I had compulsory Diversity Training for a number of years but noticed an unwillingness to discuss where rights clash. This was in the comtext of Black converts to Islam demanding a female be removed from teaching them engineeering…This was at an FE college and I was in a university. The answer I got was that overseas agents were allowed ro demand to deal with a male instead of the female head of department. This was ten years ago and where I realised we were getting it wrong.
Wow, that's a shocking story. As you say, there is too much bad practice out there. Hopefully more open and honest conversations like this one will help employers to see not only what's gone wrong, but also how they can correct problems they have managed to create!
WHAT IS POLITICS? did an interesting video on this were he discusses the issues with words such as equity, i.e a vague term implying either equality of outcome or equality of opportunity depending on what is convenient to the person using it; definitely worth a watch. Personally I think much of the issue comes from the fact that many of people that go into HR come from doing sociology or gender studies degrees which don't give you the grounding in history, politics, economics and philosophy that one needs to truly understand social change. This means that when they are told by their lecturers that all issues come down to racissm or the patriarchy; these extremely simplistic explanations are accepted without question; then those people bring their simplistic perceptions into the workplace, projecting them onto any issue; which ultimately creates a toxic atmosphere.
It’s amazing that HR departments are often the least diverse departments in any organisation… usually filled with white women. The problem is DEI is seen as diversity in one direction. Also I have seen young inexperienced women put in senior roles that no male with the same level of experience would get. A lot of these women can be exceptionally entitled and ironically treat staff like garbage.
You are right to note a lack of diversity in HR, and - as in all cases - that increases the risk of group think. Perhaps the overrepresentation of women would be less of an issue if they were at least more diverse in their views. A clear bias towards left leaning politics is very apparent, and in DEI it is even more extreme. Did many DEI professionals vote for Brexit? Or Reform? It seems unlikely.
@@This-Isnt-Working yeah 100% agree. I worked for a large corporation that had a construction arm. They would have ‘women in construction days’ and bring schools in invariably they would be very wealthy girls schools who really wouldn’t struggle to get into any profession. My partner works in a HR department and she has said how many of the ladies on her team are from these wealthy girls schools. Ones that don’t come from these backgrounds are looked down on… The business they work for is a water utility and most employees are digger drivers, tradesmen etc they are not private school kids. The irony is the culture in the P&C team is terrible. I 100% agree on diversity of thought. I have seen female managers get promoted and the just adopt a 90’s ‘bully boy’ approach to staff even female staff. I she was promoted because she showed the same management style as some of the male managers, she just took it to the next level.
*DISCLAIMER: The following is not intended as a call for riot, violence or criminal activity nor intended as hatred or anti-establishment rhetoric. Nor is it intended as spreading mis-information. Any statements should be independently checked by the reader.* Following a _mandatory_ 'value everyone course' at one employer I asked the 'DEI Officer' what justification was there for including the phrase 'white privilege' within the course materials, and if she (these DEI officers always tend to be female, _biological_ female) had any evidence of the company discriminating against non-white people. Her response was that no _actual evidence_ or cases of discrimination _existed_ but there were _suggestions_ of discrimination given in the responses of employee surveys. So this individual, who produces _nothing_ of value i.e. does not contribute to a product that is sold and brings money into the company and who is therefore only a _cost_ to the company had the audacity to justify an anti-white racist term on the basis of rumours, gossip and individuals' personal perceptions. To cap it all, as she was in a senior position, she no doubt was getting paid far more than those that produce something for the company! Does no one see why white-males are becoming enraged by this DEI non-sense? I also noted she worked in a department full of women yet there were no attempts at diversification i.e. have a few blokes in there in _senior_ positions.
The role of women in this is complex and varied. Many are raising questions about these policies and training, and being shamed and silenced for doing. In other cases, women are the ones creating and enforcing the problems. We intend to dig into all of this as this series continues as you are right that it deserves exploration. It's also worth noting that there are some very powerful men pushing iffy DEI practices within organisations. Gareth Roberts writes about them in his book, Gay Shame.
Depending on the size of an organisation, it might not be necessary to have an HR department. However, given the increasing complexity of the wider culture as well as the workplace (including identity politics, and employees being more aware of their rights) more and more employers are finding they need to retain some sort of external HR/ employment law adviser, if they can't afford to have an in-house person. This needn't be expensive - but it is reassuring to know that they are there if they are needed. There are all sorts of risks to hoping your organisation doesn't need this type of support and never will. For example, a bad hire or a nasty dispute can be very expensive, if the correct process is not followed.
I remember when we had a personnel manager, they did the pay , training relevant to the job, like fire drills,sorted out problems face to face and were generally the go to person if anything needed sorting. How we have some faceless HR department who just seem to make up complete rubbish,like diversity ,and force people to go on courses. Thankfully most of it is now on a computer, click next , click next and answer a few simple question.
