May 2021

In its recently published report ‘Global Recruiting Trends 2018’, LinkedIn identified the four top trends shaping the future of recruiting and hiring. First and foremost in the list of these trends is diversity – ‘the biggest game-changer’. The diversity paradigm, according to the Report, no longer encompasses only diversity and inclusion but has been expanded to include diversity, inclusion and belonging. These constituents, individually, but also as a composite whole, will be increasingly seen as criteria of whether organisations have mastered the diversity challenge and whether they will be regarded as desirable places to work by employees.

How are these elements distinguished from each other and how do they work together to create an inclusive culture?

Diversity refers to both inherent and acquired differences (different ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, backgrounds and thinking styles etc). Diverse teams of employees whose broad range of skills and different backgrounds are effectively leveraged, have the potential to generate greater innovation and creativity for the companies they work for.

Inclusion refers to a culture which accommodates diverse needs and styles, shows respect and guards against the exclusion of anyone who is different through mutual adaptation and equitable treatment and creates an environment where everyone feels psychologically safe to be themselves and to express their diverse ideas and views without any fear of ridicule or retaliation.

Belonging refers to the fundamental need of all humans to be acknowledged as unique individuals, to feel safe, respected, trusted and valued. When employees feel a sense of belonging they form a bond of affiliation and identification with the organisation, its leaders and their co-employees.

 

The Need for Belongingness

In a seminal paper (1995), Baumeister and Leary postulated that “human beings have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive and significant interpersonal relationships.” This “belongingness hypothesis” has been supported by subsequent research which demonstrates that the desire to form attachments and to belong is a consequence of an evolutionary drive to find security. And lack of attachment is linked to a variety of ill-effects on health, adjustment and well-being. Organisations where individuals or groups are unable to enjoy a feeling of belonging will suffer both in recruitment and retention.

“Our brains are hardwired to motivate us toward connection and belonging- it’s how we survive and thrive… and findings show that belonging and attachment to a group of co-workers is a better motivator for some employees than money” (HBR 2016)

A meta-study of note of 1200 papers (Psychological Bulletin; 2016) dealing with the issue of why so few women are represented in some areas of STEM found that the most important factor of all is a masculine culture which decreases women’s interest in the field by signalling that they do not belong.

Implications for the Evolution of the concept of Inclusive leadership?

While it has been recognised for some time that diversity is incomplete without inclusion, the latter was initially thought merely to involve acknowledging differences and treating everyone equally. But as empirical research in the last decade has inextricably linked inclusion to improved business performance and innovation, inclusive leadership is now seen to be founded on a range of competencies from self-awareness, openness to new ideas, a learning mindset, engaging with difference, embedding psychological safety, boundary spanning and advocating for the value of diversity and inclusion. It is not constituted simply by passive acceptance of everyone but rather actively aiming to achieve connectedness, collaboration and a sense of belonging.

Measuring Inclusion and Belonging

Integrating all these new understandings, Symmetra has designed a model of inclusive leadership which measures 8 headline competencies across 4 dimensions: the self; the interpersonal; the team; and the organisation. Our two inclusion assessment tools, the Inclusive leadership Index and the Team inclusion Pulse Survey, include 12 items which measure a leader and teams’ success in imbuing employees with a sense of belonging, providing our clients with valuable insights as to where leaders or teams need to build their capability in this regard.

What has become clear from the results aggregated through application of our assessment tools across the globe is that belonging and inclusion are interrelated and reciprocal notions- operating in a mutually reinforcing circle. Leaders who display inclusive behaviours foster a sense of belonging in employees. And when employees display a mindset of belonging, leaders are inspired to seek new ways to be proactively inclusive. Ultimately this virtuous circle leads to a workforce which is engaged connected and high performing.

The extent to which diversity objectives are realised will depend more on an assessment of the inclusivity of the company’s culture than a head count. Efforts which focus entirely on increasing the numbers of diverse individuals without at the same time ensuring that the culture of the organisation is authentically inclusive and creates a sense of belonging for all are likely to fall short.

There is hard data to back this up. Globoforce in the USA (2017) conducted a study to answer the question: In a labour market at full employment (which is the case in the USA) and where it is easy for employees to leave their jobs to find a better fit, what would make them stay?

