This Isn’t Working – Détails, épisodes et analyse

What happens when you ask whether Human Resources has lost the plot in places – including around DEI? Pamela Dow – Chief Operating Officer at think tank Civic Future – found out the hard way, as author of that New Statesman article on HR, and chair of that government report on DEI.

In this episode, Pamela explains why she’s more convinced than ever that ‘something is definitely going on’ with HR – and why that motivates her to keep asking important questions, especially when they are taboo. We discuss:

* WHY DID THE HR INDUSTRY FIND HER CRITIQUE SO… TRIGGERING? Does she stand by the New Statesman article? Does she regret not speaking to CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development) CEO Peter Cheese before she submitted it? And is she ‘right-wing’?

* WHO IS DRAWN TO A CAREER IN HR? Does the industry represent itself appropriately to new talent – or are we setting unhelpful expectations which cause trouble in the future? 

* WHAT IS THE CIPD ACTUALLY DOING? A blend of trade union, membership association and lobby group is ‘a difficult balance to tread,’ Pamela says. Is the CIPD’s identity crisis partly to blame for the confusion and ‘mission creep’ which HR’s critics now say it suffers from?

In the second half this episode, we turn to ‘what isn’t working’ in the Civil Service, asking:

* IS THERE A PIPELINE PROBLEM? Who is attracted to a career in the Civil Service – and have mistakes been made with employer branding? For example, should recruitment teams have pushed back on ‘whizzy Soho marketing agencies’ who prioritised promoting the Civil Service Fast Stream as a chance to change the world – rather than becoming dutiful public servant to the government of the day?

* WHY ARE CIVIL SERVANTS BEHAVING LIKE ACTIVISTS – WHEN THEY’RE MEANT TO BE INDEPENDENT? Why has DEI become so big in the Civil Service? Was Baroness Claire Fox right to express alarm at the ‘group think’ she’s witnessed around race and gender identity in her recent speech in the House of Lords? And does the Civil Service have a particular problem with staff who express gender critical views?

* WHY ARE CIVIL SERVANTS SUCH BRAZEN JOB-HOPPERS? Pamela explains the incentives that drive people to move from department to department – and we discuss the dangers of being deficient in deep expertise, but pretending you know it all...   * IS THE CIVIL SERVICE TOO COSY WITH THE CIPD? Is as much as £10m of taxpayers’ money funding CIPD credentials for HR professionals working in the Civil Service? Is this ethical, if the main benefit is to the individual, and the CIPD appears to enjoy a monopoly in providing this service?

Enjoy the episode!

Watch on YouTube https://bit.ly/4aL6Diy

#hr #dei #humanresources #woke

We knew Donald Trump hated ‘DEI nonsense’ – but did we expect him to torch it on Day 1 of his new term in the White House? And what does this mean for those of us working in or around this troubled industry?

In this episode, Tanya and (sensible!) DEI (or 'EDI' in the UK) consultant Heeral Gudka (founder of Convergent) discuss the immediate impact of a momentous week for DEI – and what the US ‘vibe shift’ might mean for the UK long-term. Included in their analysis:

* DOES THIS PROVE THAT DEI WAS POLITICAL, ALL ALONG? It’s not normal for a whole industry to be so vulnerable to the arrival of a new US President. If Trump torching DEI suggests this work had become too aligned with the Democrats in the US, what are the lessons for DEI in the UK? 

* WHO IS THE MOST DISTRESSED? Tanya voices particular concern for DEI advocates who identify as trans or non-binary. Always a vulnerable group, they have built their career around creating norms that help them to feel accepted on their own terms. Now the new administration – and American voters – seem to have rejected the concept of gender identity (prioritising biological sex instead), how will they cope with this new reality? Will they continue to urge employers to campaign for the world they want – or concede that it is not appropriate for most to do this?

* IS IT TOO LATE TO SAVE DEI? Tanya and Heeral’s LinkedIn feeds show numerous shocked DEI professionals who seem not to have been paying attention. Meanwhile, others are calmly proposing a more moderate, conciliatory, evidence-driven approach, to course-correct and save DEI. Does this suggest they knew all along that they had over-reached? Are they only pitching a reset now the tide has turned? 

* WHAT ARE UK HR DIRECTORS SAYING? We hear from two – with slightly different takes about the significance of what’s happening Stateside, and how (and when) it’s likely to impact UK employers – both in the private and public sector…

* DOES DATA AND DISCUSSION OFFER A PATH BACK TO COMMON SENSE? One HR director says it’s time to accept Alex Edmans' evidence that we were duped by the ‘McKinsey Myth’ (that demographic diversity leads to improved financial performance – when it doesn’t) and look again at how recruit and retain the best people, and maximise productivity. They say HR professionals would be smart to jump at Simon Fanshawe's advice to encourage disagreement, and Tanya’s invitation to crack open long-overdue discussions about where we’ve lost our way, and how to navigate our return to a more sensible approach...

