Corporate America

This is a summary of a BBC programme looking at three responses to Trump’s ‘cancellation’ of the DEI and ‘the sacking of its staff’. The three commentators Diana Scott, Siri Chilazi and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, represent a snapshot from corporate in America. The focus is on how business leaders continue to recognise the importance of getting the best staff.  Despite Trump’s rulings they argue that finding the best means looking at everyone and working towards a level playing field.
In the analyse, the discussion moves to a fire service context. This is an early understanding, yet there are interesting questions to consider. One, is the challenge that equality training is unlikely to bring culture change? Another is to consider how fire service managers in the USA, may react to Trump’s restrictions, and what that may tell us in the UK.

The programme led by Ben Thompson, talks first to Diana Scott (The Conference Board). Diana suggests that after Trump’s embargo, around 61% of companies will adjust their policies. However, Diana argues that business needs the best talent to be successful and this will only happen if Diana’s there is a level playing field. Without equality of opportunity, it is possible to miss the best possible talent. To paraphrase, Diana is arguing that prejudice denies the pools of talent that exist but are not given a chance to compete.

Siri Chilazi, (Harvard Kennedy Business School and author of ‘Make Work Fair,’) adds to Diana’s argument. Siri suggests that to choose the right employees, choice should be based on evidence/data. Bias and natural preference should not be part of the interview process. Siri adds that getting the right talent includes levelling the playing field by removing bias, changing ways of working, providing transparency and setting targets. Siri does not accept that diversity and unconscious bias training, will correct cultural differences with equality.

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, (from global recruitment giant ‘Manpower Group,’) indicates that some DEI actions may have created caution, because some saw them as too progressive. Tomas balances this by commenting that without looking at people who can be seen as untraditional, talent is being missed. He argues that if nepotism and the same old privileged elites are left in control, ‘you are not going to get meritocracy.’ Particularly if recruiters concentrate on how people ‘talk themselves up,’ looking at style, rather than their actual competence. Again, in a similar vein to both Siri and Diana, Tomasa suggests that most organisations know that you need to be talent centrique, and that you are unlikely to promote diversity by equality training.

So, where does this argument from corporate America, fit with the fire service? America has been an important part of the promotion of women in the fire service. Will this work now be undone? There are many questions:

• Will Trump’s dictate identify just how much people have bought into the concept of equality?
• Will the arguments by leaders ‘that a diverse fire service is a good idea, continue?’
• Will recruitment continue to reflect the community?
• Will those not fitting with white heterosexual masculinity, be ignored and bullied out of the service?—
• How many white men were just playing at providing equality, because it was the only way to be recruited, get promoted, or stay a firefighter?

Meanwhile, UK CFO’s and their senior managers will no doubt digest what happens over the pond. What will they be thinking? Managers, currently appear as aware that providing an effective fire service needs a representative workforce. BUT and it may indeed be a big ‘BUT. Men by their resistance to women firefighters, have made it really expensive to employ a diverse workforce.  

One example of cost of equality is that fire services have banked money, time and effort on equality training as a way of changing behaviour. If we follow the lead and look at the data, this shows that despite a burgeoning training sector developing to provide extensive and expensive equality training, harassment has continued almost unbated. There is also a thesis that suggests equality training, can also teach harassers how to avoid getting caught. Data from corporate America suggesting equality training is unsuccessful in creating behavioural change, should be considered and resources diverted.

One more point. Most men are more than aware of what is right and wrong in their treatment of women. White men are equally aware that being racist is wrong. The same applies to discrimination, particularly against women. Indeed, potential recruits to the fire service have to prove they are aware and support equality issues. That awareness may need to be sharpened during initial training, but why is it that new firefighters go on to harass others? How and why does their behaviour change?

Perhaps some potential recruits are accomplished actors? And they could be. There is certainly evidence that some male applicants have been taught how to answer equality questions by men already in the fire service. This is possible and would fit with the point that Tomaso makes, about how recruiters should concentrate on competence rather than style.

There is clear evidence that CFOs are trying to stamp out harassment and bullying. This is paradoxical, when it is considered that there is also evidence that harassment and bullying still exists in the fire service (potentially at the top). One answer could be that despite best attempts to sift at recruitment, some recruits manage to talk themselves up and this is accepted. Could this reflect a built-in bias by recruiters? It also has to be asked that if the existing culture remains a white male heterosexual masculinity that new recruits learn from their peers. Maybe it is a bit of both?  In looking for answers, it will be well to consider that equality training, except at a basic level, may be ineffectual.

It will be interesting to observe if the fire service in USA continues to follow the spirit of their equality practices. If they do, then this will suggest that senior managers were fully supportive of the arguments for a level playing field. However, if attempts to level up the playing field stop or reduce, then this could suggest some ambiguity between senior managers, who were not wholly supportive of equality measures, or that they are obeying the letter of Trump.