Among the issues canvassed in the study was which D & I programs are most likely to make employees feel included and inspire a feeling of belonging in the organisation. The optimal situation is where a company has both a D & I initiative and human work culture (95% believe they belong and 96% believe diversity is valued). Having a diversity program without a human work culture is perceived far less positively by employees (67% feel they belong and only 62% believe diversity is actually valued). The consequence is, of course, that D& I initiatives standing on their own will not discourage employees from leaving to seek a more congenial work environment.

 

 

The conclusion drawn by the authors of the study is “…for organisations to make real strides with their D & I initiatives, a key component moving forward will be a focus linked to belonging and respect…”. Organisations across the globe have accepted that benefits which are nascent in a diverse workforce will not be realised without inclusion. This needs to be taken one step further now by adding belonging into the mix.

If you wish to explore how Symmetra’s Inclusion Assessment tools measure inclusion and belonging in teams and leaders please contact me at heather.price@symmetra.com.au.

Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? It is named after a study carried out by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger who in 1999 had undergraduates at Cornell University undergo tests regarding humour, logic and grammar and then estimate how they fared relative to all other participants. And how did participants rate themselves? The worst performing group who actually reached a very poor twelfth percentile score had estimated themselves well above average at the 62^nd percentile.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias which blinds people who are incompetent in a particular area to the fact that they are incompetent. The corollaries according to Dunning and Kruger are that these incompetents actually view themselves as highly competent but they fail to see the competence in others; however, when provided with appropriate education and feedback those lacking in skills can come to appreciate their deficiencies and if properly motivated can begin to acquire the skills which they mistakenly believed they already possessed.

The Kruger-Dunning effect has become a standard psychological descriptor for people assuming they have expertise which they clearly lack. It has been observed in all areas of human activity from education to politics to technical expertise, the professions and business. (A number of prominent psychologists in the USA have dubbed Donald Trump ’the Dunning-Kruger President’, which explains the photo above)

 

What has this got to do with inclusiveness?

Inclusive leadership is a sought-after attribute. Symmetra’s Inclusive Leadership Index (ILI) enables inclusiveness to be quantified, based on a series of carefully –developed criteria which are dependent on the evaluations of others. Inevitably, however many leaders try to assess themselves, at least informally, in this area. But as the Dunning- Kruger effect predicts there is almost always a variance between self-perception and the perception of those working closely with the leader concerned.

In a recent previous blog, we referred to an HBR article which pointed out that non-inclusive leaders judge themselves to be highly rated in their ability to make employees feel included. The article reviewed 10 years of administering 360-degree assessments of 122,000 leaders. The findings were that leaders who are the worst at valuing inclusion are more likely to overrate their effectiveness and leaders who are most inclusive tend to underrate their effectiveness – a classic illustration of the Kruger Dunning effect

But it goes further. According to the article, leaders who rated poorly on inclusiveness were also lowly rated on overall leadership-effectiveness: they managed to attain only the 15^th percentile, while those who were rated in the top 10 per cent for inclusiveness rated in the 79^th percentile for effectiveness.

The consequences of this disjunct in self-appraisal and reality can be seen in a website poll of 5619 professionals in Australia just released by Hays Consulting which showed that 37 per cent of those leaving their jobs did so to get away from their direct manager and for another 21 per cent their relationship with their manager was at least one of the reasons for leaving.

The Hays survey has enumerated six characteristics of bosses which drive employees away and at least four of these are related to an absence of inclusive behaviour. These are: not making yourself available when staff require support; displaying lack of trust by micromanaging; taking credit for everything the team does: and always finding fault without rewarding good performance.

It hardly needs to be emphasised how costly and damaging to morale this type of attrition is. But the findings of Dunning and Kruger and the data gathered globally through Symmetra’s 360 degree ILI tool establishes that there is a remedy for non- inclusive behaviour by leaders: It starts with assessment leading to feedback then coaching and ultimately self-improvement

In the sphere of inclusive leadership there is little room for neutrality. Those who have inclusive leadership skills are likely to do well for the business and those who lack them are likely to do harm.

 

 

By Rocio Lorenzo and Martin Reeves
Harvard Business Review, January 20, 2018

Advocates of workplace diversity have argued their case not only based on intrinsic fairness but because such programs are seen to bring tangible benefits to organisations.

Not everyone accepts the second part of the proposition. Some contend that there is absolutely no evidence that organisations which have a diverse leadership and employee profile perform any better than organisations which are homogenous. Others such as Thomas-Premuzik, writing in an earlier article published by HBR (June 2017) suggests that any relationship between diversity and increased financial performance or even creativity and innovation is tenuous at best and that these are not the strongest arguments for trying to promote a diverse workplace.

