ExpatAl

Come on now...

Some pretty wobbly statistics there that I assume don't have any underlying agenda... (also see: gender pay gap)

Like with most things in life, the responsibility lies with the individual to make the decision rather than trying to promote an 'ideal' workplace.

scrubbedexpat141

Wobbly stats? Dismissing research is far easier than accepting it I guess.
Gender pay gap is one of the most poorly marketed and badly explained government ideas I can remember. It's been a real shame the misinformation and arguing it's thrown up.

No, nor can I....but that's also probably because of the size.

Why not? I've been doing a huge amount of work in this area recently and it's mental some of the research out there and the way some organisations get this so badly wrong.

Millhouse

The way I see it - a bit like the race to improve corporate governance a few years ago (which is actually going the other way really now) - those that perform well tend to embrace and do diversity well, but doing it well is no guarantee of good performance.

I work for a very diverse organisation, where we have caps on gender and passport by grade, by location etc... and ... it's a complete mess. Only women get promoted, black women control HR and hate on anyone who they deem is "stale, male and pale" (once said in a talk on diversity and I pointed out that I was very offended by that statement to only be received by laughter) and there is no leadership as there is always fear of upsetting someone. In my region I've seen us send a tall sexy and skin-showing black women to KSA to advise the government, several pakistanis to india (and vice versa) and gays into Kuwait. The clients hate it but we force it on them in the name of diversity.

The upside is that when we go away on retreats it's like an patchi selection box of awesome sweets. Sadly the Metoo movement is closing that selection box too.

scrubbedexpat141

A perfect example of how bad diversity can be managed.

What if instead of hiring on nationality / appearance / orientation etc, 'you' hired on quality or experience. CVs without names or photos on, no diversity data collected at application (a real bug bear of mine because it's backwards in its approach) and no pressure to hire from certain groups. You'd be hiring those who best match the job, irrespective of race / nationality etc etc etc.

A bit utopian maybe but definitely realistic if you can remove some of the conscious and unconscious bias in hiring managers. In fact, hiring managers should hire for other managers because they're going to hire good people for others and are less likely to be intimidated by someone excellent if they're hiring for someone else. There are countless ways to improve diversity and I think the best way is to stop asking the questions first and not focus on hitting targets across the board.

PS: Our board is all 50ish, white and male. Apart from a lady they just promoted to make sure there was something different there. Below them though, it's a different story, especially on the grad programmes etc.

There's a good chance with a more diverse population that these changes will come organically but those businesses who see the opportunities that its can present are those who are going to be better positioned. Just like those who moved from personnel to a HR function or saw value in employing accountants and finance professionals instead of bean counters etc etc.

Millhouse

Dicky resigns. As I predicted, albeit about a month and a half ago.

DXBtoDOH

And Boris Johnson resigns.

*gets out the popcorn*

I think a political tsunami is about to hit Westminster. Very unpredictable as to what happens next or the outcome.

Millhouse

mikelincs

He's only gone because he wants No 10, expect a challenge within days.

scrubbedexpat141

This whole thing couldn't be more British could it?

Millhouse

DXBtoDOH

Agree. You all know I'm a keen Brexiter but I'd rather remain in the EU than accept some half arsed deal that makes no one happy. A middle ground only ensures surrendering too much sovereignty that is politically untenable for we'd not even have the pretence of democracy or influence as a EU member, and it also means the EU would continue to dominate British politics. Every government would be consumed by the "deal" because the EU is a perpetually changing institution and every time it evolves the "deal" would have to be re-evaluated but only as the sword of Damocles hanging over Parliament with the EU threatening to withdraw the deal's access if we didn't go along with it, even if it was detrimental to British interests.

Far better to either accept a clean break with all the short term implications, or just stay in the EU.

scrubbedexpat141

Good point, it's an unprecedented act so was never going to be easy.

I honestly see the crash out as the more likely. Can't see it being reversed, can you?

DXBtoDOH

Article 50 has already been invoked and according to the terms we are out of the EU come next March, and no deal is the default outcome. The timing can be extended upon request, which presumably the Government can make. I've heard various people say Parliament can cancel Article 50 but I don't think Parliament itself can do that without the Government.

For the same reason, if there is no deal to vote upon, Parliament has nothing to vote on and we leave without a deal according to the terms of Article 50.

Likewise, if Parliament votes down May's plan, it doesn't mean Brexit is cancelled, we just leave without a deal, as per Article 50.

I've tried to study all the political and legal mechanisms that are possible and have concluded the following:

There is no voting majority for just about anything using the game theory analysis on the possible voting results. A "hard Brexit" Plan doesn't have a majority support. A "soft Brexit" Plan doesn't have a majority support, as per Keir Starmer's statement that Labour would vote down May's plan, which is understandable given that most Labour MPs hate Brexit. The Brexiteers don't have the vote to get rid of May. Labour don't have the vote to bring down the government.

But since there is no majority for any plan, and the default outcome as per Article 50 is a hard Brexit, a withdrawal with no deal, it's the most logical outcome.

scrubbedexpat141

I agree, which at least would bring an end to this purgatory.

Miss Ann Thrope

Hmm, which would explain those unstable islands of poverty, Switzerland and Norway, whose unhappy middle grounds have been repeatedly ratified by their respective electorates. And I seem to recall many Leave campaigners explicitly implying that either of these options would be on the table, not least Farage himself.