Why I took on a Dragon

Yesterday I had one the most surreal conversations I've ever been involved in so far. There needs to be some context behind this post though. On Friday 1st October 2010, the Equality Act was introduced in the UK. There's been a lot of expectation about what this new Act will mean for employment legislation. Essentially it brings together all previous employment legislation into one Act, and with it all relating terminologies and nuances. If you want to know more please visit the Acas website.

In truth what this means is in the main, HR folk, employment law specialists and anyone involved in recruitment have one point of reference in regards to equal practices across all groups that may want to enter the workforce.

On the same Friday, Dragon's Den star Duncan Bannatyne wrote an article in the Daily Mail expressing his thoughts on the new Act and what he thinks it holds for UK businesses. You can read that here. On Monday, a lively exchange ensued between Duncan Bannatyne and someone from the HR community (Darren Newman).

Darren wrote a post for XpertHR. One of the Editor's of this site is Michael Carty (who is quite possibly the kindest man I know). He posted a request to Duncan Bannatyne through Twitter asking him if he'd like to respond. Duncan's response was "I would need to read it first and I can't be bothered". Here's that exchange.

This is where I come bounding in. I like Michael, he's a nice guy. I don't like when good people get trounced on for no reason. I am also very conscious about the sensitivities that sit around Equality, Diversity and all topics that fall under this. I've written past posts on

Diversity and about banter. And there are a myriad of experts in the field who will defend the importance of this legislation, and rightly so.

So I called out Duncan and here's my exchange with him. I've been watching the conversation unfold over the last few days and have really had to hold back in commenting on anything to do with this topic. Well that didn't happen! In the grand scheme of things, my little exchange with Duncan means nothing and there will be far more important people discussing the ins and outs of the Equality Act than either Duncan or me.

But - BUT - here's the thing. Employment legislation causes a lot of anguish for a lot of people in businesses because they don't take the requisite time to understand what the Act offers. So here's common misconceptions people hold - and I have heard first hand:

1) I'm a white heterosexual male and I'm now in the minority

2) Laws like this only allow other cultures to take advantage of our society

3) But there are people who will use laws like this to make false claims

4) Laws like this make political correctness go mad

5) If someone overhears my conversation they can claim a grievance?

6) Why can't people just mind their own business

And there are many many more. What's annoying about the comments above is that the people who make those comments have zero clue what they're talking about. They've read something in a newspaper, taken it as gospel, and formulate an opinion based on misinformation.

What Duncan Bannatyne has served to do is only feed into the insecurities of a lot of people who think that minority groups in the UK have far too much protection already. What his article does not help is inclusion, a multi-cultural society, the Big Society, or any other high and lofty ideals we might hold for being British.

As a high profile successful businessman in the UK, Duncan Bannatyne will never admit he's been misinformed about what the Equality Act aims to achieve. He's been told what the Act could mean for those in society who are malicious enough to act in disgusting ways. He's taken that and decided he's going to speak out against the Act.

That's fine. Free speech and all that. The sad thing is that he thinks he's done a good thing for readers of the Daily Mail. He thinks that he's helped people see the folly of the old Labour government and that he's unravelled the Equality Act to be a simple piece of nothing. He thinks that he's educating people and helping them to understand the true motivations of the Equality Act.

What he hasn't done is help people to see how disadvantaged groups of people have had to fight hard battles to secure a positive future for themselves. He's made reference to the 'Made in Dagenham' film and subsequent laws which have been introduced to help minority groups, and then says we've gone too far to help them. To this day, minority groups face hardships Duncan Bannatyne can only conceptually perceive. Even I am sheltered from a lot of hardships faced by people from within my own community.

My plea is this. Before you get on a high horse and defend how 'British' you are, or how minorty groups are now favoured above you, think about who is the recipient of your message. Before you actively stand up against a Law which is in place to ensure we have a fair open society, think about which 'good' you're trying to serve. The topic of equality and diversity will never go away. It will always be there. And there will be staunch advocates as well as staunch rebellions. Ultimately though, it's about a society where we can live and work together with open and fair practices for all. No one should have to be subject to harassment, discrimination or bullying for any reason.

Diversity is not important

I'm loosely following an unconference happening with the hashtag #trumanchester on Twitter. This morning's topic is on Diversity and the usual drivel is being spouted.

"Companies need a diversity policy to ensure everyone is being included."
"If you don't have a diverse workforce you don't get the best results"
"Diversity isn't just about gender and race but disability, religion, age and sexual orientation. Is your workforce representative of all the above?"

NONSENSE.

I worked for a consultancy who had to deliver to Ford Motor Company (UK) training on Diversity and Dignity at Work. It was mandatory training that all staff had to attend as the company was being regulated by government due to some high profile cases which happened in the 1990's.

The topic itself is obvious enough for any member of staff. If you say or do something offensive or behave offensively you will get in trouble for it. For HR and legalities such as recruitment it's vital to know what you can and not do in order to ensure you are being fair to all candidates and staff members.

But enforcing things like 'Diversity week' or 'diversity policies' or 'diversity training' defeats the point massively. If you have members of staff who are making conscious efforts to intentionally offend someone in any manner then you have an issue and it needs to be dealt with. It's likely they don't need diversity training, they just need to be sacked.