From what Neil says, it sounds like any sensible HR director would (or should?) agree with you! 'Forcing people to go on courses' has certainly begun to rub people up the wrong way - especially when they promote a one-sided view of a complex or contested subject, and/or attempt to change what participants think or believe. Using Neil's words, too many do seem to be 'overstepping' into 'social policy.'
I've found that a DEI enthusiasts are typically white, middle class metropolitan elite types (those who run the BBC) who see their allegiance to Wokery as some kind of membership to an elitist middle class club that many can't aspire to - all left wing - that differentiates them from the pleb aspirants (mainly right wing) they look down upon - those who now all possess degrees - like they have, have bought homes - like they have, run cars - like they do, and so can basically do and are doing which they don't like - because these things are what only the old middle classes could do pre- the era of technological IT age. It's a form of inverted snobbery to re-create a new class structure likely to most disadvantage those who are aspirational rather than privileged. When I used to temp at the BBC back in the 80s, the place was overrun with posh sloaney hooray henry private school types who worked Tues-Thurs before going to the country at the weekends, all carrying Gucci bags but earning £7k a year and living off trust funds. So essentially, the same sneering snobbery exists, but in a different form. I've met too many of these. They are horrible, lack empathy and are unwilling to side with ordinary people who have what they have - but who take the majority view that DEI is a destructive culturally diversive force that ultimately disadvantages everyone. Meanwhile, the Woke elite who believe their poo doesn't smell and that they are the ultimate virtue signallers are the first to run furthest and fastest if the negative impacts of DEI were ever to rain on their shoulders or those of their family, rather than just rain on the shoulders of those they most despise. In many ways, these Woke enthusiasts see themselves as Champions - the overseers of social change, tackling the big three issues of the day: race, gender and climate - a modern day version of the old Fabians who also took a big sisterly bossy approach to telling those they patronised and looked down upon, how best to live - for their own good, of course.
@@This-Isnt-Working Obviously to the companies who replace males (a certain demographic), thinking that this would benefit the other demographic. It doesn't. Although not personally affected by DEI, I have witnessed two stories in my circle so far where 3 daughters and one wife (aka: women) were severely impacted by the firing of their father and husband, respectively. In these two examples, 2 men were fired resulting in 4 women getting financially hurt.
Your interviewee is interesting, but for me he started on a back foot by not being transparent about the role of HR in an enterprise. I always tell the people I manage ‘HR isn’t your friend - you know they’re there primarily to protect the business from the employees?’. HR folk seem to think they’re there for the ‘fluffy stuff’, but development and growth is primarily the job of direct business line management. In the context of this discussion, HR have to assist in making the company appear welcoming, and to help prevent employees from upsetting each other or the company itself.
Yes that's a good point - a re-set would probably be useful here. Too many employee seem to be confused about what the role of HR is (and isn't), and this lack of clarity is unhelpful. For example, we understand that it's increasingly common to hear more junior employees talk about 'reporting him/her to HR...' for any speech or behaviour that they find unpalatable (a bit like telling the teacher, or 'Mum'..?). To be fair to HR professionals, a sense of dualism (good cop/bad cop) is built into the role - they are required to be friendly and encouraging when welcoming new joiners or nurturing talent... but then of course there will be other circumstances when they need to be tougher with employees. Do you have any sympathy for that challenge?
Do you mean that this is a perfectly normal and natural thing - that certain groups will naturally be over/ under-represented in certain professions or roles, and we shouldn't try to engineer it? If so, how do you square that with another commenters point here - that there are too many white women in HR, and that is part of the reason why mistakes have been made (presumably because of group think?)
@@This-Isnt-Working In short, yes. Occupational choices are not random, therefore it is unreasonable to expect every profession, role and level to be fully representative of the arbitrary characteristics by which one might divide up a society, that is to say however one slices up companies, professions, roles, etc one should not necesarily end up with a microcosm of the larger society. Why? Because people made choices, and those choices were influenced by their attitudes, aptitudes and life experiences. Should artificial barriers be removed which might discourage people? Yes. (Should physical barriers which prevent certain groups from participating in physically demanding roles remain? Yes.) As for your question about there being too many "white" women in HR, I would say that there are too many people in HR (and that HR plays too large a role in the modern enterprise).
I had compulsory Diversity Training for a number of years but noticed an unwillingness to discuss where rights clash. This was in the comtext of Black converts to Islam demanding a female be removed from teaching them engineeering…This was at an FE college and I was in a university. The answer I got was that overseas agents were allowed ro demand to deal with a male instead of the female head of department. This was ten years ago and where I realised we were getting it wrong.
Wow, that's a shocking story. As you say, there is too much bad practice out there. Hopefully more open and honest conversations like this one will help employers to see not only what's gone wrong, but also how they can correct problems they have managed to create!
