How Language Creates Power

Unlocking the Diversity Dividend: Changing the Game by about 36%

I saw a tweet earlier this week and it got me thinking:

I’ve been considering language a lot recently, specifically thinking about how it positions a circumstance and how language places responsibility. 

For instance, I was in a room where the topic of conversation was the barriers of ‘getting in’ and ‘getting on’ at the workplace for those from ethnically diverse backgrounds. An important and needed talking point. 

The conversation was hugely valuable and enabled the diverse talent in the room to tell leaders at one of the UK’s largest organisations what barriers we faced. The leaders listened and pledged to enact change, and I believe they will. During the conversation, I noticed we kept circling back to ethnically diverse talent having a “lack of” something, be it role models, guidance, information, networks etc. Although that may be true for some or not true for others - I understood the point, we all did. It made me think of a debate in academia about the “deficit model” when looking at Black attainment which I’ll get to. 

You see, it isn’t the fault of ethnically diverse talent that they may not have the role models, guidance, information or networks to get in and get on at the workplace. But when we use language like “ethnic minorities lack the necessary networks to get in position X at the workplace” there’s an implication that they are in deficit of something. It is their fault. 

If we truly want equity, these factors shouldn’t act as secret keys to success (predominantly benefiting those who are privately educated). The fact that they do, is the fault of the organisation - likely led by people who are privately educated.

 

Do you see how the system reproduces itself? This is not by accident and language is just one tool used to do this.

Instead, in the conversations like the one I was having, organisations should be saying “we tend to promote people in the same networks as us, that means we don’t really see ethnically diverse talent” because once those in power stop placing the responsibility on others for not being equipped for the game that they made, they can use their power to change the game.

Evidence from a McKinsey report suggests that culturally and ethnically diverse organisations outperform culturally and ethnically homogeneous organisations anyway, so it really is game changing to rethink what we’re saying and vitally what we’re asking with our words:

“In the case of ethnic and cultural diversity…in 2019, top-quartile companies outperformed those in the fourth one by 36 percent in profitability, slightly up from 33 percent in 2017 and 35 percent in 2014”

The numbers are big and they’re growing. When you include ethnically diverse talent in your organisation (alongside a culture that supports them) they thrive and you thrive. Therefore, they actually don’t lack anything of value, it’s just a matter of what you are placing value on.

In order to enact change (like so many organisations say they want to…) these barriers to entry and success must be acknowledged and owned by the organisations and ultimately, dismantled.

Back to the “attainment gap” in education.

Nationally, there’s an attainment gap of about 16% between White and BAME students who get a “good degree” (essentially a 1st or 2:1) - that gap grows even bigger (to about 28%) when you replace “BAME” with “Black”.

Do you see the impact of language and how it changes what we’re looking at?

By calling it an “attainment gap” the responsibility is on the student. It implies that White students are just smarter than Black students. But we know that, in reality, education isn’t meritocratic, there are many factors at play. 

Therefore, the responsibility for closing that gap should be shifted onto the institutions and the gap should be called the “awarding gap” - because there is a clear differentiation in how institutions award good degrees to Black and White students. 

The power of language. 

Like I say, it’s been on my mind for a while so I have a few points for consideration for you if you made it this far:

• Can you think of a time when you’ve witnessed the deficit model being used to justify inequality? Consider how you can intervene next time to reframe this thought and shift the responsibility onto the institution that has the power to create change in that scenario.

• If you have a role to play in recruitment at an organisation, consider what you value in your recruitment process e.g. the right network acting as a back door in, asking candidates to pay to travel to an interview, cultural biases in online tests, internships that may be unpaid. Who may you be including and excluding as a result?

• Why do you think culturally and ethnically diverse organisations outperform others?

• Think about the language you use when referring to ethnically diverse talent. BAME is sometimes a necessary evil when dealing with data, I get that, but be aware that all BAME are not the same and “minority” can come across as minimising. At my workplace, we use Global Ethnic Majority (GEM) and I for one find it empowering. Give it some thought and let me know if you have any other suggestions.

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Until next time.

***

One Brick An Hour is a blog by Kahvan in reference to "Rome wasn’t built in a day, but they were laying bricks every hour." from James Clear. Read more to learn about the bricks I continue to add to my Rome.