Look, I get diversity. I trained on the bloody topic for 1 1/2 years and could spout all things discriminatory, positive, direct, indirect, GOQ, and any other technical term. It's there for good reasons. It's just used horrifically badly by a lot of folk.

The bottom line is this. If you have to use diversity as a weapon you have not grasped the concept of diversity at all.

You're a xenophobe, admit it

I was reminded today about the importance of getting names right. But not only getting names right, being able to look at a name and get an immediate sense of that person's potential nationality, culture and often their religion.

I've been fortunate in the many temp jobs I did while at uni that I was exposed to a lot of people who were from a variety of backgrounds. I also worked in different NHS offices for a time which exposed me to the myriad of names and cultures that came into contact with the NHS. The biggest thing this taught me was the importance of getting names right.

I have never shied away from trying to pronounce a name that was new to me. I've always wanted to get it right. And I've always wanted to find out more about names - what they mean, where they come from, what culture they are from, and then further questions about the person and their background. It's one of the things I love about my job. I come into contact with such a variety of people, that understanding names makes interacting with others so much easier.

A lot of names can tell you what nationality a person is, what religion they are part of and in most cases what sex that person is. Indian names for example present all this information in their name. For example, Akshay Kumar is a boy's name (Akshay), most likely Hindu, most likely Indian (Kumar). Asma Begum is a girl's name (Asma), most likely Muslim, most likely Bangladeshi (Begum). Anthony McDonald is a boy's name (Anthony), most likely Christian, most likely Scottish (McDonald). I can tell these things partly because I am Indian but mainly because I have seen and met enough people to notice these things and learn about them.

And trust me, I have had countless versions of my name used and abused - Suhki, Suki, Sucki, Suk, Pabla, Pabila, Pabail, to name just a few. All wrong. I've learned to accept that a lot of people are just that thick. I will tell people if they're consistently making a mistake how my name should be spelled or pronounced.

What pisses me off is when others don't bother. And I have met far too many people who just haven't bothered getting names right. They'll make assumptions about how a name is said, think they're right and confidently say a name wrong. What complete fucknuts (pardon my language but it really does anger me). And, AND, when told they are saying it wrong, and they are corrected, they still believe they are right.

This doesn't relate to professionalism or political correctness or diversity or any other unrelated adjective. It's about courtesy. Plain and simple. It's horrendous that people are either that ignorant, arrogant, careless, thoughtless and/or rude that they don't take the time to address someone correctly. Do us all a favour. Admit you're a xenophobe. Then try and say names right.

Banter is not wrong

A good friend of mine, Jim, has gone through a small ordeal which has made me (re)ponder the way we think about Diversity. Jim is a smart guy, and has a quick wit. He's been with his employer for a number of years now and is working his way through the ranks. In his current post he has a mixed team of people he works with. Now Jim's not a malicious person in any way but what happened has now given him the name Mud.

Jim enjoys banter - as we all do - with his work colleagues. What he didn't bank on was someone in his team not appreciating his banter. Jim made a comment and used a euphemism to make it funny. His colleague took offence and decided to address it with Jim. Thankfully it's not turned into anything serious, but it made me think about how easily behaviours can be misinterpreted.

What worries me is there is a clear uncertainty from employers and employees about what is acceptable in the workplace. Clearly direct and indirect discrimination of any kind is just unacceptable and should be dealt with. And acting in inappropriate ways is clearly unacceptable - butt slapping, shouting, intimidating, etc. But in a lot of everyday occurrences, it's the non-obvious behaviours which need to be considered.

Think about any of the following: A female employee referring to colleagues using words like 'honey', 'love', 'darling'. A male employee walking around the office in cycle clothing (not wrong but certainly not appropriate). An Asian employee displaying an England flag at his desk during an international sports competition. A practising religious person keeping on their desk in view of everyone a copy of their religious text. Are any of these wrong? As any case law specialist will tell you it's all about the context.

So here's my context. In a previous post I mentioned Intelligent Behaviours. If staff act intelligently they would see that in most instances a behaviour perceived as inappropriate was actually harmless. It's when you don't act intelligently that things go awry. Having an Intelligent Behaviour mindset means you're not only looking at what was said, but the mannerisms of the person as a whole, their normal interactions, their attitude to work, their attitude to the organisation, their interpersonal skills, all these give you a picture of what that person intended. Bearing that in mind, in most instances you should see no malice intended.

I'm not dismissing those individuals who do allow their prejudices and biases to influence how they work with others. Even they should take the time to think intelligently about what they're doing. This is about allowing a workplace to have a freedom to act and behave in a way which others are accepting of and appreciate. If your organisation is reticent to do this or thinks this is not talking about the real world, then your organisation has a behaviour problem that rides throughout all levels and you need to make some tough and necessary decisions about how you want to rectify these.

So, banter is not wrong. It's a very British quality mind, and other cultures will have different cultural norms to be adhered to and respected. The important thing to remember is if you have an issue with what someone has said, think intelligently about the context, not just the words, and more often than not you'll have a different appreciation to your assumption.