Great discussion. I hope everyone is aware that there’s a SEEN in HR group for anyone that needs support or wants to contribute.
WHAT IS POLITICS? did an interesting video on this were he discusses the issues with words such as equity, i.e a vague term implying either equality of outcome or equality of opportunity depending on what is convenient to the person using it; definitely worth a watch. Personally I think much of the issue comes from the fact that many of people that go into HR come from doing sociology or gender studies degrees which don't give you the grounding in history, politics, economics and philosophy that one needs to truly understand social change. This means that when they are told by their lecturers that all issues come down to racissm or the patriarchy; these extremely simplistic explanations are accepted without question; then those people bring their simplistic perceptions into the workplace, projecting them onto any issue; which ultimately creates a toxic atmosphere.
Agreed, there are a lot of good questions there! DEI certainly seems to have lost its way... We'll do our best to find answers for you!
It’s amazing that HR departments are often the least diverse departments in any organisation… usually filled with white women. The problem is DEI is seen as diversity in one direction. Also I have seen young inexperienced women put in senior roles that no male with the same level of experience would get. A lot of these women can be exceptionally entitled and ironically treat staff like garbage.
You are right to note a lack of diversity in HR, and - as in all cases - that increases the risk of group think. Perhaps the overrepresentation of women would be less of an issue if they were at least more diverse in their views. A clear bias towards left leaning politics is very apparent, and in DEI it is even more extreme. Did many DEI professionals vote for Brexit? Or Reform? It seems unlikely.
@@This-Isnt-Working yeah 100% agree. I worked for a large corporation that had a construction arm. They would have ‘women in construction days’ and bring schools in invariably they would be very wealthy girls schools who really wouldn’t struggle to get into any profession.
My partner works in a HR department and she has said how many of the ladies on her team are from these wealthy girls schools. Ones that don’t come from these backgrounds are looked down on… The business they work for is a water utility and most employees are digger drivers, tradesmen etc they are not private school kids. The irony is the culture in the P&C team is terrible.
I 100% agree on diversity of thought. I have seen female managers get promoted and the just adopt a 90’s ‘bully boy’ approach to staff even female staff. I she was promoted because she showed the same management style as some of the male managers, she just took it to the next level.
Keep up the great work Tanya
Thank you! It was great to host an frank, open discussion about topics that should never have become taboo. And - look - the sky didn't fall in!
*DISCLAIMER: The following is not intended as a call for riot, violence or criminal activity nor intended as hatred or anti-establishment rhetoric. Nor is it intended as spreading mis-information. Any statements should be independently checked by the reader.*
Following a _mandatory_ 'value everyone course' at one employer I asked the 'DEI Officer' what justification was there for including the phrase 'white privilege' within the course materials, and if she (these DEI officers always tend to be female, _biological_ female) had any evidence of the company discriminating against non-white people. Her response was that no _actual evidence_ or cases of discrimination _existed_ but there were _suggestions_ of discrimination given in the responses of employee surveys.
So this individual, who produces _nothing_ of value i.e. does not contribute to a product that is sold and brings money into the company and who is therefore only a _cost_ to the company had the audacity to justify an anti-white racist term on the basis of rumours, gossip and individuals' personal perceptions. To cap it all, as she was in a senior position, she no doubt was getting paid far more than those that produce something for the company!
Does no one see why white-males are becoming enraged by this DEI non-sense?
I also noted she worked in a department full of women yet there were no attempts at diversification i.e. have a few blokes in there in _senior_ positions.
The role of women in this is complex and varied. Many are raising questions about these policies and training, and being shamed and silenced for doing. In other cases, women are the ones creating and enforcing the problems. We intend to dig into all of this as this series continues as you are right that it deserves exploration. It's also worth noting that there are some very powerful men pushing iffy DEI practices within organisations. Gareth Roberts writes about them in his book, Gay Shame.
The best jobs I've ever had didn't possess a HR department.
Depending on the size of an organisation, it might not be necessary to have an HR department. However, given the increasing complexity of the wider culture as well as the workplace (including identity politics, and employees being more aware of their rights) more and more employers are finding they need to retain some sort of external HR/ employment law adviser, if they can't afford to have an in-house person. This needn't be expensive - but it is reassuring to know that they are there if they are needed. There are all sorts of risks to hoping your organisation doesn't need this type of support and never will. For example, a bad hire or a nasty dispute can be very expensive, if the correct process is not followed.
I remember when we had a personnel manager, they did the pay , training relevant to the job, like fire drills,sorted out problems face to face and were generally the go to person if anything needed sorting. How we have some faceless HR department who just seem to make up complete rubbish,like diversity ,and force people to go on courses. Thankfully most of it is now on a computer, click next , click next and answer a few simple question.