Symmetra’ selected article by Lorenzo and Reeves reports on an extensive survey conducted on the issues outlined above. Their article and the underlying survey are a profound rebuttal of the sceptics and a cogent affirmation of the clearest correlations between diversity in organisations and the degree of innovation they generate.

The authors conducted a survey across more than 1700 companies in eight countries (the US, France, Germany, Switzerland, China, Brazil, India and Austria). They track 6 separate diversity dimensions: gender, education, age, migration, industry and career path against the percentage of revenue coming from new products for the previous 3 years as a proxy for innovation. The data was subjected to stringent statistical analysis by the University of Munich.

The findings were that all six dimensions of diversity are positively correlated with innovation. Further, that those companies with above average diversity had 19% higher innovation revenues and 9% higher EBIT margins.

What made the study even more compelling is the fact that the data revealed that different facets of diversity played varying roles in each specific country. .
This article is important because it represents a major step forward in presenting objective data and a robust analysis of the question which is often at the heart of the diversity debate- what benefits does diversity truly bring?

The just-released report from Atlassian, ‘State of Diversity and Inclusion in U.S Tech’, provides some sobering reading about efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in the technology industries.

And while tech and STEM have proved particularly resistant to efforts to promote the representation and advancement of women and other diverse groups, it is also true there may be lessons to be learned for other industries generally.

For a second year in a row, Atlassian commissioned a report to understand the attitudes and behaviours of tech workers. They worked with Market Cube in January 2018 to survey 1,500 the workers in the United States, and 400 tech workers in Silicon Valley on  the impact of recent news around sexual harassment, politics, perceptions on  D&I and progress that has been made among individuals, companies, and the industry.

Overview of the results

Results show that while respondents continue to say diversity and inclusion are important, action has declined across the board, so it’s no wonder that progress on D&I has stalled. People are tired of talking about D&I, frustrated by the lack of results, and overwhelmed by the number of issues to be addressed.

The report concludes that misunderstandings about diversity are widespread in the industry. Many people continue to believe they don’t see colour, or that they hire and promote based on skills alone. This belief is a key driver in the response that their company needs no improvement.

“We don’t care about colour, gender, national identity, or race. We worry more about your job and contributions than all the other stuff.”

“They don’t care about race, ethnicity, or anything else, they just care about skills. You are always included based on merit, and merit only.”

“Diversity isn’t really that large of an issue. We hire based on qualification, not ethnicity.”

The Takeaways

Symmetra is not surprised at these findings and the diversity fatigue being described. The problem is that whilst the diversity agenda is not inclusive in and of itself and focuses on demographic diversity alone as an end, not a means to an end, namely to leverage diversity of thought to optimise organisational performance, diversity initiatives are unlikely to succeed and likely to engender indifference or a backlash.

Symmetra’s data, gathered across the globe on measuring inclusive leadership capability (released just last week) show that the competency in which thousands of  leaders score the poorest is Valuing diversity. If leaders do not value diversity, why would they and their direct reports champion it?

Australia has traditionally perceived itself to be a country of egalitarianism – the land where everyone has a “fair go” at least insofar as socioeconomic status is concerned. If this were literally true there would be little difficulty for anyone to move (up or down) into a different socio-economic bracket, regardless of where one was born, and regardless of the socio-economic status of one’s parents.

However, in reality, public and private sector institutions do not really reflect the diversity of the Australian society at large as regards gender, ethnicity or socio-economic backgrounds. Of these, the issue of class (encompassing social origin and economic mobility) is the one which has been largely neglected or ignored by the diversity and inclusion strategies of private sector businesses. Accordingly, class distinctions and their impact are the focus of this article.

We examine the following propositions:

• Class distinctions are indelibly etched into Australian society
• Movement from lower to higher socio-economic status is difficult and beset by obstacles
• Private sector organisations have not been motivated to elevate class distinctions and the need to propel social mobility as priority components of diversity and inclusion strategies
• A whole swathe of Australians are unable to make their full contribution to the economy and society at large, because of social immobility

 

Classes and their Boundaries

Recent studies and emerging data show that class make-up in Australia is more complex and nuanced than is sometimes believed. There is compelling evidence that Australian society is segmented by class and that Australians know it only too well. However, an appreciation that classes exist within a society is very different from being able to say exactly how belonging to a specific class impacts one’s prospects economically and socially. The all-important question is, how easy or difficult is it in a given society to move from one class to another?

