Today, along with millions of others, I have listened to the news that two of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence have finally been convicted of his death, more than 18 years after the unprovoked racist attack in south-east London.
Stephen Lawrence’s murder has brought about some fundamental changes in our understanding, reaction to, and management of racism in our society.
Firstly, the Macpherson Inquiry into the handling of the initial investigation by the Metropolitan Police shone a spotlight on how prejudice can thrive in groups and how people in professional roles can turn a judicious blind eye when something is not particularly important to them. The term “institutional racism” used in the report of the Macpherson Inquiry has subsequently become a well recognised, if somewhat miss-used, term in today’s vernacular.
Secondly, the Race Equality Duty, was introduced in 2001 in direct response to the findings of the Macpherson Inquiry. Leading the introduction of these new legal duties on the public sector, Jack Straw indicated that his ambition was for public sector bodies such as the police to become the leading light on taking proactive, positive steps to foster good relations between different groups and tackle discrimination.
Thirdly, Recommendation 11 of the Macpherson Inquiry amplified the responsibility of race relations legislation, and in particular the responsibility of all police officers to uphold their legal duties. The fact that Chief Police Officers can be held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers relevant to the legislation is just one of the reasons that police forces and constabularies take issues of racism so much more seriously now than previously.
Fourthly, Stephen Lawrence’s murder played a significant role in the ending the double jeopardy principle, whereby no one could be tried twice for the same crime. The abolition of this legal principle in 2005 meant that one of Stephen’s murderers could be successfully tried again.
So the death of Stephen Lawrence has brought about some fundamental changes in the way that racism is dealt with in this country. However, I realise with some resignation it is not Stephen’s death that has brought about these changes. It is not even the fact that the attack was racially motivated that brought about these changes. In fact, the thing that ensured Stephen’s murder did not simply go recorded as an unsolved crime was just how stupendously badly the Metropolitan Police bungled the initial investigation, combined with the tenacity of Stephen’s mother and other supporters.
So can individuals make a difference in tackling issues as big as racism? Without a doubt. I also strongly believe organisations can, and do, have a significant impact on cultural change, including on issues as significant as tackling racism in society. Hopefully your organisation will be doing this in a positive, proactive way, and not in the negative mishandling impact that the Met Police had.
Even those people who like to be known for their outspoken comments are aware that there is a fine line between getting attention and getting sacked. Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond judged this to near perfection recently with his comments about Mexicans. His crude comments certainly got him talked about but overall many found what he had to say amusing, including his bosses at the BBC. Hammond knew that by choosing Mexicans he would be on safer ground than if he remarked about, say, Indians or Pakistanis. Make offensive observations about the first and he is being humorous but make them about the latter and he'd be racist. He gauged this very well, showing us where the public's tolerance of such views lies.
I mention this because I have just returned from a trip to the US.Arriving at my hotel I switched on the TV to see Michael O'Leary, the CEO of Ryanair, being interviewed on Bloomberg by Francine Lacqua. One of her first questions was whether O'Leary flew on the budget airline himself? He said that he did and passengers seeing him queue up like everyone would think 'Jew'. I couldn't really believe what I'd heard especially since the interviewer let it pass without remark.
Should he be allowed to get away with this? As far as I am aware there's been no reaction to what he said by anyone? Does this demonstrate again the public's lack of concern about certain groups of people being derogated and stereotyped in this way? I am always suspicious about people being described as 'colourful' or 'outspoken' as if this can forgive any utterance they make. The same applies here and it is worse that it is a senior, successful businessman making it. The lack of response may mean that no-one was watching in the first place or more worryingly that many find his remarks acceptable? Leaders have to recognise that they are role models if not outside of their organisations then certainly within them and they have a responsibility to display behavior that is not offensive.
Reading the British Press over the past couple of weeks you could mistaken for believing that the Government is imposing some Draconian measure in order to further hinder small businesses from economic recovery, but 'no' actually all that is happening is that they are, at last, beginning to redress the balance with regard to parental leave. There seems to be a somewhat unjustified preoccupation about the financial impact this will have, over and above the moral implications of the measure.
Equal leave rights have been in place in many Scandinavian countries for many years and have encouraged more couples to share the time off that they spend with their children but Britain has been stuck with a measly two-week break for dads in order to help look after baby. Not only is this a bit harsh on the mother, potentially by herself to care for her newborn pretty quickly after parturition but isn't it terribly sexist??
Clearly there are physical reasons why women may be more tied to looking after their newborn (although it looks like breastfeeding recommendations are changing again) but where is it written that mothers make better carers than fathers? If the shoe were on the other foot, would women be morally outraged? There are neurochemicals that are released in both sexes when baby comes on the scene in order to foster bonding and discourage abandonment, but it seems that there is such a fundamental assumption made about the 'natural instincts' and innate superiority of women in this regard that they are beyond question.
Implicit associations show us that many of us have a tendency to associate women with family and men with careers, even if this is happening at a subconscious level. Is it this bias that makes our assumptions go unchallenged? Or do we have these tendencies because there really is something fundamentally different about nature's roles for us in this regard? Perhaps, in the recognition that workplace discrimination has done so much to hold women back for so many years, this was the one area where women had some 'compensation' and was therefore untouchable. Ultimately however, it's the only chance that women have of achieving parity...if both parents can take leave then employers may cast worried glances at men of 'child-bearing age' too!"
Although not the sort of topic I usually write a blog on (I don’t usually like to advertise my slightly suspect choice of weekend viewing) the furore over this week’s episode of the ‘X Factor’ struck a real chord with me - from a psychological perspective.
According to news reports, fans have been ‘up in arms’ over judge, Cheryl Cole’s, decision making. For those of you who don’t watch the programme, one of the contestants, Cher Lloyd, had a very poor final audition, and yet still ended up going through to the live finals. On the other hand, Gamu Nhengu, whose performance had been consistently excellent, was rejected.
Normally this kind of reality TV injustice wouldn’t bother me. This instance, however, strikes at the heart of the issues that we, and all organisations, face in selection. Making the best decision should be simple. In reality, our ability to make rational and objective decisions is often compromised by our unconscious bias.
The ‘similar-to-me’ effect is well documented in the research. Basically, we tend to like and respond most favourably to people whom we perceive to be similar to us. This may be a physical similarity, a personality characteristic or just from being in the same ‘group’ e.g. being fans of the same football team, having studied at the same university etc. Basically, it’s your brain’s short-cut logic telling you: ‘well I’m a good singer/accountant/manager… and they are like me. So they must also be a good singer/ accountant/manager’.
I’m not saying for a second that Cheryl deliberately chose Cher because they look alike. The point is that these effects - and our reactions - are unconscious. I do, however, think that it would have influenced her decision.
Cheryl Cole of course is not alone. We’re all subject to the ‘similar-to-me’ effect and many other unconscious biases. It is part of the human condition. Although these are short cuts that speed up our decision making process, they aren’t helpful in making considered, meritocratic decisions. This applies to any organisation when making people decisions, whether hiring, promoting, making redundant or even appraising at the end of the year.
So whilst I hope many of you won’t be losing much sleep over Cheryl’s X Factor decision, I’d encourage you all to think carefully when you’re making decisions about people at work. Recognising potential bias and focusing only on the things that matter for a decision is vital for the best outcome – not only for talent show judges, but for all of us in our everyday, working lives.
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "potential to set back race relations and black and ethnic minority communities by a generation." Specifically, she warned that a "last in, first out" approach to redundancies would hit black and female workers particularly hard, presumably given the nature of positive action in recent years. Aside from the "doom and gloom" feel to her statement, I broadly agree; accurate, objective and transparent assessment regardless of time in post is essential to ensuring fair and unbiased selection decisions.
The sad irony is that cutbacks are just as likely
to affect HR budgets as they will headcount and money available for objective assessment will be first to go.
So, where does this leave us?
Employee's perceptions of fairness at the current time will be particularly important. As companies look to reduce headcount, the process by which decisions are made over an individual's future with the organisation will have a significant impact on the subsequent performance of such individuals.
It is critical that organisations employ objective, valid, fair, inclusive and most importantly transparent selection procedures when looking at who is to stay and who, unfortunately, is to go.
Whether the approach is based on appraisal data, competency-based interviewing, assessment centres, or the like, organisations are morally obliged to ensure the process is objective, robust, based on justifiable criteria, inclusive of all groups, and above all cost effective.
Clearly, it is this last point that will resonate with most organisations feeling the pinch of recent governmental cuts. The knee-jerk reaction will be to cut all selection processes and go with a "last in, first out" approach. Unfortunately, by using such an approach, there is a significant risk of injecting bias associated with ill-defined criteria, inconsistent assessment processes and subjective interpretation of performance.
By extension, the apparent cost-saving of "streamlined" assessment is far outweighed by the longer term costs of unfair selection.
As my mum used to say, "do it right, or don't do it at all".
Feed
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "