When does diversity and inclusion become exclusive?

exclusive

Need to know:

Alternative and flexible approaches to work often breed resentment among those who feel they are not available to them, as well as excluding users from progression.
Networks and groups can create an important space for support and conversation, but risk ignoring intersectionality and cordoning off parts of an organisation.
Public commitments and external benchmarking can appear to be ticking boxes, which alienates the employees an organisation is attempting to engage.
Ultimately, employers must focus on creating an open culture of two-way dialogue and active listening, to ensure inclusion efforts are effective.

Alternative approaches to work, such as flexible, remote and home working, although becoming more widely accepted, have for a long time been seen primarily as the remit of female employees, and more than that, a mark of low commitment to progression and success.

These ramifications are damaging for both businesses and employees; staff are left feeling they cannot prioritise caring responsibilities, neurodiverse employees for whom traditional structures are a hindrance are not given the opportunity to thrive, talented working carers are left by the wayside, and organisations do not benefit from all-important diversity of thought and personality.

All this is far from the intended consequences, and illustrates that employers wishing to thrive should be wary of the danger of inclusive policies that unwittingly become exclusive.

Maxine Benson MBE, co-founder of membership organisation Everywoman, says: “When we start to break down these barriers and create opportunities for everyone, everybody benefits.”

Exclusive priorities

Even the well-meaning focus on popular topics for inclusion, such as gender equality, can be exclusive, says Karen Brookes, director of people and infrastructure at engineering and construction organisation Sir Robert McAlpine. This can lead employers to congratulate themselves for making progress, while actually failing to consider the barriers that are less widely discussed, such as individuals facing socio-economic issues like ex-offenders and the long-term homeless, as well as the need to support neurodiverse and disabled employees.

“If [employers] focus on one particular group, one particular characteristic, then [they] do disadvantage to other groups,” says Brookes. “That’s going in the right direction, but then there are other things that drop down the priority list. From an engagement perspective as well, if [they] focus too much on one area, do [others] feel disenfranchised?

“There’s a lot of talk around gender, and that’s important, however it’s equally important to look at it from [an ethnicity] perspective, for example. The approach that we tend to take is that, if we look at pay, for example, we look at it across the board.”

This can also be an issue of poor communication, in which an employer publicises an objective with the goal of showing an openness to inclusion, but instead appears to narrow its focus.

Leng Montgomery, diversity and inclusion manager at BDO UK, says: “One big trap that a lot of employers get into is where they decide that ‘this year we are focusing on X’. Some prioritising needs to happen, but the main thing with diversity and inclusion is that it is multiple plates spinning. If the message is that [one element is] the only important thing, that’s going to alienate [others].”

Closed conversations

One of the most common methods of boosting inclusion is via employee resource, affinity and networking groups.

“Those groups exist to ensure that individuals within an organisation have a community they can speak to about their experiences, that they have a voice that can then inform the bigger conversation,” says Benson.

With the addition of high-level sponsors, employers can ensure that these voices carry up into the boardroom, even if the board is lacking in diversity itself.

However, there are potentially negative ramifications, says Tony Wood, UK leader at Mercer Marsh Benefits. “The risk is that, in the end, [employers] actually create clubs that are exclusive," he explains. "Inclusion should be about creating an environment that is welcoming to everyone; trying to create an inclusive environment around a specific group with a specific characteristic is unlikely to play out that way in reality.”

The use of allies alongside sponsors, ideally co-chairing any affinity groups, can help to ensure that the conversation is less closed off, and that an entire organisation can learn to be more understanding.

“[Allies are] vitally important,” says Benson. “[Employers] want the voices of influence and power to be advocating for change. That’s about everybody understanding that there is a benefit for all to do this.”

However, breaking people down into defined siloes in the first place may be counterproductive. “People aren’t compartmentalised like that; this whole idea of compartmentalising people around different communities is not how life works,” says Wood.

One option is to run intersectional events that bring together a range of representatives and allies, says Wood. Ideally, the aim could be to shift from categorised affinity groups through to one representative employee network. This can then be used as a consultative body, to advise on new benefits and initiatives, adds Brooke.

Ticking boxes

For Sir Robert McAlpine, one helpful approach has been partnering with external bodies, such as Business in the Community (BITC). “We use different external vehicles to help us move forward and to be able to assess how far we’ve come and what more we need to do, what goals we can set,” Brookes explains.

However, in the wrong hands, focusing too much on accolades and external benchmarks can itself make inclusion efforts seem superficial, ultimately alienating employees, says Montgomery.

“The one thing [employers] never want to do with diversity and inclusion is turn it into a box-ticking exercise, because that drives the wrong behaviours,” he explains. “It’s good to measure yourself, but the focus should always be the investment into your own culture, not just doing it to be ‘top 100’ of something.”

Benefits for all

As employers come to understand more about how employee needs can differ according to lived experience, and as it becomes easier and more affordable to offer a wide range of options, many are starting to offer packages that take into account the needs of different groups.

This might mean a specific set of medical provisions for transitioning individuals, implementing policies targeted at women experiencing the menopause, or tailoring educational information to the specific mental health challenges faced by different groups.

However, if not positioned correctly, this can feel exclusive to staff who are not included in certain initiatives, particularly if they do not understand why they are unable to access the same supports as a coworker.

Jill Miller, diversity and inclusion adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), says: “It is fine to have some benefits that are aimed at specific groups, that will always be the way. But the key to making sure it’s inclusive is making sure that everybody feels there’s something for them.”

The difference can be simply in explaining the reasoning, so employers should communicate to their employees about what they are doing, says Wood: “Be clear, don’t assume employees can read between the lines and understand [what the] strategy is. If [an employer] suddenly brings in a benefit on menopause, for example, [it needs to] be clear on why [it's] doing it, and what [it's] doing for all employees.”

There are also some universal provisions that many employees are either unaware of, or are culturally influenced to believe they are excluded from. The most obvious of these is the assumption that flexible-working arrangements are only available to working parents, predominantly women, and that they represent either slacking off or not having a commitment to success.

“Start by thinking about what could be a benefit to everybody, some of the universal benefits,” says Miller. “Flexible working [for example], and communicating that it’s not just for working parents. That view is still universal and needs to be challenged.

"Provide examples of the other working patterns people could consider, [and] communicate that this can benefit a lot of people for so many different reasons, [such as] supporting people with mental health problems.”

Two-way communication

The easiest way to fall into the trap of creating a programme that aims to be inclusive and is actually exclusive is in making assumptions and failing to get proper input and feedback.

In its attempt to understand diverse needs and give employees a voice, an employer might decide to survey specific groups, delineated by characteristics and life experiences; a method that was initially considered by Sir Robert McAlpine’s affinity groups.

However, surveys should enlist opinions from all staff, to understand the different perspectives and root out any hidden issues. “[Dialogue] is massively important," says Brookes. "It’s only through that dialogue that [employers can] create the culture where it’s okay to put your head above the parapet and say ‘this is not acceptable’.”

Employers should strive to implement regular, two-way communications, and provide staff with a simple and anonymous way of voicing concerns. This can also help undo any damage already done.

“[An employer should] make sure [it] listens, [is] transparent, but also is willing to accept feedback and have an open and collaborative culture,” says Montogomery. “If people do feel a bit disenfranchised but have the freedom to speak up about it, there’s more of a feedback loop and people can feel more included.”

Open culture

In the attempt to create a positive, supportive culture, there is a danger at times that employees will feel singled out; for example, introducing health campaigns around personal issues affecting a specific group, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals, or women experiencing the menopause, might seem inclusive on the surface, but feel intrusive, and therefore exclusionary, for the individual.

“It has to be done sensitively and in the right kind of terminology and language,” says Miller. “But also make things available without people feeling it’s overwhelming; it’s an employee’s choice how much they want to engage.”

This, then, is about creating an open culture in which employees feel they can have conversations about what support they want and need, either in private or in a more public forum if they wish, without eliciting undue pressure or scrutiny.

“The thing that needs to be invested in most in organisations is culture,” Montgomery concludes. “The investment into culture is a much longer one, but is one that is ultimately going to take everyone with you. Open dialogue is the foundation for inclusion and positive culture.”

Kim Field: Employers must go above and beyond with inclusive benefits for carers

Emily Hodgson: What can employers do to improve social mobility?