 

The Economics of Class Difference

The most common measure of income inequality across the globe is the Gini- coefficient which varies between zero and one. If every household had the same income the Gini would be zero (perfect equality). If one household had all the income the Gini would be 1 (complete inequality). In 2014, Australia had a Gini co-efficient of 0.337 in an OECD ranking of income inequality. The UK was worse than Australia at 0.356 and USA even worse at 0.394. Of 37 OECD countries, 22 had better Gini co-efficient scores than Australia and only 14 worse.

Australia is not directly comparable with every country that has a lower Gini co-efficient – because some of those countries are less wealthy or have different social systems. Nevertheless, Australia’s unfavourable position in the table highlights that economic (and by extension class) disparities are a harsh reality for many Australians.

 

Wealth Divisions

Apart from income differentials in Australia, the growth in household wealth has been a factor which increasingly separates classes as asset values, particularly property prices, have risen over the past two decades, shifting a greater proportion of the country’s wealth into the hands of the already affluent.

In 2016 the lowest quintile (20%) of Australia’s population owned under 1% (0.9) of the country’s private wealth while the top quintile owned 62% of the private wealth (ABS). This, of course, together with income disparities, widens the gap between different classes.

A third way of measuring equality in a society is by examining equality of opportunity. If affluence is mainly passed on from parents to their children in a society then intergenerational mobility is low.

The most common metric of economic mobility is the IGE (intergenerational elasticity). Again, the scale runs from 0 to 1. The closer to zero the score is, the greater the mobility.

A large-scale study in September 2017 (IZA Institute of Labor Economics) fixed the IGE for Australia at 0.409 – which means that economic mobility is not that easy in this country – or to put it in the words of the author of the study: “a substantial proportion of economic advantage is passed from parents to children in Australia”.

 

Class segmentation in Australia

Current views have made it clear that the orthodox division of classes into upper, middle and working is outdated and the notion that one’s class is determined solely by one’s wealth and the type of job one does is too simplistic to be a useful indication of class categorisation.

The French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, in 1984 developed a new approach to class. He suggested that class was determined by access to different types of ‘capital’. He identified these as economic, social and cultural capital.

• Economic Capital is a person’s accumulated wealth in property and savings.
• Social Capital represents the resources available through durable connections and institutionalised relationships which can be leveraged and which confer a benefit to those that have them, but a disadvantage to those who lack them.
• Cultural Capital comes in three forms: Institutionalised cultured capital: qualifications and credentials; objectified cultural capital: pictures, books instruments and machines that reflect not only wealth but the ability to appreciate those goods and profit from them; embodied cultural capital: tastes, lifestyles, skills and habits.

From 2011 to 2013 an extensive survey of over 161,000 respondents was conducted in the UK by BBC Science to identify existing classes in that society, based on the Bourdieu formulation. The survey identified seven separate classes in the UK. At the top is the elite, distinguished through its wealth and the other social and cultural accoutrements. At the bottom the ‘precariat or ‘precarious proletariat’ – the poorest, most deprived class. Between these are five middle and working classes. Unsurprisingly, British society was found to be characterised by distinct and fairly insulated classes.

In 2015, two researchers from ANU conducted a similar survey in Australia, though on a much smaller scale. Their conclusion was that the elite class was not to be found in Australia. They identify six separate classes which they label as:

• Precariat: have the lowest mean household income and lowest savings and poorest educational attainment
• Ageing workers: older, includes many pensioners, occupational prestige higher than precariat
• New workers: are in the younger age group and are employed full time; are financially better off and have better social and cultural capital than ageing workers
• Established middle class: have lower full-time employment rates than new workers but tend to have more accumulated wealth
• Emerging affluent class: come from middle class families but have above average educational qualifications so their income, assets and social capital are higher
• Established affluent class: have highest level of occupational prestige; have high levels of income, a significant asset base and wide and influential networks.

Twenty four per cent of the Australian populace are in the precariat or established affluent – but the 76% in the middle is, in fact, widely spread in terms of income and status. Any suggestion that Australia is close to a “classless” society is clearly misplaced.

Changes to the job market as a result of rapid technological developments will create even more obstacles for the less well-off who lack the skills and connections of their compatriots. Young people whose parents have a higher level of education are 26% more likely to see themselves as expert or creative users of technology compared to those coming from families with lower education. The increasing use of artificial intelligence and outsourced gig work is likely to impact most heavily on low socio-economic groups.

