Bank of England publishes Review of Ethnic Diversity and Inclusion at the Bank

[Martin@AS Financial]

Interesting publication from the Bank of England:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news...on-at-the-bank

[ladymuck]

Woo! Targets.

But what are they actually going to DO?

[northernladuk]

I have a ton of problems with that review, almost from start to finish. If they have targets the should have a baseline? So, its old, but taking the govs statement from the 2011 census

according to the 2011 Census, the total population of England and Wales was 56.1 million, and 86.0% of the population was White

So compare that with their statement that says

Similarly, over 2019–20, 44% of experienced applicants to the Bank identified as being from a minority ethnic background. However, between application and appointment, the minority ethnic share of experienced hires fell to 29%. In contrast, on the Graduate Scheme the retention rate was much higher where 44% of the hires came from a minority ethnic background (having fallen from an original application share of 50%).

So they are waaaay ahead of the general status of the population. 44% applicants from BAME when only 14% in BAME is surely not representative or inclusive of the general population so they are so far ahead of the statistics you could argue there is a problem the other way there.

They go on to say

Between 2014 and 2019, staff at the Bank were assessed using a numerical ratings system based on their overall performance and demonstration of the Bank’s values. During this period, minority ethnic colleagues tended to receive lower performance ratings than White colleagues. They were also generally less likely to receive high performance ratings than White colleagues. This may be in part because minority ethnic colleagues have historically been provided with fewer career-advancing opportunities.

That's a very dangerous thing to say. That reeks of out and out racism but I can't believe it is. Maybe it's because they are pushing employing minorities instead of the RIGHT people. If you pick the third or fourth choice person just because they are the first BAME applicant then you are getting the fourth worst option who is then likely to have a lesser performance review going forward. This is a problem of their own making, not racism.

I simply cannot believe in this day and age in an organisation like this that BAME staff are provided fewer career advancing opportunities.

The do admit pay is equal and there is no issue there but then they throw the overall is lower for BAME

We found no significant differences in the level of pay and pay rises between White and minority ethnic colleagues after we accounted for an individual’s pay grade.^footnote[9] Bonuses however, measured as a percentage of base pay, were significantly lower for minority ethnic colleagues. This was primarily, but not entirely, accounted for by lower performance ratings. This gap in bonuses has narrowed substantially in recent years, but still remained in 2020.

So the lower performance figures that they created means these groups are paid less. Duhhh no tulip sherlock. You employ the fourth place candidate you are going to get this. But essentially there is absolutely no issues here then.

They say the following about the lived experience survey

2018 Cognitive Diversity and Inclusion Survey results (50% response rate)

That's an awful response rate to base anything on and will be highly skewed as the people that will be most expected to respond will be those that have issues with the system. These will likely be people not performing as well but that could be because they were the fourth choice candidates.
It then goes on about micro aggression and not feeling they valued/belong. Could that not be because they aren't performing as well as they can no?

I'm not saying this type of review is a good thing and efforts must be made to make a level playing field for everyone regardless. I don't see this in this report at all.

Make sure that there are absolutely no barriers to taking the right person on. Those people will perform well and many of the problems they have will evaporate. If the right people don't meet the baselines and averages as mentioned at the beginning then the problem lies elsewhere and not in the bank. Employing lower choice candidates to meet targets is going to cause problems that you just can't fix.

We aren't a racist country and I don't believe there is institutional racism or sexism in these large organisations so just focus on employing the RIGHT people and then see where that goes?

What am I missing here that I find this report so difficult to read?

[Fraidycat]

Is the next Governor of the BOE going to be a women of colour then?

We cant wait decades for that to happen, we should demand it now

[AtW]

They should be pushing up interest rates to normal 5-6%

[Fraidycat]

They should be pushing up interest rates to normal 5-6%

That will mean jacking up our your taxes to pay for the additional national debt interest payments, no thanks.

[Dark Black]

Is the next Governor of the BOE going to be a women of colour then?

We cant wait decades for that to happen, we should demand it now

The next Governor of the BOE should be the right person for the job.

[vetran]

Is the next Governor of the BOE going to be a women of colour then?

We cant wait decades for that to happen, we should demand it now

Diane Abbot is available!

[pr1]

That's a very dangerous thing to say. That reeks of out and out racism but I can't believe it is. Maybe it's because they are pushing employing minorities instead of the RIGHT people. If you pick the third or fourth choice person just because they are the first BAME applicant then you are getting the fourth worst option who is then likely to have a lesser performance review going forward. This is a problem of their own making, not racism.

(in my opinion)
For the sake of argument let's assume the population is 80% white and 20% BAME

If you are employing 1 person out of a list of, say 100 candidates, then all other things being equal statistically 4 times out of 5 that person will be white - so far so good. However,

White people (on average) in the UK have had a better upbringing, better educational opportunities, better "connections" for getting work experience than BAME people and so on average are more likely to be at the "top" of a list of criteria that are based around such things - because on average they have white parents who had better upbringings or work in higher up roles and so were able to such opportunities to their kids, while on average BAME parents (or grandparents, or great grandparents) grew up in another country with many fewer opportunities to succeed at these criteria

This means that even with 25, 30, 40% BAME population, on average the best person will still be white

If you always employ the "best" person then on the balance of probabilities you will almost always be employing a white person. If everyone working somewhere sees the top positions being filled by white people (because they were perceived the "best" of out a list at the time of being appointed), then the workforce becomes disenfranchised and constantly feels like "I will never be good enough". Some level of positive discrimination is required to an in order to diversify the workforce and offer opportunities to all, be it BAME, women, disabled, etc. Always tunnel-visioning on the "best" person for the job is "stuck in the box" thinking, you need to see the bigger picture and the impact that such decisions can have on everyone else at the company (and by extrapolation, society) which is why reports like these end up with conclusions like they do

[vetran]

(in my opinion)
For the sake of argument let's assume the population is 80% white and 20% BAME

If you are employing 1 person out of a list of, say 100 candidates, then all other things being equal statistically 4 times out of 5 that person will be white - so far so good. However,

White people (on average) in the UK have had a better upbringing, better educational opportunities, better "connections" for getting work experience than BAME people and so on average are more likely to be at the "top" of a list of criteria that are based around such things - because on average they have white parents who had better upbringings or work in higher up roles and so were able to such opportunities to their kids, while on average BAME parents (or grandparents, or great grandparents) grew up in another country with many fewer opportunities to succeed at these criteria

This means that even with 25, 30, 40% BAME population, on average the best person will still be white

If you always employ the "best" person then on the balance of probabilities you will almost always be employing a white person. If everyone working somewhere sees the top positions being filled by white people (because they were perceived the "best" of out a list at the time of being appointed), then the workforce becomes disenfranchised and constantly feels like "I will never be good enough". Some level of positive discrimination is required to an in order to diversify the workforce and offer opportunities to all, be it BAME, women, disabled, etc. Always tunnel-visioning on the "best" person for the job is "stuck in the box" thinking, you need to see the bigger picture and the impact that such decisions can have on everyone else at the company (and by extrapolation, society) which is why reports like these end up with conclusions like they do

You know the exact same thing happens in reverse in other countries?

I look forward to the UAE & Pakistan pushing affirmative action. My experience is that most UK companies have equally inept senior managers regardless of gender or colour.