When you talk to most British companies and broadcasters the number plays a prominent role in their diversity policies and targets around ethnic diversity.
In many ways it is understandable. In the last census, taken in 2011, Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) made up 14% of the population of England and Wales. The BBC has set a target that 15% of its workforce, and people in leadership positions, should be from BAME backgrounds. I am not sure why they have gone from 14% to 15% but I assume it is in recognition that over the last nine years, since the last census, most people think the BAME population has increased by at last one percentage point.
Channel 4 used to take 15% as its target for BAME staff diversity, but in 2015 increased this to 20%. Again I am unsure of how the broadcaster chose the figure of 20% but taking the population figure as a reference this could either be seen as incredibly ambitious (compared to the UK as a whole) or very conservative, considering that when the target was set nearly all of Channel 4's staff worked in London, which is 40.2% BAME.
Now, I have written previously on how these overall figures and targets by broadcasters for staff diversity are often misleading, as they are actually no indication of the diversity of the people commissioning and the making the programmes, nor do they reveal who has editorial power and responsibility, but today I want to look at a more fundamental issue.
The problem is that basing targets based on population demographics is fundamentally a flawed concept for broadcasters, newsrooms and the media.
Why? If we were simply thinking about increasing diversity in terms of labour force representation then 14% or 15% or even 20% might actually make sense.
However, when it comes to diversity in the media, an important element in any discussion is how diversity will influence the content and enable more diverse programmes and journalism to be produced.
While the 15% is a convenient figure there is no evidence that this percentage will have any influence on changing the quality of the content a media organisation produces.
What figure will? To answer that question we need to look at critical mass theory. This is the idea that you need a certain number of people from diverse backgrounds in order to have any influence on a group and change a group's culture.
The reality is that you can reach the 15% goal with just one BAME person in any group of 9 people or less. But it is almost impossible for one person to change a group's dynamic and culture. At my time at the BBC (just short of 25 years) despite the stereotypes of BBC having endless meetings there were rarely any editorial meetings of more than 9 people.
What you need to look at is not the percentage but the critical mass of people from diverse backgrounds in a group.
The BBC seems to acknowledge the importance of critical mass because on top of their 15% workforce target they have also set out the target that the BBC Executive Committee and all divisional boards should have two BAME members by the end of 2020 and this is irrespective of the size of the boards no matter how small or large.
While this is a great start it falls frustratingly short of what is needed.
According to Hima Kota, an Assistant Professor at Amity University, writing about gender diversity the minimum number of people needed to exert influence on a group is three.
"Recent studies of women on corporate boards suggest that the critical mass of women directors is reached when boards of directors have 'at least three women' who can influence the dynamics and thought processes among members." Kota writes.
Kota however, went one step further and not only looked at critical mass theory and the need to appoint at least 3 people to exert influence, but combined this with "tokenism theories".
Tokenism theory, first put forward by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, is the idea that if there are only one or two women or people from an under-represented background in a group you can be perceived as being a "token" irrespective of your route to your position or how qualified you are. According to the theory, being perceived as a token can affect you in three different ways: It increases a person's "visibility" in a group which means mistakes are more harshly judged. The presence of a token can increase "polarisation" in a group in which the other members bond together and identify themselves in opposition to the token. And finally "assimilation" occurs as the only way for the token to survive in the group is to assimilate to the norms and values of the group.
Once you combine critical mass theory and tokenism theory you realise that for diversity the 15% targets can perversely do more harm than good. It is actually very possible to reach 15% without reaching critical mass and without changing the culture of an organisation.
So what does this mean? Should we all give up - after all in many media organisations we are not even close to achieving 15% BAME?
I believe that far from making us want to give up these theories should guide us to more effective policies. Instead of looking at reaching a 15% target across the board, or even a 20% target, we should be strategic as to where we can achieve critical mass. In some teams this may mean a 30% target, in other teams it might mean far less.
The overall message is the targets should serve us - as opposed to us becoming slaves to the targets. The overall aim should be culture change to make better and more diverse output. Not just setting workforce targets for the sake of them.
Worth also considering that most company structures are pyramidal, narrowing as you move up. So for one person to get to the next level you need three or four in the level beneath to allow for people being poached, resigning or not being good enough to step up. We've never really had a critical mass at middle management levels, which are usually less about functional ability and more about skills in general management.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good point!
Delete