D&I within HR Strategic HR
Social mobility in HR
On the face of it HR is accessible to anyone. Few professions offer the opportunity to
attain a qualifi cation up to postgraduate level while still being able to work.
However, research by the CIPD revealed that the number of HR practitioners who
had gone to private schools (14%) was double the national average of 7%. Raj
Tulsiani, CEO of Green Park, thinks an HR career is less accessible than many realise.
“How you look, how you talk, where you come from can be a bigger anchor in
HR than any other profession,” says Tulsiani. “So much of HR is advice driven. You
can’t give really good-quality advice unless you’re getting really good-quality data
from the people working with you.” He argues that this data is likely to be affected
by the biases people hold, unlike in professions such as law where there are
“technically-validated mechanisms” to support decision-making.
Nelarine Cornelius, professor of organisation studies at Queen Mary University of
London, argues that to an extent HR is still a ‘handmaiden’s profession’: “If you’re
going to be a handmaiden you need to have the airs and graces of one, and
where that exists it’s because HR has not professionalised intensively enough.” But
she holds that ‘social capital’ can be added. “If you’ve done the hard graft no-one
will care what your accent is like. What matters is whether you have the proven
competence to deliver the strategic objectives of the fi rm,” she concludes.
ordinated sustained approach to
solving those issues and a degree
of bravery.”
The need to be courageous is
mentioned often in this discourse.
Horsburgh calls for the profession to be
brave enough to ask tough questions.
The implication is that we’ve not done
that to date, but why?
“We are not comfortable discussing
race as a country and even less
comfortable with it in corporate
settings,” says Douglas. “You have a
white HR leadership talking to a white
C-suite, trying to figure out what to do
about black and Asian employees. And
when you have a lack of diversity in the
HR function where do you get insight?”
Increasingly that insight is coming
from employee and industry networks.
The CIPD’s LGBT group was formed in
2016 to champion diversity among its
own employees and has since been
opened up to CIPD volunteers and
members. “The group offers an
important channel for employee voice
and a safe space for LGBT people to
network, share experiences and support
one another at work,” says Edward
Houghton, CIPD head of research and
co-chair of its LGBT network.
In 2019 the CIPD leapt more than
200 places in Stonewall’s Workplace
Equality Index, proving that industry
networks and workplace advocacy have
a valuable role in improving diversity.
However, there is no equivalent
network for other minority groups.
D’Souza told HR magazine the CIPD
is committed to launching more
networks this year.
It’s a development Douglas thinks is
long overdue; he’s already garnered
interest for a BAME industry network.
“One of the reasons the LGBT and
the female agendas are high in the
mindset of most corporations is
because you have networks and
external groups like The 30% Club
and Stonewall. They create a visibility
that puts pressure on the C-suite,”
adds Douglas.
But Stonewall’s Williams warns that
such networks cannot be expected to
solve diversity problems on their own.
D’Souza agrees, arguing that
engagement will be key to achieving the
progress that so far has been lacking.
“HR need to listen, but also
appreciate that they can’t retreat into
a room to design an intervention.
They need to keep designing with the
people that are going to benefit from
it,” he says.
Tulsiani asserts that progress would
be aided by installing a chief diversity
officer on every company board, which
would mean that HR is held to account
by someone outside the function. But
he also thinks that employers need to
apply more rigour when hiring for
HR roles.
“Some of the recruitment processes
for HR are less impact-assessed in
terms of bias than some of the
processes they are keen to impose on
other parties,” he claims.
These are all valid observations and
proposals, but at the heart of this issue
is a very narrow definition of what we
consider diversity to be. That will need
to broaden if the profession is to
become more inclusive.
“What tends to be celebrated is
gaining traction in the gender or
LGBT space. Organisations are
more willing to talk about gender
because of the pay gap and because
they are being measured against it,”
comments Butt. “But there is very little
appetite for including race, religion or
disability diversity.”
Even within those characteristics
we need to be aware that there is a
spectrum of differences. Horsburgh,
who has dyslexia, says that hidden
disabilities, illnesses and neurodiverse
conditions need to form part of the
conversation. She sat on the ‘Broadening
up inclusion’ panel at the CIPD Annual
Conference and Exhibition last year
alongside Butt, and both agreed that
the dialogue was refreshing.
“That conference was a turning
point. For the first time there were a lot
more visibly different people occupying
speaking slots,” recalls Butt.
This is an encouraging report, but
there’s still a lot more to do to achieve
balanced representation among the HR
population.
In her role overseeing professional
qualifications for the CIPD Cornelius is
reviewing the placement of equality,
diversity and inclusion in the
curriculum; to date EDI has not
been a compulsory element of the
CIPD qualification.
D’Souza has also confirmed to
HR magazine that the CIPD will be
commissioning an independent review
into the lack of diversity within HR.
It may well reveal some uncomfortable
truths, but there’s clearly a
commitment in the HR community
to confront that and do better.
“We do face some challenges within
the profession, and people expect us to
be making differences in workplaces,”
adds D’Souza. “To give credibility to
that we need to make sure we’re leading
the way.” HR
The people
who are
trying to do
the fixing are
also what
is broken
about it
hrmagazine.co.uk February 2020 HR 35
/hrmagazine.co.uk