to rule our lives rather than complement them, I wonder?

Reverse mentoring and culture change

Prof Jon Rowe from the University of Birmingham introduced their reverse mentoring programme, where a staff member from an under-represented group (in this scenario, the mentor) is partnered with a senior manager (the mentee). Reverse mentoring is an opportunity for a senior manager to learn about different kinds of backgrounds and routes through academia that diverge from their own. At Birmingham, the aim of the programme is to raise awareness and drive cultural change. It also provides a chance for often ignored voices to be heard and can evolve into sponsorship for the mentor. Initially, Jon encountered reservations from some leaders about the scheme but he finds that the more you talk about doing something, especially with people other than your direct supporters, the more acceptable it becomes as a concept. Then you swiftly implement when the time is right! He had the following tips if you are tempted to set up your own scheme.

Tips on reverse mentoring:

• Use staff networks to find mentors
• Provide pre-training – remind managers to stay quiet, as they may be used to taking the lead in most discussions!
• Do some pre-screening to identify what the manager needs to learn and what the mentor can provide e.g. experience of returning from maternity leave
• Match people carefully – sometimes the pairings may not ‘click’
• Embed the scheme into senior management training programmes

Jon is also a veteran of many Athena SWAN panels and has probably read more than his fair share of applications. Here were his top ten reasons why a department might not achieve a Bronze award:

Ten reasons why a department might not get Bronze Athena SWAN:

• Ownership by leaders lacking
• Ownership by department lacking
• Ongoing life of the Self Assessment Team – who follows up on the actions post submission?
• Presentation of data – what is the obvious thing that people will see in your data? Make sure you address the ‘elephant in the room’
• Dealing with issues – have these been addressed effectively?
• Not having evidence – don’t submit too soon, wait until you have the evidence
• Weak/vague actions – especially the terms ‘review’ and ‘monitor’. These will not change anything!
• Hiding behind institutional policies
• Using small numbers as an excuse
• Forgetting the purpose of application – the point is to show how you are addressing gender inequality, not describe your Faculty Model in detail.

On top of those, he has also seen some themes in unsuccessful Silver applications.

Reasons not to get a Silver Athena SWAN:

• Speculative applications without a solid action plan from institutes not yet at Bronze award level
• Solid action plan but no demonstrable results

The main thing to remember is that Athena SWAN is about evidenced change. You are not going to succeed by just being good at equality and diversity!

Equality and diversity (EDI) at Reading University

The keynote speaker was Prof Parveen Yaqoob, the first female Deputy Vice Chancellor at Reading. As a British Asian, she spoke powerfully about growing up in the UK when racial abuse was sadly common and open. For her, if your childhood experience is to stay below the radar to avoid violence or abuse, later you may not feel very comfortable with the visibility that senior roles can bring.

She outlined some of the achievements at Reading, which received an Athena SWAN Silver Award in 2020. They are working towards a minimum of 40% of either gender as professors and have closed their Gender Pay Gap from 11% to 9% (compared to a national average of 18%). For the last two years, Reading has featured in the Stonewall Top 100 employers and they have an active network for disabled staff who they are consulting about accessible remote working.

Prior to the COVID-19 lockdown in March, they were planning a series of roadshows to encourage a collaborative approach to equality and diversity, and to bring home that it is everyone’s responsibility. At Reading, EDI activities are captured under a ‘citizenship’ criteria when applying for promotions.

Goals of equality and diversity roadshows

• Understand the diversity goals and how it impacts on your role
• Participate in surveys openly and honestly
• Engage as a mentor, champion or ally or join a network
• Become culturally competent
• Become a spokesperson for diversity issues that are not yours
• Welcome ideas that are different from your own and support your team members
• Communicate and educate
• Commit to continuous improvement

For Parveen, the challenge is to move beyond just complying with legislation and to start to normalise discussions about race and ethnicity. Reading sees charter marks as audit and improvement tools to help create SMART action plans. Parveen advises us to think about what is going to change as a result of any new initiative. What will be different after doing the activity? It’s important to focus on impact and how it will change your institute for the better.

Essentially, achieving impact is the secret to Athena SWAN success!

Gender Summit 2019: Science culture – moving away from hyper-competitiveness and tackling harassment

In Amsterdam at the Gender Summit 2019, transforming science culture has been a major theme. Hanneke Takkenberg, Chair of Dutch Network of Women Professors gave us a great twist on a familiar thought. “Diversity is being invited to the party,” she said. “Inclusion is being able to choose the music to dance to.”

Implicit bias in science culture

Naomi Ellemers from Utrecht University confronted the tendency to disbelieve studies on implicit bias in science culture head-on. “Some people want to dismiss these studies – they blame the methodology or differences in region or disciplines. That’s why I like to quote study after study that all show the same effect.” She continued, “Benefiting from diversity is bloody hard work but the benefits are real.”