From what Neil says, it sounds like any sensible HR director would (or should?) agree with you! 'Forcing people to go on courses' has certainly begun to rub people up the wrong way - especially when they promote a one-sided view of a complex or contested subject, and/or attempt to change what participants think or believe. Using Neil's words, too many do seem to be 'overstepping' into 'social policy.'
I've found that a DEI enthusiasts are typically white, middle class metropolitan elite types (those who run the BBC) who see their allegiance to Wokery as some kind of membership to an elitist middle class club that many can't aspire to - all left wing - that differentiates them from the pleb aspirants (mainly right wing) they look down upon - those who now all possess degrees - like they have, have bought homes - like they have, run cars - like they do, and so can basically do and are doing which they don't like - because these things are what only the old middle classes could do pre- the era of technological IT age. It's a form of inverted snobbery to re-create a new class structure likely to most disadvantage those who are aspirational rather than privileged.
When I used to temp at the BBC back in the 80s, the place was overrun with posh sloaney hooray henry private school types who worked Tues-Thurs before going to the country at the weekends, all carrying Gucci bags but earning £7k a year and living off trust funds. So essentially, the same sneering snobbery exists, but in a different form. I've met too many of these. They are horrible, lack empathy and are unwilling to side with ordinary people who have what they have - but who take the majority view that DEI is a destructive culturally diversive force that ultimately disadvantages everyone. Meanwhile, the Woke elite who believe their poo doesn't smell and that they are the ultimate virtue signallers are the first to run furthest and fastest if the negative impacts of DEI were ever to rain on their shoulders or those of their family, rather than just rain on the shoulders of those they most despise.
In many ways, these Woke enthusiasts see themselves as Champions - the overseers of social change, tackling the big three issues of the day: race, gender and climate - a modern day version of the old Fabians who also took a big sisterly bossy approach to telling those they patronised and looked down upon, how best to live - for their own good, of course.
Lets hope so.
Thanks for watching the episode. You're not alone in wishing DEI on its way...!
*How to financially hurt 3 women: fire their father from his job for DEI purposes.*
Who are you referring to?
@@This-Isnt-Working Obviously to the companies who replace males (a certain demographic), thinking that this would benefit the other demographic. It doesn't. Although not personally affected by DEI, I have witnessed two stories in my circle so far where 3 daughters and one wife (aka: women) were severely impacted by the firing of their father and husband, respectively. In these two examples, 2 men were fired resulting in 4 women getting financially hurt.
Your interviewee is interesting, but for me he started on a back foot by not being transparent about the role of HR in an enterprise.
I always tell the people I manage ‘HR isn’t your friend - you know they’re there primarily to protect the business from the employees?’.
HR folk seem to think they’re there for the ‘fluffy stuff’, but development and growth is primarily the job of direct business line management.
In the context of this discussion, HR have to assist in making the company appear welcoming, and to help prevent employees from upsetting each other or the company itself.
Yes that's a good point - a re-set would probably be useful here. Too many employee seem to be confused about what the role of HR is (and isn't), and this lack of clarity is unhelpful. For example, we understand that it's increasingly common to hear more junior employees talk about 'reporting him/her to HR...' for any speech or behaviour that they find unpalatable (a bit like telling the teacher, or 'Mum'..?). To be fair to HR professionals, a sense of dualism (good cop/bad cop) is built into the role - they are required to be friendly and encouraging when welcoming new joiners or nurturing talent... but then of course there will be other circumstances when they need to be tougher with employees. Do you have any sympathy for that challenge?
"occupational segregation" = "occupational preference"
Do you mean that this is a perfectly normal and natural thing - that certain groups will naturally be over/ under-represented in certain professions or roles, and we shouldn't try to engineer it? If so, how do you square that with another commenters point here - that there are too many white women in HR, and that is part of the reason why mistakes have been made (presumably because of group think?)
@@This-Isnt-Working In short, yes. Occupational choices are not random, therefore it is unreasonable to expect every profession, role and level to be fully representative of the arbitrary characteristics by which one might divide up a society, that is to say however one slices up companies, professions, roles, etc one should not necesarily end up with a microcosm of the larger society.
Why? Because people made choices, and those choices were influenced by their attitudes, aptitudes and life experiences.
Should artificial barriers be removed which might discourage people? Yes.
(Should physical barriers which prevent certain groups from participating in physically demanding roles remain? Yes.)
As for your question about there being too many "white" women in HR, I would say that there are too many people in HR (and that HR plays too large a role in the modern enterprise).
It's dying. Amazing what belt tightening will do.
You'll enjoy Episode 8, coming soon! Neil predicts that there could soon be a lot of people looking for new jobs...😮
Wtf has the Palestinian conflict got to do with HR?