This Isn’t Working

What is fuelling the backlash against DEI – and are some of your staff secretly loving it? Have employers overestimated their staff’s enthusiasm for their efforts to ‘level the playing field’ and be ‘inclusive’ of groups perceived to be ‘marginalised’? This is the first half of a two-part conversation with the writer and commentator James Esses. Best known for his investigations into where good intentions have led to bad practice around diversity, equity and inclusion - particularly around trans inclusion - James makes no secret of the fact that he is not a fan of DEI. So why invite him on a podcast primarily aimed at HR professionals?  Clearly, James doesn’t get a say in shaping employers' policy or strategy – and he doesn’t have deep knowledge of HR. But he provides valuable insight into the minds of the growing number of people who are – let’s say – DEI-sceptics.  Not only are James' views represented among your clients and customers, they will also be increasingly common among your staff (though it’s unlikely that they are telling you that to your face, for various reasons!) Also, James raises some thought-provoking questions about the possible unintended consequences of some DEI work, challenging practitioners to ask whether we're sure we are still on the right track, or whether it’s time to reconsider some of what we are doing. This conversation covers: - What sort of employer practices and policies are people complaining about, to James?  - Would ‘scrapping DEI’ lead to meritocracy - or a severely restricted talent pipeline, sluggish progression and poor retention among certain groups?  - What are the risks to an organisation when poor quality DEI training and policies damage relationships with employees and customers - or when it bleeds into the products or services the organisation produces? (James cites examples at John Lewis, the BBC, the Financial Times and the NHS) - Have staff networks become too powerful – or are there issues at leadership level too? - Does a lack of visible, demographic diversity always indicate a problem that needs fixing? Or should we accept that some groups will always be under-represented in some organisations and industries? - In its current form, is DEI actually delivering diversity or inclusion for organisations? Where is the diversity of opinions? Who is being included – and who is being excluded?  - Why are DEI sceptics like James so allergic to the concept of equity? What are the pitfalls when identifying and addressing advantage and disadvantage? (Thanks to James for talking about his own school years here) - What message does it send to job applicants, when they learn they're in a group thought to need extra support? Is there a danger of fear-mongering and reinforcing a victim culture, by incentivising people to view themselves as disadvantaged and/or at increased risk of discrimination?  - Do employers deserve any sympathy for having been misled about the strength of the business case for demographic diversity? (We discuss the flawed McKinsey reports, and the failure of academic journals to set employers straight) - Is it time for employers to look again at how to broaden their talent pipelines, and retain and progress diverse staff, in ways that feel more positive and avoid categorising people into ‘buckets’? Would a focus on social mobility (rather than demographic diversity) and resilience training (for staff at all levels) be a better way ahead? Enjoy the episode! Watch/listen on YouTube, Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://linktr.ee/thisisntworking Find James on X @JamesEsses https://x.com/JamesEsses Read James's investigations on Matt Goodwin's Substack https://www.mattgoodwin.org/s/james-esses

Is diversity, equity and inclusion really good for business – or did we conflate it with being ‘the right thing to do’? Has the HR industry been gaslit by fancy consultancies and self-proclaimed experts selling us DEI-related products and services with big claims, but small measurable outcomes? And why are so many DEI professionals allergic to questions about evidence? In this interview with Alex Edmans, Professor of Finance at London Business School, and author of May contain lies: how stories statistics and studies exploit our biases – and what we can do about it, we discuss: - Why is this such a taboo topic – and what happened when Alex first started challenging the orthodoxy that demographic DEI (specifically, race and sex) leads to better business outcomes? - When did a supposedly causal link between DEI and business performance become accepted wisdom – and why was it such an easy ‘sell’ to HR professionals and senior executives?  - What are the flaws in the data and the conclusions we see being drawn from it? Which reports should we believe – and which should we bin? - Why is confirmation bias so powerful when we see data we like – and why are we so weird when we see data we don’t like? - Did McKinsey deliberately mislead HR professionals, to sell their own, expensive business solutions? What lessons should we take from this, about the difference between reports which are really just marketing materials, versus more robust academic studies?  - How can HR professionals feel more confident when scrutinising data, and reduce the likelihood of straying from sound evidence?  - If the link between demographic diversity and business performance is weak (at most), what sort of diversity is good for business?  Enjoy the episode! _ _ _ _ _ _  Alex's website and book: MayContainLies.com  Alex's academic paper: (Diversity) Equity and Inclusion - Edmans, Flammer and Glossner, 2024  Alex on the McKinsey reports