Ellemers set out research that showed how gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands (PNAS, 2015). “Selection criteria were coded towards male stereotypes and bias towards men emerged, especially when the quality of the researcher rather than the work was assessed,” she explained. In fields where more women are present, for example social sciences, you can become blinded to bias – in fact, even wider gender gaps in funding exist in these fields. Women are also less likely to be invited to speak at conferences, or even to be introduced with their professional titles.

“Senior women fit themselves into the stereotype of being masculine, report making more sacrifices and getting less institutional support as they climb the ladder. Role models seem to show you can be a successful scientist or a woman but you can’t be both,” she sighed. “Younger women don’t see this as a positive choice and may drop out as a result.”

By perpetuating stereotypes of masculine behaviour in science culture, we are not getting the true benefits of diversity. “We need to allow women to be different and to value that. Numbers don’t make a difference by themselves if everyone just conforms to the same stereotypes and culture,” she warned. Deep level differences and a climate for inclusion are better indicators of the success that should come with increased diversity, such as better well-being, lower levels of stress and less staff turnover.

How to change the culture

For those of us working in equality and diversity, there can be a strong focus on achieving visible diversity at a numbers level. Differences in age, culture and gender are the focus of many measures, but diversity of approach and values is what we should be looking for.

For Ellemers, the take home message is simple. “Move beyond numbers and send the message that you can be yourself and still belong.”

Marcel Wubbolts of Corbion agreed from an industrial research and development perspective. “Put inclusion first because you can do that from day one, diversity takes longer to achieve through new hires.”

Using examples from Imperial College, Stephen Curry told a similar story of working to reduce bias, particularly in the recruitment process. “We start with a proactive search, check whether the language in adverts is overly masculine or feminine and keep applicants anonymous at triage stage. We offer bias training for panels, try to achieve diverse panels, including EDI observers. We make sure all interviews and visits take place during core hours.”

“We want our interviews to be an explorative value-driven discussion, not an aggressive interview,” he summarised.

Curry went further. “We will integrate EDI into all our management processes – easier said than done, but it’s a start. We need competition without hyper-competition. We should reward researchers for collaboration and not just output.”

Peter Mollgaard of the University of Maastricht used to think that if you increase the numbers of a particular gender or background, say to a third, people start to feel at home and the rest follows. “Now I think we should start by creating an inclusive culture to achieve the numbers. As Peter Drucker supposedly said, ‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’.”

For Naomi Ellesmers, implicit bias is like a seven-headed beast. “You cut off one, another grows in its place. The function of culture is to preserve the status quo. Culture is not a separate beast and will not adapt with new people – they will adapt to the culture. To change culture, you need to embed EDI in strategies and processes.”

Harassment, policy and funding

It’s tough to change culture for the better if harassment is part of the mix. Marijke Naezer, an independent expert, has examined harassment extensively in the academic sector and has found it can appear in many forms. “It is seldom a one-off,” she explained. “It mostly takes place over the long term, sometimes for years.”

Harassment can include scientific sabotage, such as removing funding or resources and sexual harassment through jokes, banter and pressing for dates, as well as actual violence. Physical and verbal harassment can include shouting, banging on tables and threats to kick someone off their PhD. Harassers may denigrate and undermine people by attacking their bodies, culture or skills and exclude them by refusing to make eye contact or cutting them out of social events. “Problematising ‘special needs’ such a pregnancy, miscarriages, illness, disability or bereavement can all form part of harassment,” said Naezer.

For Naezer, facilitators of harassment include strong hierarchies, a competitive culture and inadequate responses to complaints. The effects on individuals can be severe, including physical and mental harm, stifling career creativity and can ripple wider into families, peer groups and the output of the research group itself. “We need to see raised awareness, independent review and support structures and a culture of care,” she insisted.

Frederik Bondestam from the University of Gothenburg agreed. “There’s currently no evidence that policy has an impact on levels of harassment or that training courses have more than short term effects,” he outlined. “Bystanders have a much stronger effect. Individual complaints don’t change things by themselves, we need to address caring structures and leadership actions.”

Over in the US, Rhonda J Davis explained how the National Science Foundation has seen a strong focus on funding and harassment. In October 2018, the NSF introduced a requirement to report to them if PIs or co-PIs funded by the NSF are involved in sexual and other harassment or sexual violence. “In a survey, half said the NSF had gone too far with this requirement and half said we had not gone far enough,” she told us. “We seem to have found a sweet spot where no one is happy!”

“We can substitute or remove the PI, or if we are not satisfied with the institute’s measures we can reduce, remove or suspend the award. However, 90% of the time the NSF is happy with the measures already taken by the university, or taken once the case is discussed with them,” reassured Davis. “We are very clear. The NSF Will Not Tolerate Harassment,” she stressed.

The discussions around culture at the Gender Summit have led to many ideas on how to diversify, improve and expand science culture. However, we should all beware of the knowledge-action gap. Increased knowledge is of no benefit if that doesn’t then lead to action.

What can you do today to enhance the culture where you work or study?