Does representation matter?

Apparently when (propertied) women were first allowed to sit on juries (after 1919 in the UK) the press was somewhat alarmed that their decision-making might not be up to scratch. A 1926 Daily Express  column asked: “Is the woman juror inclined to confuse the issues by the introduction of sympathetic or antipathetic considerations? … Can woman, in short, suddenly divorce herself from temperamental inconsequence and from the compassionate and emotional instincts on which she often acts, and become in a moment a hard, matter-of-fact analytical administrator of the strict letter of the law?” (quoted in A Jury of Her Peers: The Impact of the First Female Jurors on Criminal Convictions , Shamena Anwar, Patrick Bayer, and Randi Hjalmarsson, 2016).

What actually happened, according to the academic research mentioned above, is that more women on juries meant that male offenders were more likely to be convicted for sexual and violent crimes. Female jurors were also  more lenient on women convicted of procuring an illegal abortion, implying that  “female jurors might have viewed the alleged behavior (sic) or its impact on the victim from a different perspective than their male counterparts”.

Of course this is fascinating and proves what many of us already know – that our own experiences, backgrounds and beliefs will affect our decision-making. In a modern work environment this means that our own cultural background, religious beliefs, class, sex and sexuality, will have a clear bearing on how we see the world and the decisions that we make.

A study on the “gender punishment gap” which takes the gender pay gap a step further shows that, when considering the career trajectories of more than 1.2 million men and women working in the US financial advisory industry following misconduct: “Women face more severe punishment at both the firm and industry level for similar missteps. Following an incidence of misconduct, women are 20% more likely to lose their jobs and 30% less likely to find new jobs relative to their male counterparts. The punishment gap is especially prominent in firms with few female managers.” The same findings also show that black and hispanic financial advisors are punished more severely for less serious misconduct that white Americans.

This research correlated the dismissal decisions with the gender make up of the management at the companies investigated.  Where the company had  no female directors the female advisers are much more likely than male advisors to be sacked. On the other hand companies with a balance of male and female at the top, punished male and female misconduct at a similar rate. In other words where fairness was important culturally, then fairer decisions were made. It seems likely that the female leaders were able to appraise the performance of the female staff more realistically, and that managers are more forgiving of failures made by members of their own gender or ethnic group.

Certainly in my experience in diverse workplaces over several decades I have seen people being tougher on staff and customers from different ethnic groups and class backgrounds. I have assumed this springs from misunderstanding, labelling and unconscious bias rather than out-and-out racism. But the labelling of black males as “aggressive”, or a lack of sensitivity to some women’s fear of allowing male staff into their homes, has made me realise that empathy and understanding is something that we need to work on and share throughout our organisations.

Over the years we introduced “racial awareness training”.  I think this was of some value in sensitising our staff groups to things they might automatically assume, but which could have the effect of being exclusive or discriminatory. I once overheard a conversation in the Oxfam shop of a friendly white male worker addressing his headscarf-wearing colleague:

“You ought to come to the pub for our Christmas party. Even if you don’t want a drink you could have a sandwich or a sausage roll.”

I believe that modern research plus my experience at work shows me that genuine diversity at the top is essential for creating organisations that are fair and reasonable all the way down, and in particular in how we treat our residents and other customers. While intellectually most will understand the need for fairness and sensitivity in decision-making, it is very important to have black, female and gay managers in today’s workplaces. It is hard for monocultural leadership teams to fully appreciate and engage with a diverse workforce and customer group. Although I believe strongly that I do not have double standards for black staff (for example being too soft, which is as bad as being too hard) I am reassured by having an increasing number of highly competent black managers who can ensure that we are not unfair in our treatment of black staff. One of the reasons we have used Action teams so extensively is that it ensures that the people making the decisions are representative of those who have to live with them. We make sure we include front line staff, young/old, black/white, male/female etc.

Of course this blog believes that none of us can be completely “objective” in our decision-making. We do the bit that Artificial Intelligence cannot do. We use our human skills to appraise the social and psychological aspects of decision-making and human to human, team to team, and group to group interactions. We are aware that our prior experiences from birth onwards will strongly affect how we see the world. Our prescription of much greater reflection and team insight provide a strong antidote to stereotyping and scapegoating.

To ensure that our organisations are scrupulously fair – in hiring and firing, allocating scarce resources and making judgements – we need balanced and knowledgeable teams. There is a strong case for having leadership teams which broadly represent the client group, or population as a whole. For example those recruiting Magistrates are concerned that older white people with middle class backgrounds are handing out justice to younger, working class and more ethnically diverse groups. They are currently actively seeking to change this and are doing much better than other sections of the legal system. And while it may be obvious in terms of juries, magistrates and judges, the same is also true of our corporate boards, local and national government. We cannot expect good governance on behalf of large groups without significant representation of those whose interests they serve.

What do you think?