The 'progression gap' in diversity, equality and inclusion

André Flemmings, a trustee of the Bridge Group, reflects on the current progression gap in diversity, equality and inclusion and offers questions that might help organisations start the process of change.

I have been a trustee of the Bridge Group for almost three years. Prior to that I was a member of a client firm that partnered on their pioneering research into progression to partner in commercial law.

The data collected in the two-stage research project spanned almost a dozen firms and several years of data, which for the first time, corroborated many of the observations I had as both a recruiter and inclusion specialist about who ‘gets on once they get in’.

Beyond the almost customary information about senior population representation, the most illuminating findings for me revolved around how progression rates varied by race and ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background.

More specifically:

As defined by parental occupation, employees from lower socio-economic backgrounds appeared to progress through grades 25% slower than their peers from higher groups – that’s a year and a half;
Those who identified as White progressed to partner nearly two years more quickly than those from other ethnic groups;
Females on average took a year longer to be made up to partner than males;
That rate slows further when individuals had several characteristics – for example, female lawyers from ethnic minority groups who had lower socio-economic backgrounds progressed the slowest of all – in fact, almost 3 years slower than the fastest group.

It is worth noting that all the results were checked for any performance variation between groups that might explain the discrepancy. There were none.

All evidence appears then to point to some sort of ‘hierarchy of progression’ where particular characteristics combine – or intersect – in ways that can have adverse effects on the progression rates of historically marginalised groups i.e., women, members of ethnic minority groups, and individuals from lower socioeconomic groups.

When you couple current representation at partner level (majority white, male and independent school-educated, 29% female and roughly 1-2% black) with slower progression of particular groups, it becomes clear very quickly that better representation and, more importantly, the benefits of diversity on senior decision making will not be realised quickly, if at all, unless something is done to improve talent pipelines.

Commercial law is not alone in needing to address these issues. Other Bridge Group research pieces have shown that similar dynamics exist in real estate, financial services, accountancy, engineering and even the arts.

So, what can organisations do to address this apparent ‘progression gap’? As an inclusion specialist my primary concern has been to identify and help teams to amend processes, policies and practices and influence behaviors that will improve business performance. The result is all colleagues are optimized to contribute to the success of the organization as a whole. If that sounds a little mechanical then the other way to consider it is that irrespective of an individual’s gender, heritage or background we want everyone to grow and flourish whilst they are with us as the firm benefits from this too.

A number of questions may help organisations start the process of change, some of which pick up on the recommendations laid out by the Bridge Group.

1. Do you collect socioeconomic data and do your systems allow you to track progression effectively?

Many factors prevent people systems from being able to capture personal diversity data adequately and in a way that enables analysis of progression. Unwieldy systems, data privacy considerations, poor completion rates and anonymous-only collection all present challenges. If data is not tracked consistently or cannot be cross-referenced easily with employee recruitment and performance information, it can make review and reform of hiring, promotion and associated learning and development interventions challenging.

2. What is your culture like and is it reasonable to claim that it is meritocratic?

One senior partner I worked with used to say that ‘culture is what happens when people think no one is looking’. Away from the policies and marketing materials, the aspiration for any firm is to inspire the right intentions in its people such that inclusive behavior based on mutual respect, openness and honest conversations is the norm. Leadership setting the right examples, incentivising performance and recognising contributions made to culture are some ways in which firms have tried to recognise an individual’s impact on an organisation. For me at least, a culture can always aspire to be meritocratic, I think the state of being so is more difficult to claim.

3. Are you aware of your pipeline and what it looks like?

Succession planning often happens with respect to financial considerations and forecasting capacity. That has tended to be an organisational activity and often focused on senior female pipelines. There, the interventions have tended to include leadership programmes coupled with improvements in workplace flexibility, parental and returnship policies for everyone. A broader look at the career path of other groups can often uncover related but different pipeline challenges.

4. What does ‘talent’ really mean at your organisation? Do your processes reward ‘polish’ over 'potential'?

One of the criticisms leveled at diversity drives and initiatives in recruitment is that it compromises quality. Data and experience says to the contrary: indeed my experience is that even in outmoded selection processes, the few candidates who make it through these processes from lower socio-economic backgrounds feature disproportionately amongst the top-performing lawyers in a cohort.