* ARE HR AND DEI PEOPLE SHARING THEIR OWN VIEWS TOO FREELY ON SOCIAL MEDIA? Do they realise they are creating risk for their employer (or clients) by showing they have clear political biases? Heeral – who specialises in resolving workplace conflicts around belief discrimination – warns that expressing strong opinions can backfire if grievance investigations turn sour, as social media posts can be used to show the investigator was not impartial. In particular, Heeral predicts a rise in conflicts around gender critical beliefs – as too many HR teams still fail to understand the significance of Maya Forstater's landmark case in 2023, which showed that such views are legally protected in the UK...

Enjoy the episode!

Watch on YouTube https://bit.ly/3WDfHjU

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...

Ho ho ho – it’s time for a festive ding-dong! As HR teams were heading towards a well-earned Christmas break, two stinging critiques of our industry landed in the press, accusing us of being a drag on the UK economy, and – frankly – getting on everyone’s nerves. 

The CIPD released a statement that drew mixed responses, including suggestions the industry body has itself lost its way,  and is over-charging members, while failing to deliver what they really need.

If you missed the articles by Pamela Dow in the New Statesman and Iain Martin in the Times, you need to catch up. Also check out the response from CIPD CEO Peter Cheese – and the comments below it. In a word: Oof.

This story looks set to run well into 2025, and This Isnt Working will keep reporting as it develops.

In the meantime, we wanted to mark what’s just happened – which looks like a watershed moment for the UK’s HR industry. 

Plus, we have an exclusive update from Pamela, who tells us that she’s pleased to have sparked a healthy debate – and looks looks forward to appearing on the podcast herself in the New Year!

In this conversation with Levi Pay, director at higher education training and consultancy agency Plinth House, Tanya de Grunwald asks:

• WHAT QUESTIONS DID THE TWO ARTICLES POSE FOR THE UK’S HR INDUSTRY? What were Pamela and Iain’s aims? Were they politically motivated – and was this a co-ordinated attack?

• IS ANY OF THE CRITICISM FAIR? For example, have too many HR teams become muddled about whether their priority is their organisation, or their employees? Does a disproportionate focus on wellbeing and performative inclusion activities suggest confusion about HR’s core purpose, and a need for a reset?

• HOW DID THE CIPD RESPOND TO THE ARTICLES? Peter Cheese’s long statement was noticeably light on content. Was it even worth making – and what does it say about whether his organisation understands the nature and seriousness of the challenges ahead?

• IS THE CIPD FACING AN IDENTITY CRISIS? We highlight some comments posted below Peter’s statement – and some of the most popular are pretty brutal. Is it news to the CIPD that members are grumbling about value for money? How likely is it that we’ll see a change of direction from here?

• IS A SCHISM EMERGING BETWEEN HR PROFESSIONALS? While some want to engage with criticism and reflect on improvements and efficiency, others seem keen to dismiss critiques as bad faith or politically motivated, and want to push on as planned. Does this split spell trouble ahead for the UK’s HR industry, in 2025?

Enjoy the episode! 

Pamela Dow's piece in the New Statestman https://bit.ly/3BD2G2p

Iain Martin's piece in The Times https://bit.ly/49Hszea

CIPD / Peter Cheese statement on LinkedIn https://bit.ly/49Iixcx

On both sides of the Atlantic, we’ve faced a reckoning on race in the last five years. But have employers’ efforts to address racial discrimination and reduce tensions made things better or worse? 

‘Am I racist?’ – the new film by the American provocateur Matt Walsh – asks whether we have over-corrected, to the point where too many employers now centre race in a way that can feel divisive, crass, offensive and, frankly, a bit strange.

Is it time to talk about whether our approach is working – or whether we’ve over-egged it? And, if pretending we are ‘colourblind’ feels odd too, what is the solution?

In the second half of this conversation with the writer and commentator James Esses, we discuss race and more, including:

- Does some DEI training have a quasi-religious vibe? Are all attendees really welcome to ask questions, or are these sessions only a ‘safe space’ for those with the ‘right’ views?

- Just because a DEI tweak is lawful, does that mean it’s ethical? For example, can longer application windows for hard-to-reach groups be justified, when others get less time? Is James right to ask ‘Where do we draw the line?’

- Were employers wrong to trust that the @CIPD’s trans inclusion guide was legally sound? Was it right to suggest that employers should provide two security badges and email addresses for staff who identify as gender fluid, and time off for trans women to attend hair removal appointments – or is it fair for HR professionals to ask whether such requests are reasonable? 

- Does wellbeing belong under DEI – and it is fair for employers to expect staff to look after each other’s mental health at work?

- Is it hypocritical for Conservative politicians to claim to be ‘anti-DEI’ when David Cameron’s 2005 ‘A-list’ boosted their party’s own demographic diversity – an achievement they seem to be proud of?

Enjoy the episode!

#DEI #EDI #podcast #business #hr 

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

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