Category Archives: diversity

Is it Good to Pick and Choose Elements of Diversity?

The Church of England has now agreed that gay clergy in can become bishops so long as they are celibate even if they are in civil partnerships.

This closely follows the recent announcement by the Church of England preventing women from becoming bishops with many years to pass before the issue can be raised formally again.

These actions by the Church of England demonstrate their ability to choose those elements of diversity that suit them supported by the lack of government interference whereas all other organisations in the UK have to abide by diversity laws.  But at what cost?
 
But what is diversity and what does it mean?  In days gone by there was only the concept of equal opportunities which had a focused approach to discrimination forcing the inclusion of in particularl women, the disabled and ethnic minorities.  It relied on positive actions whereas diversity  embraces wider concepts.
 
Diversity ensures that everyone reaches their maximum potential regardless of who they are.  It should be a priority of all employees in all organisations.  It does not rely on positive or affirmative actions.
 
In a diverse culture and teams everyone is valued as an individual.
 
There is a strong business case for diversity that brings with it an ability to promote being an “employer of choice” where individuals clamour to work for that organisation due to the attractive image it portrays.  Having the best individuals working for that organisation regardless of their gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, etc. increases productivity with the knock on effect of increased profits therefore affecting the bottom line.  Morale is also high because people feel valued. 
 
There is also the legal case for having a diverse culture because organisations can face costly legal implications in terms of employment law along with damaged reputations through poor employment practices.


The Church of England can not be protected from the long term damage to its image from a failure to embrace diversity in its entirety.

The Church of England is already becoming bitterly divided and although it is a not for profit
making organisation its apparent failure to be in sync with the modern age may have huge implications for its credibility, reputation and future in the modern world.  

The Stained Glass Ceiling – What About Diversity?

The Church of England  has just voted against women bishops and it will be another five years before a vote can take place again. 

Equal opportunities legislation has ruled in the UK for over forty years, but apparently the internal workings of the Church of England remains untouched by this.  However the government has said it will not step in and apply equalities legislation which allows it to disbar women from the episcopate.  If the immunity was removed women could sue the Church of England for discrimination. At the moment there is no intention do so.  As it is the Church now appears out of date and out of touch.

The debate has been going on for decades. One of the major sticking points is that women bishops will require to be obeyed not just tolerated and that is seems is too much for those who just can not accept that.  Apparently the draft legislation did not provide fairness to those who do not wish to see women bishops.  Women priests were introduced twenty years ago but today the talk is of the stained glass ceiling. 
To a certain extent the decision to not allow women to climb the career ladder within the Church is reflected in the European business community where the situation with women at the top is pretty dire.  Therefore the EU has plans to allow 40% of the top jobs to be given to women. Currently men dominate company boards and board chairs are 96.8% men.  However, it will take a long time to achieve such progress within the Church of England. 

For all organisations to benefit from diversity women have to be allowed to achieve their potential in all walks of life.

The Jargon Filled World of HR. Does It Add To HR’s Professional Credibility?

I have worked in HR since the mid 1990s and over the years have watched whilst the HR environment has become engulfed with jargon.  Developments began in the 1990s where the term HR overtook the term personnel and came from the States.  From the mid 1990s it seems the flood gates for HR jargon were opened. 
The pure and simple role of HR Manager that used to mean approaching one individual for support with people management has, in general, become, in many large organisations, HR Business Partner, a role that sits within a framework alongside various generalists and specialists who are approached for support where the need lies.  If you have a problem with a disciplinary situation you talk to the Employee Relations Manager, if you want to discuss pay and benefits you need to discuss this with the Employee Reward Manager rather than your HR advisor.  Where has the simplicity gone? 

Diversity has become the term for what once was equal opportunities.  Equal opportunities looked at various pigeon-holed individuals eg disabled or coloured to ensure they had equality in all areas of employment.  Diversity, however, is about valuing differences and uniqueness and being tolerant.  It does not focus on individuals but values everyone for who they are.  Nevertheless discrimination in all its now extended forms is still rife in the UK demonstrated by employment tribunal statistics so what does that say about this development? 

Employee engagement has become a hot topic.  This is all about catching the imagination of employees so they love working for a company, work harder and ultimately increase profits.  This tends to be linked with employee recognition which is deemed to be a communication tool that reinforces and rewards the most important outcomes people create for your business. Employees, therefore, rather than just receiving informal praise for a job well done are now encouraged to perform  for formal customised employee reward perks.  The aim is that these processes make people feel valued, reduce turnover, increase employee empowerment  and improve company culture.  Surely an employee is paid to do a good job so surely that is just reward anyway? 

Knowledge management is a range of strategies and practices used in a company to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of ideas and experiences.  Informal teaching/sharing processes that have always gone.  They have now been replaced by a formalised process where knowledge is captured via the management of competencies,  best practice transfers and cross project learning, all of which are formally spread throughout an organisation to the benefit of all.  Simple eh?  

Talent management  refers to the skills of attracting highly skilled workers, of integrating new workers, and developing and retaining current workers to meet current and future business objectives.   What happened to good old fashioned recruitment and employee retention?


Even the term recruitment has become resourcing.  

Just lately I have seen the terms onboarding and orienteering being banded around, terms from the States.  Orienteering in the UK used to just mean “anoutdoor adventure sport which involves walking or running whilst navigating around a course using a detailed map and sometimes a compass”.  Onboarding to me has nautical connotations and has nothing to do with employment.  Why have these somewhat ridiculous terms started to replace the good old fashioned term of induction which is the process of formally guiding and introducing a new employee to people and processes in an organisation?  

Instead of redundancy the terms downsizing or rightsizing are increasingly used.

Mergers and acquistions are known as TUPE transfers relating to the law The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (a legal mouthful in itself), which governs the transfer of employees from one company to another. 
The list could go on.

HR has a hard enough job being understood anyway in the business world so why make things even more difficult?  Instead of making HR seem to be “with it” in business aiming to exert an influence on proceedings, HR seems ever more out of touch.  How can HR be taken seriously if they cannot communicate in every day language?

I am a fan of good old fashioned plain English.  When I provide advice on HR and employment matters I use clear practical language so my clients understand what they need to do.  No-one has ever said to me “can you explain that more clearly or “I don’t know what you are talking about”. 

So, in conclusion, although I am sure the jargon attached to HR processes will continue to develop, I personally do not believe it does anything to add to HR’s professional credibility and if you want clear, practical jargon-free HR advice just give me a call.