While we may like to think (or pretend) that we live in a classless society with a genuine meritocracy, the data suggests otherwise.
Studies show that both the UK and the US feature at the bottom of league tables for social mobility, which is simply the idea of changing one’s socioeconomic situation compared to one’s parents. What this means in practice is that it is harder for people to climb the income ladder in these countries than in most other developed countries.
This plays out in workplaces, too. International firm KPMG UK recently published research showing that socioeconomic background has the strongest effect on an individual’s career progression, more than any other diversity characteristic.
In my native UK, people with working-class origins face an average pay gap of 13%. The gap is more significant in so-called elite occupations where networking and fitting in seem to matter, such as finance managers, consultants, solicitors, and accountants. This also intersects with other aspects of diversity: the pay gap working-class women face is bigger than that for working-class men, and the class pay gap for people of Indian heritage is even more significant.
Perceptions and assumptions
Our Class is not easily (or perhaps comfortably) defined; it may be a combination of social, economic, and cultural factors. But it is worth reflecting on a few elements that may play into our perceptions and assumptions about someone’s socioeconomic status and what impact that has.
When we hear an accent, what assumptions do we make? How do we respond to someone’s educational background, like what school they attended? Do we make assumptions about people’s backgrounds based on their ethnicity? What assumptions and cliques do we make as a result of the hobbies people have or the interests we share?
In the workplace, conversations around elite activities like golf or ski trips can be challenging for those who’ve never had access to such opportunities. When we’re thinking about work allocation and promotions, how much can someone talk about golf or skiing with clients play into our thinking, whether we realize it or not?
We’re talking about social and cultural capital, which can greatly impact building networks and contacts and climbing the corporate ladder. People with working-class origins simply face a massive uphill struggle in acquiring such capital, perpetuating the objective inequity.
Struggling with the human need to fit in – and putting on a mask to do so – also takes a tremendous amount of energy out of someone’s day, reduces psychological safety, and increases imposter syndrome. All things that only serve to limit said person even more.
Businesses are starting to take action—but much of it doesn’t go far enough
Business leaders are now recognizing the moral imperative and the business case for tackling class barriers. It aligns with ESG priorities, helps address skills shortages in a competitive global market, and attracts diverse talent for sustained success.
Subsequently, there is growing activity and noise around the topic on LinkedIn and within boardrooms. Especially amongst the financial, legal, and professional services sectors (the ones historically associated with elite roles).
The sort of actions taken—often the ones paraded on LinkedIn—include recruitment outreach at non-selective schools, mentoring, apprenticeships, and more accessible work experience programs.
Some employers are adapting their recruitment processes to move beyond focusing solely on academic grades, with an increasing number using digital solutions to enable contextualized recruitment where a job applicant’s unique personal circumstances are considered during the hiring process. International law firm Slaughter and May recently announced quantitative social mobility targets to increase the representation of lower socioeconomic background (LSEB) individuals in the firm.
While these actions are important and good, organizations looking to take action on social mobility must avoid the risk of straying into ineffective, tokenistic class-washing. It is essential to go further and make cultural and structural changes. Mere social media posts and photo opportunities risk being seen as recruitment and reputation marketing. Quotas, particularly if used in isolation, can lead to imposter syndrome and resentment.
What can workplaces (and people) do to make lasting, meaningful change?
As with all underrepresented groups, the issue cannot just be addressed by recruiting for diversity. To truly increase opportunity, organizations need to widen their focus and address barriers throughout the entire working relationship; they need to go beyond recruitment and look at work allocation, retention, pay, and progression and social class should be a fundamental aspect of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) agendas and training. As recommended by the City of London Socioeconomic Diversity Taskforce, the approach to EDI should be holistic and include socioeconomic diversity.
The practical and structural barriers also need to be considered. Even if a job is offered, can people afford to live, work, and travel to the economic center to do it? Many organizations have been looking at flexible and remote working to tackle this.
Despite the confirmed existence of significant class pay gaps, socioeconomic background often coming up as an issue in employer diversity and inclusion surveys, and research demonstrating the impact of class on career progression, this aspect of diversity has not been prioritized enough to date.
Getting to the root of the issues
In most US states and the entire UK, socioeconomic background is not currently a characteristic legally protected against discrimination. However, a growing number of organizations in the UK, including the British Psychological Society, are calling for changes on this. The law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP has convened a working group of leading lawyers, academics, and charities I am part of to explore the practicalities of defining and incorporating a potential definition of social class in UK Equality legislation.
One particular challenge from this is dealing with positive action in a fair and inclusive way, enabling equitable results for underrepresented groups. This needs careful drafting and consideration, particularly given the recent developments and challenges around affirmative action in the US courts.
The political appetite for this in the UK, where conversations around class are viewed as uncomfortable despite being endemic, remains to be seen.
Even without legislation, employers that want to address these issues should put this at the forefront of their EDI agenda and training to address the root cause of biases around class.
As individuals, we need to surface, navigate, and challenge the internal biases we all hold and the structural biases we support and reflect on how we respond to all types of differences. This forms a big part of the training I facilitate daily at Byrne Dean.
Our unconscious brains are naturally wired for survival, to walk away from difference and towards similarity, and our brains have been pre-programmed by what we have seen, experienced, or been told. Whether envisioning a CEO, lawyer, accountant, or banker, we all hold internal biases and preconceptions, for example, around how they should look, sound, and dress.
What educational experience and qualifications do we comfortably accept, and what do we question? What traits fit comfortably with our preconceptions, and what makes us feel suspicious? How can these biases impact our connections, communications, and indeed all our decisions in the workplace—whether it’s work allocation recruitment, pay, or promotion?
As with all other elements of EDI, if we surface and navigate our biases, put in the effort (that gets easier over time), and use tools to help, we can overcome them and do our bit to build true equity.
While wider structural biases in society must be addressed to move the needle on class inequality, workplaces can make a difference not just with data collection and widening recruitment but with genuine individual and organizational introspection.
Leaders and decision-makers at all levels need to hold themselves accountable for this. We must embrace and value differences rather than default to what fits into an organization or boardroom based on what has gone before and what feels comfortable.
Start making meaningful change today, and go beyond face-value measures that run the risk of class washing.
–
Helen Dallimore is principal Consultant at workplace behavior and culture specialists Byrne Dean, delivering a range of workplace training sessions. She previously spent 18 years working as an Employment Lawyer.