UK Government data shows continuing racial inequalities plague many of our institutions - but where’s the action?

Prime Minister Theresa May says that the UK must act against race inequality whilst launching a new government website that shows disparities for ethnic minorities in: employment prospects despite educational attainment; the treatment by police and courts in the criminal justice system; and other areas such as health outcomes and housing provision. This complements what former Prime Minister David Cameron stated nearly two years ago that “racism shames our nation”; though two of his examples that ‘a young black man is more likely to be in prison than at a top university’ and that his alma mater Oxford University had accepted just 27 black students (c.1% of intake) in one year despite being accurate took the focus away from his broader national debate on ethnic disparities and lack of opportunity despite achievement.

UK Government data shows that continuing racial inequalities plague many of our institutions

The data from UK government revealed by Prime Minister Theresa May cements the universal acceptance that there are continuing inequalities that plague many of our institutions and that hinder the progress of British people who are non-white or from different cultural and social backgrounds regardless of their achievements, merit and high aspirations. Prime Minister May has warned public services there will be "nowhere to hide" if they treat people differently on the basis of their race – which the government data and all the previous published research shows they do already. So what’s new? Nothing really – all of this was known before; It is good to see it published by the government in one place. However, the most pressing thing is that we must now see fast and tangible action from government if they and we are to tackle this long-standing problem – which is more acute given the reality and challenges of a post-Brexit UK.

So whilst there continues to be talk and disgust – where is the action from our leaders and gatekeepers? I understand that many gatekeepers are afraid of losing their privilege and preference - be it formed by: their inherited wealth, earned income, the colour of their skin, position in society, or in clubhouse on the golf course or in the pub. However, I cannot understand why, for instance in recruitment or promotion, you would not want to select the ‘best of the best from the widest possible pools’ to provide the strongest possible result for any organisation and a fairer, better society. May be I am naive?

Politics aside, Prime Minister May should be applauded for shining a light on the poor state of equality in our society - where fairness, opportunity and merit exist as second rate cousins to preference, privilege and mediocrity. As ever, it is clear that bias, prejudice and discrimination exist; though some will try and couch this in the more ‘cuddly’ and blame-free term of ‘unconscious bias’ or shift focus from the reality by saying there are other cultural factors and ‘racism is political correctness’! As said before, we must now see action from Government.

Where is the action to resolve these inequalities?

I had previously made seven simple recommendations to help resolve inequalities that exist for non-white British in the workplace which have also been shared with Government. These were initially made three years ago as part of The Institute of Directors' Business & Ethnicity Summit which also premiered McKinsey & Co’s ground-breaking ‘Diversity matters’ analysis showing a statistically significant relationship between a more diverse leadership and better financial performance. The same recommendations with several more specific actions were also made in my submission to the UK Government corporate governance inquiry last year to ensure better performing organisations and fairer treatment of staff.

Just to focus one part of one of those recommendations regarding data transparency and reporting is my suggestion that all major organisations provide the discrete breakdown/ratio of applicants to interview/shortlist to offers/acceptances for all senior roles be they externally filled or via internal promotions (split by gender and ethnic origin at the very least). The reason for this is not just to unmask any significant variances in hiring and promotion versus the general population share, talent pool share and the initial applicants or qualified applicants share. It allows more searching questions to be asked of the process, culture and the gatekeepers in that organisation if variances occur and remedies to be sought more quickly.

Let’s take a fictional example, given the Government’s previous target for women on FTSE boards of 25% - you might think if an organisation had to recruit all members of an 8 person board and ended up with 6 men and 2 women then it is fair to assume that it had done well and met the 25% (2/8) female target.

However, in this extreme fictional example if I shared the above table and said that 200 women applied for the 8 roles with 20 shortlisted by the search firm, 8 interviewed and 2 appointed compared with 40 men who applied for the 8 roles with 30 shortlisted, 20 interviewed and 6 appointed – then you would have a very different view. You would ask questions about the qualifications and quality of the applicants; the process and criteria to filter applicants to shortlist to interview to final selection; the make-up of the gatekeepers both at the search firm for shortlisting and in the organisation for interview and selection; and, of course, the bias, prejudice and possible discrimination at each stage against women given their percentage of the pool and discrepancy in the percentage being passed at each stage of recruitment.

“...Guarding against the subtle impulse to call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal.”

Research and data from many different sources: academia in both the USA and UK and from UK organisations such as BiTC, BBC, DWP, TUC, LBS and Deloitte consistently shows us that non-white workers in the UK have higher levels of ambition than white workers, greater desire for career progression and higher entrepreneurial drive. This is further supported by higher levels of academic and professional achievement of non-white’s entering the workforce. However, this all contrasts with the slow pace of promotion and the feeling of being under-valued by employers for non-white talent. Data shows us that a white British employee has an average of almost 4 promotions during their careers; however, non-whites have been promoted an average of just 2.5 times and the pay gap between white and non-white workers at the same job level is significant. This has all left a bad taste with nearly half of non-white employees feeling that they would have to leave their current employer to progress, compared with a third of white British.

Furthermore, studies have shown that traditional white British job applicants have a higher chance of a positive outcome from a job application than non-white British names – with African, Asian and Middle-Eastern sounding names ranking the lowest for outcomes (despite having the same qualifications and achievements). So much for merit – hey! This is collaborated by Department for Work and Pensions’ data which found ethnic minority applicants were discriminated against in favour of white applicants in 29% of cases. The research also quoted that many of those from non-white communities have reported that they have seen many people who are less qualified and less skilled than them but have risen up into more senior management positions, much faster and much quicker because their face fits. So much for merit again, hey!

Consider the true case in USA of a job applicant who according to The Huffington Post was not obtaining any responses from sending out his CV. He made a change of 'just one letter' (yes ‘just one letter) in the very same CV and that ‘one letter’ made all the difference for Jose's job applications. That one letter was the letter ‘s’ in his name – so Jose became Joe and sounded more like the ‘in group of white applicants rather than a Hispanic applicant. As mentioned there are many studies that touch upon this blatant bias, prejudice and discrimination at application level in recruitment (USA: Bertrand & Mullainathan; USA: Pager) through to when The London Evening Standard profiled an African-British graduate who changed his name on his CV only to start receiving positive responses and the fact that nearly a quarter of professional women in the UK with ‘non-white’ sounding names have ‘changed’ their name on a CV or application to sound more traditionally British in order to obtain an interview to progress to a job, according to a study by Nottx.com.

A possible quick solution here was advocated by former Prime Minister David Cameron - that is of ‘name-blind’ CVs and applications. Although I appreciated his desire for action and I acknowledge that ‘name-blind’ forms help the volume of non-white talent coming through the first stage of selection from CV/application form for interview or short-listing – it does not necessary change what happens when they face interview or selection panel. Furthermore, it makes one feel that the problem is one’s name and there is a need to hide that name – when we need focus, measures and sanctions on those individuals and organisations who are exhibiting bias, prejudice and discrimination because of one’s true identity and name. No aspect of a person’s authentic identity should need to be hidden ‘in a closet’.

This ‘strategy’ of replacing an ethnically identifiable name has been termed ‘uncooperative categorisation’ where we send signals for the explicit purpose of misrepresenting a category to which we belong. This is common with visual cues – such as ‘older folk’ dressing to appear younger or more privileged young folk dressing to appear hip or edgy from the inner-cities. However, this ‘uncooperative categorisation’ is common in the entertainment and media industries where names such as Winoa Horowitz, Issur Demsky, Anna Maria Louisa Italiano, or Jacob Cohen, have been replaced with something less ethnically identifiable – like Winona Ryder, Kirk Douglas, Anne Bancroft, and Rodney Dangerfield (as these people are better known). Clearly – this is easier to carry on through life if you physically look like the category or in-group of people who are dominant!

However, I feel that President Barack Obama best addressed this up during his eulogy for the Reverend Clementa Pinckney and eight others shot and killed by the terrorist Dylann Roof in South Carolina in June 2015: “Maybe we now realise the way racial bias can infect us even when we don't realise it, so that we're guarding against not just racial slurs, but we're also guarding against the subtle impulse to call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal.”

As I said, we should applaud the Prime Minister’s sentiment and call to action to open the gates for a more fair and equal society where ‘the best of the best from the widest possible talent pools rise to the top on merit not preference’. However it is action in addressing these gaps between application, ambition and achievement must be a priority for Government and businesses – so that we harness the talents of our full motivated workforce that contributes to an increase in productivity and innovation. This is more so the case and need in a post-Brexit UK.

Author: Dowshan Humzah, Inspiration for Success