Some may remember a Social Mobility Commissioner referencing a ‘brown shoe test’ some experience interviewing in the City. Especially at early careers levels many firms have interrogated how fair their attraction and selection processes have been, and how predictive they were of talent and future (out)performance.

Firms have reviewed their attraction strategies as well as the evidence they were collecting (extracurriculars, existence of relevant work experience and consistent and high academic attainment, for example). Some have even reflected on the assumptions they have drawn from these factors, and investigated assessor comments around candidate energy, appearance and cultural ‘fit’. Many have found that cumulatively, some of these markers when assessed superficially, have tended to benefit candidates from higher socio-economic groups who tend also to be white and have attended elite schools and universities. Poor transparency around processes, together with practices like rolling recruitment, have also compounded these advantages as connections to the industry be they familial or via disproportionate concentration by recruiters on particular campuses or types of experiences on CVs have enabled greater familiarity with assessment formats. For those from lower socio-economic groups (which include a higher proportion of women and certain ethnic minority groups – particularly those with Black Caribbean heritage), that makes the need for specific pre-recruitment attraction strategies all the more important and more personalised engagement.

5. Are you monitoring your progression and attrition rates? Do your Learning & Development support mechanisms respond to the more diverse cohorts coming into your organisation?

High attrition of female and black lawyers at various points, and trends of certain groups appearing to receive poor grades in particular seats encouraged some firms to interrogate their learning and development pathways, pastoral support structures and even supervisor support.

With the changed definition of ‘talent’, there can be a wider spread of candidates joining a firm with differing developmental needs. Some progressive and well-resourced firms have amended training programs, onboarding processes and supervisor training to better handle this and put a greater focus on equitable and bespoke support rather than equal treatment.

Many introduced listening exercises such as reverse or reciprocal mentoring to better understand the lived experiences of candidates coming through the firm. For some, active sponsorship is now the new ‘front line’ for supporting underrepresented groups progression to leadership as a counterbalance to the natural affinities that others may already enjoy with senior leaders.

Looking at progression and attrition rates and paying close attention to leaver information can often help home in on areas of concern, but often only after the fact. Equipping your HR Teams to be able to challenge and interrogate performance grading can ensure greater fairness in promotions and may even prevent individuals from leaving a firm altogether for better opportunities, a more inclusive culture or supervisor support.

6. What does your firm value timewise?

Some organisations observe that, typically, team administration falls to its female lawyers to complete. That is what one female partner I worked with used to call whimsically the ‘domestic team dusting’. Whilst necessary work, it was not recognised in the same way as client billing which other lawyers (and often male) ones tended to prioritize in their day. At many firms, initiatives like Diversity & Inclusion can fall into this category too. Lawyers from marginalised groups are often relied upon to support recruitment activity or employee networks, leaving them more vulnerable to missing out on the best work, key conversations and by being more regularly ‘off the desk’. Addressing this and by making contributions to the culture everyone’s concern and supporting all lawyer progression with management training is argued to redress some of this.

7. Do you monitor your work allocation processes?

Some firms have reviewed this and looked at alternative ways to allocate work that is more transparent, efficient and reduces the likelihood of work ‘favouritism’. The benefit is a broader spread of lawyers able to do high profile work and better connectivity across practice groups and firms.

Final thought on the immediate future…

The Bridge Group research highlights an interesting point that in some cases associate and senior associate diversity was lower than partner-level diversity with respect to independent school education. If one were to work backwards to when most of these cohorts were recruited and trained, it would be around the financial crash and recessionary period in the late-2000s. Whilst the Bridge Group recommendations focused on conceptual and systemic considerations, organisations may also want to monitor whether selection decisions going forward could be impacted by more pessimistic macroeconomic environments too. The change might be incremental but much like investor sentiment in downturns and the so-called ‘flight to safety’, the cumulative effect in our markets could be significant. It would be interesting to see whether a similar phenomenon might be visible in recruitment and progression decisions, if interviewers revert to emphasising demonstrable markers of ‘quality’.

It is just a personal observation and hunch for now but I am hoping that, unlike the aspects the Bridge Group reports corroborated here, this might be one that proves anomalous.

André Flemmings is a trustee at the Bridge Group and a diversity, equity and inclusion manager at Milbank LLP. The views that he shares here are his own.

Guest User16 November 2022