Photo by vigor poodo on UnsplashListen to article here. There comes a point for nearly everyone when we might get stuck in a rut, in either […]
Listen to article here. Mr Loverman was the BAFTA award-winning TV series adaptation of the book by the same name, by acclaimed author, Booker Prize winner […]
Listen to article here.
Mr Loverman was the BAFTA award-winning TV series adaptation of the book by the same name, by acclaimed author, Booker Prize winner and most recent awarded recipient of the Women’s Prize for Fiction, Bernadine Evaristo. In the series British actor Lennie James took home the award for Leading actor for his role as Barrington “Barry” Walker (James) and his co-star Ariyon Bakare, who played the role of Morris, won the award for supporting actor. Mr Loverman’s success, despite a strong lineup of contenders, highlights how important it is to show stories like these, that make visible the hidden experiences of topics we are often too afraid to speak about.
If you haven’t watched the series, then this is a spoiler alert. This particular story was not what I expected it to be, for how often do we hear a word like loverman and assume that the male protagonist on the show is actually a 74-year-old Black man of Antiguan heritage, living in London, married to his wife, has two grown up daughters, a teenage grandson, but who happens to be in a secret long-term relationship with his best friend and lover, known to the family as Uncle Morris.
The series showed the complex relationship the main protagonist had with living an authentic life, one free of the trappings of past histories, where being homosexual was frowned upon. Barry is in the closet and has been for all of his life, not only to those around him, but to him, himself. His smart dress, matching one-piece suit and Fedora hat, worn to precision, accompanied by a charming personality, only masks his true identity. Beautifully captured, this was a series deserving of its awards, especially where both actors, who are not known to be gay themselves, play the roles so well, that any argument that only gay men should be cast in such parts, goes out of the window. It was Evaristo herself who said in the Radio Times, of what is often seen as a contentious casting issue, that:
“From my position as the writer of the book, I want it to go to the person who can play the part, and it’s not important whether they’re homosexual or not.”
Indeed, Lennie James and Ariyon Bakare are the perfect choice, because of what they were able to convey on camera, which far exceeded their identities. They were able to capture the pain, denial, fear and vulnerability with coming to terms with one’s sexual orientation, the difficult and often emotional process of coming out, juxtaposed with the feeling of being trapped in the closet for much of your entire life.
The unravelling of Barry’s secret strikes the family, by unearthing complex familial relationship dynamics; failed interrelationships and unresolved grievances between husband and wife, father and daughter, within the context of varying intergenerational dialogues. Indeed, with the show fluctuating from past to present, through the memories of Barry re-telling his story and that of his wife Carmel, it is a stark reminder of how far things have changed in the inclusion of LGBTQ+ communities in society.
Written by Dr Ope Lori (Founder & CEO, PILAA)
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
Listen to article here.
Last month Luke Humphries the world number one Darts player, came out stating on X that he would no longer share his feelings in public.
“Considering the comments and people not understanding what I meant, it will be the last time I ever confess my real feelings to the public.” Humphries statement which you could sense was born out of frustration and upset, came in response to him openly discussing the state of his mental health a day before on Sky Sports. In his interview he had been speaking about his work becoming a “chore”, despite winning in the second round of the International Darts Open, against fellow player Dirk van Duijvenbode. As a result, he needed a break to protect his mental wellbeing. His honest revelation was met with some backlash on social media, to the tune of him not being able to complain given how much he got paid.
Such a response towards Humphries takes us backwards in cultivating environments where it’s okay to speak out, especially post-pandemic where people were encouraged to open up regarding their mental health and wellbeing, and where men historically have been stigmatised for talking about their emotions. This conversation however is not just about men’s mental health, and nor is it about just Humphries and other sportspersons alike, however using his experience opens us up to a conversation around how organisations, or different workplace cultures can foster effective employee productivity, and why it matters.
In fact, it was Dr Linda Duffy, the chartered psychologist and former England darts captain said in support of Humphries opening up, that the Professional Darts Corporation (PDC) and the Professional Darts Players Association’s (PDPA), must look after players, otherwise they will suffer from burnout, especially as the sport in this new era becomes more ambitious.
Delving deeper into Humphries statement, the main issue he seemed to be referring to, was around the increased number of matches that he had to play. As a result, playing had become monotonous:
“I’m playing too much.
I need to give something away, I need a break.
It’s no good for my mental state.”
His account sems to hint to the joy of work being removed from what he was doing, and this understanding had been lost, I believe, in translation. It was Mark Twain who famously said “find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never have to work a day in your life.”
Written by Dr Ope Lori
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
Listen to article here. Last month Luke Humphries the world number one Darts player, came out stating on X that he would no longer share his […]
“Increasing representation begins at the roots
– with children and young people – and is a process
that continues throughout education, applications
and interviewing, employment and promotion. “
Last month, some exciting news was published that shows that for the first time, there are more female doctors than male ones and also more ethnic minority doctors than white ones. It may go without saying that no one is claiming that white people and/or males shouldn’t be doctors or aren’t good ones; rather, the point is that a field that was often closed to certain groups of people, is now more diverse and inclusive and more reflective of society, which is something to celebrate.
These new statistics lead to some interesting questions that all workplaces can learn from. For instance, how do you increase the representation of underrepresented groups in certain industries (such as women in male-dominated fields)? How can we break down these systemic barriers? What do traditionally underrepresented groups offer and, therefore, why and how should workplaces look to hire them? These are, of course, huge and challenging questions, but they’re worth talking about in brief here.
In terms of increasing representation, some of the main methods include encouraging underrepresented groups to study and join that field and also to develop inclusive hiring and promotion practices. When it comes to doctors, for example, women have traditionally been encouraged to be nurses rather than doctors (i.e. to have the lower-ranking and more “caring” roles) or to think that studying STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) wasn’t for them. To help combat this, more schools have implemented stronger STEM curricula and have developed ways of ensuring that girls are also engaged in these subjects, and that has led, down the line, to more young women choosing to study medicine or other STEM areas later in their school years and at university. They have also had more talks in schools by women who are doctors, so that the role models are visible and younger females can be inspired by them. These sorts of activities should be continued and expanded where possible.
Simultaneously, workplaces, including hospitals or doctors’ practices, have made an effort to take female candidates seriously, whereas in years past, they might have automatically dismissed them. This means making application processes transparent and fair for everyone, and also ensuring that all applications are treated equally. Then, once women are employed, those same workplaces might provide programmes such as mentoring, support groups, further professional development, awareness-raising training, courses in confidence or combatting imposter syndrome, and other such activities, in order to help that group of employees feel confident at work and to have the skills they need to succeed. Human resources managers also have to make an effort to encourage underrepresented groups, such as women in this example, to apply for promotion, and they need to offer unconscious bias training to all who review applications for employment or promotion so that such processes are fair.
All this is to say that increasing representation begins at the roots – with children and young people – and is a process that continues throughout education, applications and interviewing, employment and promotion.
Written by B.J Woodstein, PhD
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
“Increasing representation begins at the roots – with children and young people – and is a process that continues throughout education, applications and interviewing, […]
“Research has shown that
workplaces that have more kindness
are more successful.”
Last month on the 17th of February saw the annual observation of the Random Acts of Kindness Day. That meant that you might have done something that was out of the norm for someone, maybe even someone you didn’t know personally. Perhaps you paid for the drink of the person behind you in the queue at the coffee shop. Or maybe you called up a friend you hadn’t spoken to in a while and asked how they were. You might have baked a cake for a neighbour who was unwell. Or you could have thanked someone, either verbally or in writing, for something they did for you; this could be a relative or a friend, or even someone you not as close to, such as your postie or the person who works behind the till at your grocery store. Maybe you gave a copy of your favourite book to someone you thought would enjoy it, or left the copy on a park bench for someone to find (on a sunny day!).
While Random Acts of Kindness Day is a great reminder to be kind, we should try to incorporate kindness every day. Ideally, we’d smile at people we pass, hold doors for those following us, ask colleagues and friends about their well-being, treat people to lunch, and so on, although of course these things aren’t always possible, depending on our mood, what else we have going on, and our finances. But we can try. This is true at work too. In fact, research has shown that workplaces that have more kindness are more successful. This might seem surprising, so it’s worth pausing over. After all, if people are spending time (or “wasting time”, as some might claim) chatting together or doing things for one another or volunteering at a charity, then they must not be working. And surely if you’re in your workplace, you should work non-stop, right?
Actually, no. People who feel happier, more appreciated, and treated better somewhere, such as at work, will also be more efficient and effective.
Written by B.J Woodstein, PhD
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
“Research has shown that workplaces that have more kindness are more successful.” Last month on the 17th of February saw the annual observation of the Random […]
“We have to be courageous Reverand. Al Sharpton. We have to continue to make them say the words, diversity, equity and inclusion, not just DEI, because the virtues are in the words. “Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.” Every humane society respects those things.” – Benjamin Crump
The first month of this year has finally been and gone, and it’s safe to say that much has transpired on an inter-national scale. There have been numerous misguided conversations about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) as it is often referred to in the US, and for our brothers and sisters across the pond, we are witnessing a worrying fight to erase the essence of its meaning.
This comes at a time, where this February marks LGBT+ History Month in the UK and Black History Month in the US, both important annual observances which celebrate both the achievements and historical legacies of these communities, whilst simultaneously shedding light on the systemic inequalities faced by each.
Our article simply put, looks at some of the arguments that have proliferated into the public sphere of late on equality, diversity and inclusion, and is our attempt to give clarity, and above all hope, in an ever-pressing inter-national situation.
Lost in translation
I’m reminded by my colleague from the US, that how we refer to DEI in the UK, as EDI (Equality, Diversity & Inclusion), has differing points of departure from the US, although at the heart of both, lost in the conversation is often the part about inclusion. The meaning of DEI has been hijacked, used as a smokescreen to illustrate all the ills that have gone wrong in society, or so it seems with the messaging, under the current US administration of President Donald Trump. DEI initiatives or “DEI hires”, a code word for minority groups, centred around the belief that candidates are being chosen by virtue of their identity, rather than on their hard work and merit, have been scapegoated, so much so, that the legitimacy of seeing a person from an underrepresented group in a leadership position now, automatically raises eyebrows. This, however, is not a new occurrence.
I remember in my earliest years as a student at one of the most prestigious Schools of Art in the UK, that this was what another student had not so subtly implied to me. That the reason I had got in, was because of my race, even though they themselves were from an ethnic minority group. I mention this, because we must recognise that these internalised belief systems in so-called meritocracy, are not as some will point out, colour-blind.
When I think of this argument on hiring the best candidates, being mutually exclusive to seeing underrepresented groups in those positions, I’m reminded of the British journalist and author Matthew Syed’s Rebel Ideas: The Power of Thinking Differently (2021). Here he outlines rather cleverly the fallacies around meritocracy, whilst making a case for the reasons for diversity.
“Pretty much all the most challenging work today is undertaken in groups for a simple reason: problems are too complex for any one person to tackle alone.” (1)
The reason for diversity in these instances is to mitigate blind spots. A homogenous group of people on the surface, whether they are all men, women, all learning disabled or between the ages of 50 – 55, will most probably share similar perspectives. They will share in the same collective blindness. What’s even more compelling and something we should remember, is that hiring someone from an underrepresented group, let’s take for example, hiring a woman in a predominately male industry, doesn’t necessarily guarantee an increase in cognitive diversity, as in a difference in the ways people think, perceive or reason within the group. This is due to the process of acculturation, and that when you have been working or living within a particular culture, whether in the workplace or a particular society, more broadly, there can be a tendency for those operating in the space, to take up the dominant mindset over time. As Syed puts it “people who start out diverse can gravitate towards the dominant assumptions of the group.” (2) This is what I call transference without transformation, lodged in the idea that on the surface things appear to have changed, but in essence, the player is still the same.
Meritocracy
On the question of meritocracy, this is also not a new argument, that people should get where they get too, based on hard work and merit alone. After all, who would want to be picked for a job, based solely on their identity and not on their capability? However, we must scrutinise what we mean by meritocracy and understand who in fact gets rewarded. To this end, you cannot have a genuine conversation about merit, without talking about class privilege, or what sociologists like to call ‘accumulative advantage’. This is the idea that one is already born with a head start in life, or adversely penalised for not having the right building blocks for success. Meritocracy says that we all operate on a level playing field, and that it is through our own hard work, that some of us climb up the ladder and are rewarded for our efforts, whilst for those who don’t, their failure is down to them. Yet the playing field has never been even, nor neither fair.
Sociologists Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman make this compelling case in their groundbreaking book Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite (2024). Building on years of qualitatively data rich analysis, they identify who makes up the who’s who in British society. At the heart of their study is the analysis of the historical database of the Who’s Who. This is the leading source of up-to-date information on autobiographical accounts of over 32,500 influential people, hailing from all walks of life, worldwide. Entrants include ‘senior politicians, judges, civil servants, and notable figures from the arts, academia, and other areas.’ (3). The authors analysed the biographical profiles of all 125,000 entrants since 1897, taking into consideration ‘gender, location, family background, schooling, university, stated recreational pastimes, and occupation.’ (4)
Their findings reiterate that where you start in life really matters. There are nine most famous, historically male elite schools, the Clarendon Schools, including Eton and Harrow, and twelve most prestigious schools for girls, including St. Paul’s School for Girls and Cheltenham Ladies College. It is worth pointing out that whilst attending the all-male private schools, or the old boys club, remain a powerful head start for the future leaders of tomorrow, identifying whether there is a similar old girls’ network, has been harder to assess. The authors do highlight that there has been a decline in the propulsive power of these schools propelling their pupils forward into the elite, but that they still hold importance, given their connection to elite universities. Oxbridge graduates for example, those who have attended either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge, remain profoundly over-represented in the British elite.
“This, we argue, rests on the hub function performed by elite universities, where students from elite schools use elite universities to further cultivate networks and incubate worldviews that were initially established at school.” (5)
Closing the attainment gap
Another way of looking at this, is to reflect on a major issue that many universities have faced over the years, in trying to close the degree attainment gap. The basic premise of the attainment gap, is that there is a considerable difference in white Home British students achieving a first or 2.1, compared to non-white British students. Further, when you start to break down the differences in the attainment gap by different ethnic groups, you see that the biggest differential is between white and Black students at 57.5% compared to Whites at 80.9%. This is followed by Other at 67.8%, Asian at 70.5% and Mixed at 77.2% compared to Whites respectively. (6)
This becomes an issue when you realise that not attaining a 2.1 or higher, has a ripple effect, and can indirectly stop students, particularly from ethnic minority groups, from competing in a competitive jobs market. In recent years the Institute of Student Employers (ISE), had estimated that two-thirds of graduate recruiters, set a 2.1 classification as a minimum requirement for a graduate job. Whilst things are changing, how then do organisations who have a desire to diversify their workforce for all the right reasons, do so, when there is no pipeline of students from these communities?
In 2017 Baroness McGregor-Smith published the Race in the Workplace Review, that looked at racial inequalities in the workplace. Concluding the review with a list of 26 recommendations, she emphasised that there was still “discrimination and bias at every stage of an individual’s career, and even before it begins for people from BAME backgrounds. This bias was largely found to be structural, resulting from an unfair system that works only for a select few.” (7)
This is why when the argument that job requirements have been dumbed down, or that certain criteria have been removed, to accommodate underrepresented groups, they fail to consider the forms of indirect discrimination and bias already inherent in the system. This focuses on ‘the Deficit Model’, where it’s the student or employee who is at fault, lacking in skills, knowledge or experience, and not the environment; akin to the way that we have moved away from the medical model of disability to the social model, which says that people are disabled by barriers in society, and not by their impairment or difference.
So where do we go from here?
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community is the title of Martin Luther King Jr’s 1967 book. Here King reflects on the Civil Rights Movement and what he hoped African Americans should do with their new freedoms and discussed the need for unity in fighting poverty, and in creating equality of opportunity. Where do we go from here was the same question that was asked by prominent civil rights leader and activist Reverend Al Sharpton, as he hosted a special Civil Rights Summit with leaders in the movement, on MSNBC News earlier this month. On the panel was Martin Luther King III the human rights activist, philanthropist and advocate and son of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King. Also on the panel was Judith Browne Dianis, the civil rights Attorney and Executive Director of Advancement Project National Office and civil rights Attorney Benjamin Crump.
Given the current political and social climate in the US, with a government administration unleashing a war on human rights and social justice, when asking the panellists where they went from there, Crump responds by saying:
“We have to be courageous Reverend Al Sharpton. We have to continue to make them say the words, diversity, equity and inclusion, not just DEI, because the virtues are in the words. “Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.” Every humane society respects those things.”
And so too must we. This is a call to action. We must continue to do the essential work of equality, diversity and inclusion, and not lose sight of its essence. Whether DEI or EDI, that is not the question.
Written by Dr. Ope Lori
Interested in learning more and taking action in diversifying your workforces in the right way? Book our hugely popular staff training session, What’s the diverse in diversity? To speak to a member of our team, book here.
Notes:
1) Matthew Syed (2021) Rebel Ideas: The Power of Thinking Differently
(2) Ibid
(3) Who’s Who and Who Was Who [Available at https://www.ukwhoswho.com/page/946]
(4) Ibid
(5) Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman (2024) pg 134 Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite (2024).
(6) Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK Universities: #CLOSINGTHEGAP (2019) [https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2021-07/bame-student-attainment.pdf]
(7) Ibid