Employers - we need to talk about pronouns. And ‘LGBT’. And Pride. And Stonewall. And staff networks. And diversity training that only gives one side of a complex and nuanced story. Oh, and drag queens… This is an interview with Kate Barker, CEO of the UK charity LGB Alliance. So, what are employers getting wrong about ‘LGBT’? The short answer, according to Kate, is that they are failing to consider the full range of perspectives that exists among this group of employees, and to find ways for everyone to feel comfortable at work. During this conversation, we discuss the following: Have employers been too quick to adopt what they thought was a ‘progressive’ and ‘inclusive’ approach to ‘LGBT,’ not realising they have only been listening to certain voices, and looking at this through a somewhat limited lens?  Have ‘LGBT’ staff networks become too political and powerful – and do they really represent the range of views held by the groups they claim to include?  Why do a lot of gay and lesbian employees find their organisation’s Pride celebrations embarrassing – and is it time to dial down the drag queens? What message are employers sending to their lesbian and gay staff by continuing to work with Stonewall, and hiring external ‘gender diversity’ trainers with dubious credentials and content? What are the risks of following their advice about what ‘LGBT inclusion’ should look like in the workplace? Is it time to replace the acronym ‘LGBT’ with a different term? After all, we ditched ‘BAME’ when we realised it was simplistic, unhelpful and crass… Is enthusiasm for 'pronoun declaration' starting to wane, and should employees feel free to not to participate in the invitation to state their beliefs about gender identity in their workplace?  How can employers move away from ‘no debate’ towards calm, professional conversations about how to manage these complex and sensitive issues in the workplace? And what other solutions can Kate offer to employers who are keen to get this right? Not everyone is ready to talk about this stuff – and a few of Kate’s words may sound jarring to some people’s ears. But can employers afford to keep dithering, when resentment is ‘festering’ (Kate’s word) in workplaces around the UK? Is it time for employers to re-think ‘LGBT’, acknowledge that a range of perspectives exists among this group of workers – and agree that it is not acceptable to silence some voices, while celebrating others? Is there a better way ahead, if we start talking? Watch/listen on YouTube, Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://linktr.ee/thisisntworking

How can employers fix the damage caused by bad DEI? And are DEI professionals part of the solution - or the problem? In the third and final part of our conversation with Neil Morrison, Group HR Director at British water company Severn Trent (which has 10,000 employees), we discuss these questions – and much more: - How did we get to a place where the people in charge of ‘inclusion’ at work are silencing questions and dissent from colleagues who don't share their beliefs or political agenda? - Is it ever okay to police people’s language at work – and how should this be done?  - Were too many Heads of DEI hired for their charisma and big ideas, rather than their good judgement and business experience? Did employers rush to 'look good,' fast – rather than taking time to find someone who could balance the needs of the business with the needs of *all* employees (not just those they happen to agree with)? - Is DEI even a 'real thing' - or is it (in Neil's words) a 'false concept', grouping a constellation of employer practices aimed at improving inclusion? If it's not a real thing, how can DEI advocates defend it? - How can HR professionals with doubts about their organisation’s current DEI strategy, direction and leadership raise concerns in a professional way that minimises blow-back against them personally? - Why isn’t Neil more worried about DEI critics such as Matt Walsh, Piers Morgan and the Free Speech Union, channels like Unherd and SpectatorTV, and podcasters like Andrew Gold and the Triggernometry boys?  - What will it look like when employers start fixing the damage caused by bad DEI – both externally and internally? What will be quietly shelved, what will be salvaged – and what ‘performative’ practices will businesses be happy to bin? - If the UK’s DEI industry is set to shrink dramatically, should DEI professionals (including staffers, external consultants, and poor-quality DEI trainers) start considering their career options? Enjoy the episode... PS. For more from Neil, don't miss Episodes 6 and 7! We discuss how DEI went off the rails, and who is to blame for the DEI lawsuits...   *Watch/listen on YouTube, Spotify or Apple Podcasts* https://linktr.ee/thisisntworking

Who is to blame for the DEI lawsuits? Finally, we have some answers! Here is the second slice of our three-part interview with Neil Morrison, group HR director at the British water company Severn Trent. With reference to high profile cases including Lloyds Banking Group, Thames Valley Police, the Open University and Cambridgeshire County Council, we ask: - Why don’t DEI and HR professionals understand the Equality Act 2010 – and do they even need to? (Neil suggests not - find out why...) - How did an external training session result in an employment tribunal costing Lloyds Banking Group £1m – and what questions remain about what went wrong? - What is impairing people's judgement? Are professionals acting on their own politics – or is there a fear that their brand won't be seen as tough enough on racism, sexism, transphobia, etc? - Are there too many DEI ‘grifters’? How did an explosion in demand from employers for equalities training open the door to DEI trainers with questionable credentials, and iffy advice? - Did anybody read the government’s Inclusion at Work report, published in the spring? Was the low level of interest really down to the ‘Kemi Badenoch’ factor? (Spoiler: Yes!) - Are employers taking notice of the rising number of employees who are winning DEI-related cases at employment tribunal? - Have staff networks suffered from mission creep, and is it right that they are now directly feeding in to company policy? - Is it time for the smartest HR directors to take charge, and return to a more thoughtful, 'common sense' approach to managing problems around DEI issues? - These lawsuits are expensive, stressful and - crucially - avoidable. Don't we all want to reduce the risk of them happening?  Enjoy the episode!    PS. Look out for the next episode... where we'll ask Neil how heads of DEI have got away with behaving like activists, and whether the UK's DEI industry is about to shrink dramatically...    *Watch/listen on YouTube, Spotify or Apple Podcasts* https://linktr.ee/thisisntworking

In this ground-breaking episode, a sensible, experienced, centrist HR director busts multiple taboos - answering questions about how and why DEI has gone wrong in so many organisations. Neil Morrison, group HR director at Severn Trent, gets into race, disability, trans inclusion, Israel/Gaza… the lot. We cover: - Was it a mistake for brands to rush in with statements about Black Lives Matter?  - Why are so many DEI professionals overstepping their role into policing employees’ words – and sometimes even their thoughts? - What problems is bad practice in DEI creating for organisations internally? (Think productivity, retention and grievances) - Is it time to consider the impact on recruitment and employer brand? For example, have John Lewis's bold statements around gender identity put some people off applying to work there? Could this conversation be a turning point for HR? The start of a collective effort to investigate where we’ve lost our way, and how to navigate a path to ways of working that are more productive – and genuinely inclusive? Let's hope so. This was such a brilliant conversation that we've split it into three episodes - this is the first. Episodes 7 and 8 (coming soon) will cover: - Whose fault are the DEI-related lawsuits – and are organisations taking notice? - Have staff networks suffered from mission creep – and where is the quality control for external training? - Why are so many Heads of DEI behaving like activists? - Can HR directors continue to ignore the problems that bad DEI is creating? (Spoiler: No!) - Should DEI professionals start looking for new jobs? If you love or loathe DEI, this conversation will challenge you. If you take a centrist view and think it's time for HR professionals to start talking more honestly about the challenges that our organisations face, it will feel like a breath of fresh air. Here’s to more discussion - enjoy the episode! PS. If this conversation chimes with you, our podcast host Tanya de Grunwald is collecting senior HR professionals who share Neil's view that bad practice in DEI is proving to be problematic, with the aim of finding solutions together. If this is you, please contact Tanya via LinkedIn. Thank you!

IS STONEWALL CRUMBLING – AND HOW SHOULD EMPLOYERS REACT? As any smart HR professional who's been paying attention will know, suddenly everyone is talking about Stonewall – and not in a good way. Once considered a solution – a trusted, credible advisor on best practice for workplace policy concerning sexual orientation (or ‘gay rights’) – now the organisation is viewed as a problem by many employers, pulling them into complex, personal and controversial issues around politics, sexuality, medicine and identity. Is it time to drop off the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index and withdraw from the Diversity Champions scheme? Looking back, was it a mistake for employers to trust Stonewall - or was their error not realising sooner that the organisation had changed direction? Do employers need to wise up to the deepening schisms with the 'LGBTQ community' as fault lines appear around definitions of once-straightforward terms such as 'gay' and 'lesbian'? Why do some lesbians, gay men and bisexual people not feel welcome in the 'LGBTQ' staff networks - and what should employers do about that? By hosting 'LGBTQ' speakers and trainers who openly challenge the Cass Review, are employers taking a position on the medicalision of gender distressed children - and which employees might be uncomfortable about this? And do these discussions even belong in the workplace? In this episode, Julie Scanlon and Tanya de Grunwald chart the evolution of Stonewall's complex and shifting relationship with employers, and ask the biggest question of all: What should employers do next? Chapters: 00:00 Intro 05:45 How did this happen? 31:03 Why didn't employers notice sooner? 43:20 What next? Links: Nolan Investigates: Stonewall (BBC Sounds) https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0... The roadmap: Are you an HR director reassessing your organisation's policies around gender identity and trans inclusion? Contact Tanya de Grunwald via LinkedIn for more information about the roadmap she and Julie have created...  

UNFLATTERING BUT POSITIVE – AND ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY HR PROFESSIONAL IN THE UK That’s Julie and Tanya's verdict on the new Inclusion at Work Panel report, released last week by the Department of Business and Trade. Have you read it yet? If not, why not? In Episode 4 of *This Isn’t Working* Julie Scanlon and Tanya de Grunwald take a deep dive into what many people quickly started calling ‘Kemi’s diversity report’. (It was commissioned and launched by the UK's Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and Women and Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch, as part of the government’s Inclusive Britain drive). Like many, Julie and Tanya had their own preconceptions – but they are happy to say that the report does not seem to be obviously biased or politically motivated. And it’s well worth a read (plus it’s only 40 pages, and quite the ‘page-turner’ in Julie’s view!) It is challenging – and even unflattering – in places, asking why public, private and third sector organisations are spending large sums of money on people and initiatives which bring questionable results and may even, in places, create division and legal risk (eek). And Julie and Tanya were astonished to learn that the UK has nearly TWICE as many diversity, equity and inclusion professionals (per 10,000 employees) as any other country! (Something cultural? Any theories?) However, the report is *not* ‘anti-DEI’. In fact, it lays out a clear vision to help DEI professionals to be more impactful and effective in the work that they do. What surprised Julie and Tanya? How do we think the report has landed? And what are Julie’s top five take-aways for all HR professionals? (NB. This report is *not* just for DEI people! And external partners should read it too). Finally, Julie and Tanya predict what will happen next, as the DEI industry finds itself at a crossroads: * Will DEI professionals read the report, acknowledge the feedback (however harsh) and strive to move to more evidence-based ways of working? Or... * Will they dismiss it as ‘right wing’ and keep doing what they’re doing, despite calls to course-correct that get louder every day? And/or... * Might DEI leads not have a choice as to whether they engage with this report - if HR directors use it to push them to produce better impact assessments from now on, as organisations look to save costs in 2024/5? Share your thoughts!   LINKS: Inclusion at Work Panel - government report https://www.gov.uk/government/publica... Nels Abbey in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentis... Simon Fanshawe in the Sunday Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tw... Carl Borg-Neal v Lloyds Banking Group https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti... RAF positive discrimination https://news.sky.com/story/royal-air-...  

