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.
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".
In April 2000, Nick Griffin shared his vision with a group of white nationalists in the US: “perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, we’ll get ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media”. Tonight, Griffin is due to appear as a panellist on BBC’s Question Time. So, has he achieved his vision?
There is no doubt that since his conviction for inciting racial hatred in 1998, Griffin’s tactics have changed. He talks about using “saleable” words to win British votes, such as “security” and “identity” rather than “racial purity”. He takes every opportunity to insist that the BNP is not a racist party. But Griffin’s insistence that the party is not racist does not make it so. Even on its own website there is an ongoing debate amongst BNP members about whether they are members of a racist party of not. One member comments “I don't like what Muslims (sic) believe in, practice or preach. I don't want them in our country and I certainly don't want them as a neighbour.” Another states “What is of interest to us, though, is whether THE BNP is racist - and it would help if this website, above all, was able to answer the question honestly. I think the answer must be yes…. I mean, if we're racist, we're racist. And I don't mean this in an unfriendly way at all...”
I prefer this level of honesty and would rather have a debate with someone who is willing to be open about what they believe in, rather than Griffin’s spun comments around racial purity, when in his own words, he is looking for British people to “change their mind and say ‘every last one of them must go’”.
What this level of honesty makes clear, though, is that whilst Griffin might be becoming more politically canny, the remainders of the BNP are still many steps behind him and it is no surprise that Griffin is the only spokesperson that the BNP is willing to put forward in front of the media.
So is it an atrocity for Griffin to be being a panel member on Question Time? No. Whilst he may be more polished in his spin of BNP values, at the heart of it, Griffin still represents a party of hatred, not a party of governance, as even a cursory look through their manifesto makes clear. I do believe in the freedom of speech, even for odious people like Griffin. I also believe that people need to hear what Griffin and his party stand for so that they fully appreciate just how racist the BNP actually is and whether they really want these people to take decisions on their behalf. After all, who knows which groups of society they could focus on next?
Anton du Beke, one of the Strictly Come Dancing professionals, is coming under heavy criticism this week after he called his partner on the show, Laila Rouass, a "Paki" . Du Beke had already said sorry to the actress and she had accepted but when the story hit the press he felt compelled to issue a public apology for his insensitivity. Despite this the BBC is under pressure in some quarters to make an example of the former steel worker and to dismiss him.
By any standards, professional dancing is an unusual occupation where many of the conventions of working life don't really apply. It is highly competitive, demands high levels of fitness and requires a degree of physical contact which would not be tolerated in any work place. Dance partners must understand and trust one another and be able to comment freely upon each other's performance honestly and frankly. It is not difficult to imagine conversations occurring that would never be countenanced by many of us where we work. It is clear, given Rouass's response, that on this occasion the normally debonair and suave Du Beke over stepped the mark. But then again, don't we all on occasion? The key to this is his acknowledgement that he made an error from which he has learnt and hopefully he won't make the same mistake again.
Those who defend him by saying it was only a joke (oh dear, Brucie) miss the point because it clearly upset Du Beke's dance partner and issues of race and colour are highly charged at the best of times. Those who demand his head however, clearly don't believe in letting people learn from their mistakes.
This was all sorted out effectively and swiftly by the pair of them. This is strictly none of our business.
Feed
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "