Lets be clear about this. It is not sufficient simply to belong to a minority group. But if you have the same qualifications as a competing candidate who cannot claim
minority status, the job in some banks at least could be as good as yours. The diversity movement,
for so long regarded among some UK employers as
something of an American eccentricity, is beginning to find its voice.
The City banks, particularly those that are owned or largely influenced by US practices and that means almost all of them have been leading a drive for greater diversity in their employee base. Most have either committees or designated diversity managers to examine ways in which they can attract minorities. There is a good reason for this. They have some of the least diverse workforces in the whole of the employment sector, having ignored for too long the need to build a workforce with a cross section of employees that could reflect the composition of society.
For most of the 20th century, the City banks belonged to a select club that mixed in the same circles: from
cradle to public school to Oxbridge to Home Counties to cosy retirement. Up to very recently, all that the Americanisation of the banks had achieved was to alter a few accents. But this is changing. The banks have been telling recruiters that they want more fresh staff from minorities and at least one has offered to pay higher fees for successful minority candidates.
Is this a case of positive discrimination? Not so, say the banks, which argue that they still want the best qualified people, only that they would prefer to have far more from minority groups.
The diversity movement has spread into almost every area of working life in the US, driven partly by the realisation that many minorities are really not so minor. Advertisers in the US, for example, have been caught off-balance by the growth of the Hispanic community, which now commands more than 6% of the market for consumer products. Yet only 2% of advertising expenditure is devoted to them.
It is this sort of mismatch reminding companies that without a more sophisticated approach to minorities they are missing so much potential business that is driving the desire for greater diversity among
workforces. After all, the best way to understand the needs and the culture of minorities is to employ them. Human resources professionals have understood this for some time, working on ways to ensure equal opportunities for candidates. The hardest job has been to get the message across to recruiting line managers, to potential candidates and to recruiting agencies that do not always apply the same rigour.
I welcome these initiatives; diversity has to be a good thing. My only question is: what constitutes a minority? No one says this, of course, but I get the impression that there is a sort of hierarchy of minorities in the minds of recruiters women at the top, followed by ethnic minorities, then by gay staff, with the disabled further down the list. Behind all of these, I would guess,
are older people.
Where do I stand as a silver-haired, overweight Yorkshireman? In the street I expect. I remain to be
convinced that ageism will disappear. Once, many years ago, I was interviewed for a job on a national newspaper. It would have to be a specialism, said the (female) news editor. I cannot believe that you would want to be hanging around the VIP lounge of Heathrow every morning like some reporters do. In other words, I did not fit her young and enthusiastic candidate category. You rarely hear anyone saying they want anyone who is old and
enthusiastic.
In my case she was right. The thing about age is that it brings with it ever-increasing levels of cynicism and despondency that those of us with greying hair like to describe as wisdom and experience. Such is the
discrimination we apply to ourselves every day.
richard.donkin@haynet.com
Richard Donkin is employment columnist at the Financial Times
