Diversity and inclusion remain high on the regulators’ agenda but their proposals are unlikely to address a trail of demoralising situations I’ve seen in practice. I call these micro-exclusions, the small and subtle actions that result in some being favoured over others, certain voices not being heard and those who don’t ‘get on board’ being eased out. Put differently, we all know who’s in and who’s out, who has licence to speak in a meeting and who’s expected to be quiet. It doesn’t happen as often as it used to but it can still be found, from boardroom to call centre and across all areas of firms. This article looks at two ways in which micro-exclusions could be addressed.
The regulatory premiss is that:
- Demographic and experiential diversity are likely to foster greater diversity of thought and reduce groupthink; and
- An inclusive culture fosters open exchange of ideas, constructive debate and sound decision-making.
The result should be greater safety and soundness of firms, better outcomes for customers and markets and an uptick in innovation.
It’s fairly easy to measure diversity. Data can be gathered; targets can be set; policies can be implemented to recruit and promote; succession planning can build in diversity measures. And results can be compared, year-on-year, and be disclosed and reported.
Inclusion is a trickier concept to measure. The Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority have consulted on a list of questions for firms to ask employees (for instance, through an anonymised survey) – to what extent they agree that they:
- Feel safe to speak up if they observe inappropriate behaviour or misconduct.
- Feel safe to express disagreement with or challenge the dominant decision or opinion without fear of negative consequences.
- Feel as though their contributions are valued and meaningfully considered.
- Have been subject to treatment (e.g. actions; remarks) that have made them feel insulted or badly treated because of their personal characteristics.
- Whether they feel safe to make (or admit to) an honest mistake.
- Think their manager cultivates an inclusive environment at work.
There are various problems with these questions:
- They don’t take account of the positive appeal of – and potential benefits from – signing up to the boss’s (or other perceived) agenda – think of it as the ‘wrong’ form of inclusion.
- An employee can be ‘safe’ but no longer welcome, not seen as part of the team. The negative consequences can be difficult to define – perhaps, not being included when others go out to get coffee or a drink after work; not being asked what they did at the weekend – but the employee can still be hurt and the work environment isn’t inclusive.
- They don’t really cover micro-exclusions – for instance, someone being moved to sit at the far end of the building as part of changes to the seating plan after challenging assumptions made in the line manager’s key initiative. The move can be rationalised to appear unrelated to the challenge that’s been made.
- They leave open what constitutes inappropriate behaviour or misconduct, although that could be in the eye of the beholder.
- They don’t tackle whether employees are confident anything would be done in response to speaking up about inappropriate behaviour or misconduct.
So, what might help to shore up inclusive behaviour? The two suggestions are taken from Adam Grant’s book Hidden Potential and they’re strategies for unearthing the collective intelligence in teams. Neither of these is new – and some readers might already have them in place – although both were new to me.
Brainwriting is the first of these. We’re all familiar with brainstorming and have probably suffered through sessions of it. Personally, I tend to feel drained and confused by the end of a brainstorming session, overwhelmed by the ideas tossed into the mix and with little idea what – if anything – has been agreed. Brainwriting involves asking everyone to generate ideas separately which are then shared anonymously across the group. Each person in the group evaluates the ideas separately before the team comes together to select and refine the most promising options. There’s a risk that people will promote their own idea but the best ideas should rise to the surface by consensus. The intention is that this will allow ideas that might not otherwise see the light of day being aired across the group.
Is brainwriting the answer in all cases? No, but it has a role to play in relation to product development, outsourcing proposals, acquisitions, strategic planning, projects and how to deal with operational and other issues that arise in the course of a firm’s business. And probably other cases too. It might also allow a wider range of people to be involved than would otherwise be the case and, over time, it could help to reinforce an inclusive culture within the business.
The second suggestion is using a lattice management system. Traditional reporting lines are linear – the ladder system – where one employee reports to another and so forth up the ‘ladder’. (There’s also the matrix system, with dual or multiple reporting lines, but the focus is still on reporting which isn’t the key feature of the lattice system.) The lattice system gives employees multiple contact points where they can speak up, multiple contacts within the organisation. Although the focus is generally on bright ideas and providing a route around a line manager who’d prefer to block an idea’s progress, it could also be used to raise a concern.
There are points to work through. Lattice models would need to be consistent with the senior managers’ regime and the certification regime (SMCR) and particularly allocation of responsibilities to senior managers. The options for speaking up would also need to be accommodated within the whistleblowing policy and speak-out structures. However, the benefits could be immense and they’re some of the few I’ve come across that offer a way of helping to tackle the micro-exclusions that are still too prevalent.
This article is intended to provide general information about current and expected topics and perspectives that might be of interest. It does not provide or constitute, or purport to provide or constitute, advice relevant to any particular circumstances. Legal or other professional advice relevant to any particular circumstances should always be sought.