There are still too many unpaid internships around, but there are fewer than there were - and that's partly thanks to Tanya de Grunwald. In this episode, Julie Scanlon interviews her co-host about her 'dark past' calling out Simon Cowell, Tony Blair and Philip Green over unpaid internships. The pair discuss why Tanya's activism was so successful in the 'golden era' of the 2010s, where and why progress stalled, and how the next generation of young campaigners could re-start the fight: - What does the law say about unpaid internships - and why do people think an 'intern' is a special class of employee who needn't be paid, and doesn't need to eat or pay rent? - If most interns are covered by the National Minimum Wage law, why isn't it being enforced properly? - Why was naming-and-shaming such an effective campaign strategy between 2010 and 2014, and why does Tanya think it wouldn't work now? - Why did the corporate world lead the way on ending unpaid internships in the 2010s, when challenged over them? Was it because it was 'the right thing to do' - or were there good business reasons, too? - Why have some industries - such as media, fashion, politics and charity - been so reluctant to ditch unpaid internships? And is it a coincidence that these are the industries where they started? - Why does Tanya think the politicians didn't do more to help end unpaid internships - and is the current reporting system fit for purpose? - Why aren't young people angrier about unpaid internships? And, if an agreed strike would end unpaid internships overnight, why won't they do it? - If fixing this challenge for 2024 and beyond needs fresh eyes, whose might those be? - Why does Tanya love a 'David and Goliath' fight - and should 'Curious and Furious' be the title of her memoirs? Enjoy the episode! PS. You may notice that Tanya doesn't mention the role of universities. That's because she's saving that for a future episode... * PREFER TO WATCH? * This Isn't Working is also available on YouTube. 

Love it or loathe it, International Women's Day has become an essential date when every employer must... do what, exactly? And why? Does 8 March need a re-think, as well as a re-brand? In this episode, Julie Scanlon (grumpy) and Tanya de Grunwald (grumpier) discuss whether anything about International Women's Day is still working for employers and employees, including: - What is International Women's Day? Are we celebrating, protesting or both? And does it even have a place in the world of work? - What's with the two themes? If the UN's is 'Invest in Women', who dreamed up the rival: 'Inspire Inclusion'? Why are we being told to make hearts with our hands - and might a different gesture better capture how grown women feel about being asked (yet again) to 'be kind'? - What happens when employers' efforts to mark IWD clash with female employees' resentment around bread-and-butter issues like the gender pay gap, maternity policy, career progression and sexual harassment? - Can men ever get IWD right - and are LinkedIn posts about their wife/mum/daughter cute or cringe-inducing? - Are women having an identity crisis in 2024? Are we impossible to please, when female colleagues are divided ourselves, for example over workplace policies on menopause, menstruation and trans inclusion? - If we had a magic wand, what would we want to see employers do for IWD? How can it be made more meaningful? - After this 20-minute rant, is there a chance that IWD 2025 will be the best one yet - and Tanya will finally get the point of the whole thing? Decide for yourself... Enjoy the episode!

Why did Elon Musk say that 'DEI must DIE' - and how many people share his view? If there are signs that a backlash is brewing against diversity, equity and inclusion, why are HR and DEI professionals dismissing opposition as a 'right-wing culture war' that should be ignored? Is this failure to engage with criticism a further sign that something is seriously wrong with an industry that was meant to be about doing the right thing? In this episode, Julie and Tanya discuss whether it's time for the industry to start some serious soul searching: - What has gone wrong with DEI - and when did the trouble start? - Why are the 'right' beliefs presented as a package, and when did it become taboo to raise questions about any of it? - Are a small number of 'drunk drivers' taking DEI off a cliff? - What does the growing number of tribunals relating to protected characteristics in the Equality Act tell us about the true state of workplace cultures? - Did HR directors take their eye of the ball, failing to recognise the business risks that 'bad DEI' poses to their organisation? - Why do some heads of DEI seem to be building an echo chamber for themselves - and when did it become normal to 'block' challenge from industry peers on LinkedIn? - And is this the first DEI podcast to mention Triggernometry?   Will DEI survive? That depends on how the industry responds...