How to Make Your DEI Approach a Source of Togetherness, Not Conflict

Rather than a simple platform for demonstrating how an employer is fair and open-minded, DEI initiatives have become associated with workplace tensions and conflict.

In spite of the decades of focus on soft skills and management development, workplace conflict in the UK has reached its highest reported level says Acas. 44% of employees experienced some form of dispute in the past year.

Meanwhile, figures from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service show the backlog of employment tribunal cases has gone past the half a million mark. The backlog is expected to keep growing as the number of cases keeps outpacing the rate of resolutions — meaning more claimants faced with extended periods of anxiety and uncertainty, and more costs and problems for employers. The upcoming Employment Rights Bill changes around the qualifying service period before claiming unfair dismissal are expected to lead to another sharp rise in claims.

DEI’s links to conflict

Why is this happening? HR can’t point to the disruption and changes linked to the pandemic or post-pandemic situations anymore. In spite of the past decade’s increased focus on culture, wellbeing and the acceptance of diversity, employees are more fractious than ever.

Some of the main reasons for the increases appear to relate to the prominence of DEI programmes and the rise in sensitivity — or what could be seen as hypersensitivity — when it comes to attitudes to rights and what constitutes inappropriate language, behaviours, discrimination and bullying. In the 1980s there were 20 employment rights under which an employee could make a tribunal claim; now there are more than 60. The use of social media has created a cycle where more employees are willing to share their experiences publicly and to gain validation and support for their complaints. It’s become a situation where one thoughtless comment, a well-intentioned joke, can be used as grounds for legal action: a culture where bosses, managers and staff are frozen by the need to be faultlessly ‘correct’ in everything said; where conversations can feel monitored, becoming stilted and limited to the bare essentials.

The Acas survey points to some of the usual suspects when it comes to causes: disputes over capability and performance (38%), personal disagreements and relationships (33%), bullying, discrimination and harassment (24%), and employment terms and conditions (17%). Most often, conflict occurs with colleagues (34%), then not far behind, line managers (32%). The data from the tribunals service confirms that unfair dismissals continue to be the most common reason for turning to the legal system (constituting 24% of claims). Disability discrimination cases make up 15% of the total.

This is the surface of things, how underlying problems and situations have spilled into public disputes. The difference in the prevalence of conflict between age groups seems to add weight to the argument that attitudes and sensitivity are an important factor. Average levels of incidents of conflict experienced are 49% among the 25-34 year-old group, but this falls away to 32% among 55-65 year-olds. Also, any staff who fall under the category of having a disability (which now includes employees with a mental health condition), are far more likely to experience conflict (68%).

The real foundations to DEI

For HR leaders then, there’s a need to take a smart approach to DEI. Not the tick-box approach that assumes that imposing equality and inclusion will lead to workplace harmony.

Clear statements of intentions are important, but what matters in practice is quality of relationships, understanding and engagement among people: a basis of psychological safety and informal resolutions of problems and grievances through good conversations.

This means taking an approach that moves beyond education on discrimination and cultural awareness. Understanding that there are sensitivities doesn’t mean an ability to talk about them and deal with individual people and cases in professional ways. Managers in particular, but staff in general, should be equipped with the skills to deal with difficult conversations, making sure people have the self-awareness and confidence to take part in sensitive and awkward conversations without becoming bullish, defensive or skirting around the core issues. ‘Conversational Integrity’ involves a package of skills that leads to the necessary confidence and ability, including ‘situational awareness’, the essential practice of ‘curiosity’, ‘reflective listening’, ‘empathy’, and ‘self awareness’ — so not just listening outwardly but inwardly, how your own ‘inner state’ is impacting on the flow of a  conversation.

Policies should include clarification for staff on what would constitute a ‘malicious’ or ‘vexatious’ complaint. Managers themselves need to be aware of what constitutes a ‘grievance’ and know how to record them. This is a difficult area. Because what is ‘bullying’ anyway? There is no legal definition, and there will always be a thin line between assertive management needed to deal with poor performance and an inappropriate and ugly use of power.

Establishing psychological safety

Too often psychological safety is a ‘nice-to-have’ principle, easily forgotten when there are issues of performance and delivery. Yes, management should be leading by example and asking for upward feedback; they should be encouraging more listening; never placing blame; not judging. But in reality there will be managers resentful of the feedback they get; staff will be irritated at how they and their ideas are being treated; negativity and criticism will go on in other forms. Passive-aggressive behaviours become the norm.

The principle has to be backed up by a pro-active strategy and close attention to practice within teams: using a survey tool like the Psychological Safety Index (PSI) tool to anonymously gather perspectives and experiences; following up with open discussion of behaviours that may have caused problems in the past and how open conversations and taking measured risks can build trust, along with ideas for building a stronger sense of understanding and safety.

In order to reinforce a culture of this initial work needs to be backed up with three further stages: starting projects that allow team members to work collaboratively on delivering some of the ideas suggested; a follow-up use of the PSI tool to check on the impact of the training and commitment; and one to one conversations with the most vocal team members, ensuring they feel heard and understood.

Phil Floyd, Head of Investigations at workplace relationships specialist CMP, www.cmpsolutions.com