 

The impact of Class on job prospects

The upper echelons of Australian companies, universities, corporations and public institutions are noteworthy for their uniformity and homogeneity at the leadership and management levels. Firstly, there is a high degree of ethnic, gender and social origin uniformity. Of the 2490 most senior posts in Australia, 75.9 per cent are occupied by those of Anglo-Celtic background and 19 per cent have a European background. Of the ASX 200 group of chief executives,72.5 per cent have an Anglo-Celtic background and 23.5 per cent a European background (AHRC 2018):74% of ASX board members are male; two thirds of chief executives in the ASX 100 companies went to private schools the reverse statistic of what applies to the population as a whole (AFR, 2014).’

All people possess a multitude of personal attributes. Some of these may operate to provide either advantage or disadvantage. This is the well- known phenomenon of “intersectionality”. At the lower end of the economic spectrum there is often a noticeable convergence of attributes pertaining to gender, ethnicity, disability, national and social origin and class, which might result in discrimination. For the economically-disadvantaged these interlacing attributes act as multi-dimensional hurdles which stand in the way of socio-economic upliftment.

There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence to indicate that when applying for a job in Australia, one’s accent, area of residence, school, university, social activities and network can play a positive or negative role depending on the biases of those conducting the interviews.

One of the most sought-after characteristics which companies look for in job candidates is whether they are likely to be a “cultural fit”.

Too often, however those assessing candidates are marking out characteristics which make him or her “just like us “. This “affinity bias” can impact recruitment and hiring both on the demand and supply sides of the potential employee pipeline. A survey conducted on behalf of three top- tier law firms in 2017 showed that of the candidate pool of 1650, 13 per cent came from the top 1 per cent of Australian schools and a further 52 per cent came from schools amongst the top 10 per cent in the country.

 

Social mobility through the Workplace

In the UK the need to incorporate social and economic mobility as integral features of diversity and inclusion programs is not new. According to the Social Mobility Foundation by 2018 around 1 in 5 of the UK’s major firms are setting targets for social mobility.

The Social Mobility Foundation is a government-supported organisation which has established the Social Mobility Index which establishes a numerical ranking of UK employers based on the actions they are taking to give work opportunities and progressing talent from all backgrounds .Being voted onto the annually published index of the 50 best companies for social mobility is a highly prized honour and has led to organisations remodelling their diversity and inclusion strategies to incorporate a focus on this dimension.

 

Diversity Programs and Social Mobility

It may well be that class lines differ between the UK and Australia and that therefore methodologies in the one are not appropriate for the other. However, each faces the same problems of increasing wealth disparities and declining opportunities for social mobility. It is therefore instructive that the UK has decided to tackle systematically the issue of limited access by disadvantaged socio-economic groups in the best-paying sectors of the economy.

Workplace diversity and inclusion strategies in Australia have focused on changing the employee profile primarily with reference to attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender and disability. Class, and socio-economic mobility are sometimes mentioned as items in a list of attributes which qualify or may be relevant in constituting a diverse employee base. However, there do not appear to have been any attempts by either the public or private sectors in Australia either to articulate social mobility as a diversity goal or to consider whether class and social mobility should be priority elements in a diversity and inclusion strategy.

While lower class socio-economic status frequently intersects with other personal attributes, this does not mean that diversity initiatives aimed at gender or ethnicity will automatically uplift those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Quite the reverse is true. Being stuck in a disadvantaged socio-economic stratum means that one will not get the benefit of initiatives to progress women and diverse ethnicities because their reach often extends only as far as a few upper economic layers.

Case Studies from the UK

Conclusion

There is mounting evidence that Australia’s class distinctions are, if anything, solidifying and that moving from a lower to a higher socio-economic group is not becoming any easier.

Governments have a role to play in addressing this problem at a macro level. However, business, the professions and other organisations can play their part in facilitating social mobility by seeking employees from every stratum of Australian society. If this is to remain the land of the “fair go” then businesses must step up to the plate and ensure that every Australian can maximise his or her opportunities and develop their talents to the utmost.

 

FOR OUR READERS:

As there is a dearth of information available in the public domain on social mobility in D & I strategies in Australia, can you spend a few moments and share with Symmetra what your organisation is doing on this front so we can report back on the information gathered in the next Quarterly: