There is a widespread perception that even prior to Covid-19, progress on improving social mobility in the UK had stalled and many employers were not as socio-economically diverse as they could be. As the UK economy starts to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, it is clear that the pandemic has had a serious negative impact on social mobility and that little has changed in terms of socio-economic diversity at many employers.

In this article, Michelle Chance (Partner) and Chris Warwick-Evans (Associate) explore the impact of Covid-19 on social mobility, how a lack of social mobility and socio-economic diversity are entrenched long-term issues in the UK, why it is our strong view that employers should be concerned by this, and what steps employers can easily take to ensure their workforces are more socio-economically diverse and to increase social mobility within their own organisation.

Covid-19 and social mobility  

The Social Mobility Barometer 2021, published by the Social Mobility Commission, reported that during the Covid-19 pandemic those from disadvantaged backgrounds have been more likely to miss out on quality home schooling, fail to get an apprenticeship or lose their job, and this has contributed to increased inequality in the UK. In particular, the Social Mobility Commission has reported that:

  • over half of the public (56%) think that the pandemic has increased social inequality;
  • on average, 39% of the public think that it is getting harder for people from less advantaged families to move up in British society; and
  • an increasing number of people think that employers should take mandatory action to improve social mobility – 42% in 2021 compared with 31% in 2019.

More recently, entrenched socio-economic disadvantage has been reflected in the publication of exam results, from which it is clear that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers has widened during the Covid-19 pandemic, and significant and disproportionate educational damage has been experienced by young people from the most deprived backgrounds through no fault of their own. Given the inequality of pupil and student access to computers and IT equipment and quiet study space outside of the classroom, which is likely to broadly mirror socio-economic disparities, it is not surprising that the pandemic has disproportionately negatively impacted the education and attainment of the least advantaged. Further, there has also been an increase in the top exam grades being achieved at the most privileged schools, and as the Social Mobility Commission has noted, this runs the risk of inadvertently crowding deserving disadvantaged students out of top universities.

A long-term problem

As the 93% Club (which seeks to recognise and champion those who have attended state schools) has recently highlighted, some university students from state schools and in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds, report that certain careers and industries still feel impenetrable to them and that privately educated students often already have a network of personal and family connections and have had more opportunities (such as wider course choice and extra-curricular activities) whilst they were at school, and this will help smooth their entry into their chosen profession or vocation. Other members of the 93% Club report that fitting in at university has been far harder than they had expected and some have experienced negative comments about their accent and where they are from and report feeling out of place and being judged by their peers as to their social background, not belonging and having “imposter syndrome”.

The lack of social mobility in the UK and the lack of socio-economic diversity at many leading employers means that many students and employees do not reach their full potential and that candidates from independent schools are disproportionately represented in the UK’s top jobs.

In our experience, some students and employees from lower socio-economic backgrounds are put off from even applying for the most prized traineeships and roles at leading employers because they feel that they will not be offered a role or fit in and others apply for roles that are more junior than they may have been appropriate for simply to ensure they get their “foot in the door”. Even when candidates from lower socio-economic backgrounds do accept the offer of a role with a leading or elite employer, they are often less likely to be retained at the end of any formal training program or probationary period, more likely to leave sooner than their more privileged contemporaries, and are less likely to be promoted to senior positions.

A problem for employers?

The lack of social mobility and socio-economic diversity at many employers is a significant issue for those individuals it adversely impacts (as above), and more generally this is a broader social problem given that it results in a significant waste of untapped potential and talent. However, leading employers now recognise that a lack of social mobility and socio-economic diversity within their own organisations may also be a significant problem for them (and often their sector more generally), and addressing socio-economic diversity in their own business (and sometimes on a wider basis, such as within their sector) is more than simply an issue of social justice; it is often also good business sense.

In particular, employers that do not have a socio-economic diverse workforce are likely to miss out on attracting and retaining talent, and the positive impact on innovation, creativity and decision making that different perspectives from diverse teams can bring. Employers should also be reassured that data from the Social Mobility Foundation shows that employees from lower socio-economic backgrounds perform at least as well as their more advantaged peers, and often out perform them as they will be driven to do well and succeed. The replacement of employees who leave their employer because they feel they do not fit in or will not progress also results in employers incurring significant additional recruitment and training costs, and improving socio-economic diversity within their own organisation is likely to reduce these costs.

Steps to consider taking now

Many of the changes which are open to employers to improve social mobility and diversity at their own organisation are relatively simple and low cost, and may even save resources as a result of increasing the number of candidates applying for roles, lower staff turnover (as above), and increased employee commitment, productivity and employee wellbeing. To this effect we suggest that employers who wish to understand and where appropriate address a lack of socio-economic diversity and social mobility in their own organisation consider taking the steps below:

Data collection

  1. Try to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the current socio-economic composition of their workforce at all levels so they can identify opportunities to address barriers to recruitment, retention and progression and to measure progress. Diversity data can be obtained from employees by way of anonymous questionnaires, and in our experience, employee responses are likely to be higher (and the “prefer not to say” response box is less likely to be ticked) if employers explain to their employees why they are asking for this personal data and employees are assured that their personal data will be stored and handled in line with the GDPR and remain anonymous.

Culture and Leadership

  1. Efforts to improve socio-economic diversity and social mobility at an employer are much more likely to be effective with appropriate leadership and communication from senior levels at the employer. For medium and large employers it may be appropriate for the employer to appoint a respected senior lead to advocate internally for socio-economic diversity and inclusion. Larger employers may also wish to make their aims and initiatives more widely known, for example by publicising them on their external website and/or collaborating with other employers by way of early outreach initiatives, to make it clear to their potential and current employees, clients and customers that these are issues that they take seriously.
  2. Leaders should be helped to understand that team conversations can exclude team members from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, for example, if they centre around what ski trips to luxury European locations team members have been on over Christmas or attending opera at Glyndebourne, and Wimbledon and Ascot over the Summer. Similarly, hiring managers should try to ensure as far as possible that conversations are inclusive for employees from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.

Recruitment

Employers should carefully consider their recruitment processes, and change these if necessary. In particular, employers should:

  1. Try to make sure candidates from a range of universities/colleges (not just Oxbridge and the Russell Group) are aware of the opportunities available (bearing in mind that often candidates from a lower socio-economic background cannot afford to live away from home whilst at University and can therefore only attend local universities where the cost of travel and accommodation is not prohibitive), and that job advertisements are worded in an inclusive way and are widely advertised across a diverse range of mediums where candidates of different socio-economic backgrounds can easily access them.
  2. Make it clear to recruitment agencies that they are looking to interview candidates from a range of backgrounds who meet the relevant criteria.
  3. Be clear with candidates as to the application process and what selection criteria they are looking for applicants to meet.
  4. If the business pays employee recruitment referral bonuses to its current staff, they may well recruit in their own image, and employers should check whether this is the case and consider whether this is appropriate and justifiable.
  5. Consider a range of entry routes to roles at their organisation where this is appropriate, including a range of non-graduate entry points such as apprenticeships and traineeships.
  6. Think carefully whether the qualifications they are asking for are really necessary (particularly where they require the applicant to hold a degree for a relatively junior position), or whether sufficient work experience and other lower level qualifications would be sufficient, potentially combined with more on the job training, supervision and mentoring.
  7. Assessors should be reminded that not all candidates will have been able to participate in extra-curricular activities where there is a significant cost or time commitment and consequently may find it harder to answer some forms of interview questions. Similarly, if possible, employers should avoid an implicit (or explicit) requirement for candidates to have completed unpaid internships as a way of demonstrating the skills, competencies or drive that hiring managers are looking for.
  8. Be aware that candidates whose parents do not have a network of professional contacts as family members or close friends may not have had the opportunity to “get their foot in the door” and obtain appropriate work experience, as they will not have had the ready-made network of professional contacts that some more privileged candidates competing with them may have had.
  9. Ensure that a range of staff with different backgrounds are part of a structured recruitment process and ensure that staff involved in the recruitment process have received appropriate training on unconscious bias and equal opportunities.
  10. Ensure that recruitment is conducted in an objective and transparent way and, where appropriate, is contextual (i.e. takes into account the context in which someone’s achievements (such as academic results) were made, which in certain circumstances may include the performance of the school they attended and whether they were the first in their immediate household to attend university etc.).
  11. If interviews are conducted remotely during the pandemic, consider asking all candidates to use the same Zoom or Teams background to avoid unconscious bias about socio-economic status inadvertently creeping into recruitment decisions.
  12. Employers should also be mindful that long hiring processes are associated with higher drop out rates by underprivileged candidates as they are more likely to take employment elsewhere (even if it is lower paid), and should aim to keep recruitment processes as short as reasonably possible and clearly explain to applicants at the outset the likely timetable for the recruitment process and the potential start date.

Employer Policies

  1. Review their anti-bullying, harassment and discrimination policies to ensure they clearly incorporate and relate to socio-economic background (for example, by making it clear that bullying because of social background is not acceptable), and that this is embedded in the organisation with appropriate training (with refreshers) for managers and other staff.

Development and Promotion

  1. Consider how work is allocated and make sure this can be justified. If informal arrangements are entrenched whereby the same individuals always work together for no good reason, consider whether “blind allocation” (whereby work is allocated according to capacity, rank/skillset rather than name) would be helpful.
  2. Consider carefully who gets mentored or provided with opportunities which are likely to encourage progression and who gets invited to networking events which may give opportunities for promotion. Think about the type of mentoring and business development events that employees are invited to and whether they may feel excluded due to their socio-economic upbringing, for example, don’t assume that all employees will feel comfortable on a golf course or know how to play golf.
  3. Consider offering training and progression conversations to all staff, in particular ensuring that those taking non-graduate routes receive suitable opportunities for progression as well as those taking graduate routes.
  4. Interview processes, role details and criteria for promotions should be transparent and objective. Try to avoid requirements for an established professional network for those early on in their careers as those from less advantaged backgrounds may well not have been given the opportunity to develop this. Employers should also consider if informal networks are giving those from more advantaged backgrounds an unfair advantage in the promotion process, and how this can be addressed. If soft skills are an issue, consider whether mentoring and coaching could help address this rather than acting as an unresolved barrier to progression.

Exit

  1. Exit interviews should be routinely conducted to get a clear understanding of why employees are leaving their employer and can serve as an effective early warning system for unrecognised problems. Make it clear that what’s said at exit interviews will be treated confidentially and will not impact adversely on the individual’s reference.

In our view, employers considering and where appropriate addressing issues of socio-economic diversity and social mobility within their own organisation is likely to be time and resource well spent, and is a good example of where doing the “right thing” from a social justice perspective is likely to closely align with the commercial needs of the business to be an employer of choice, reflect its customer base, have a good pipeline of internal talent, ensure that staff retention levels are satisfactory, that employee wellbeing is high and that training costs are not lost as a result of high staff turnover. Customers, investors and shareholders are also increasingly holding companies to account regarding their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) values and initiatives.

Although social class is not a protected characteristic itself, given the intersectional nature of underprivilege and some of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 (in particular, race, disability and arguably to a lesser extent, sex), properly considering and addressing socio-economic diversity and social mobility within the employer’s organisation is also likely to reduce the risk to employers of successful discrimination claims by their employees, and the risk of reputational damage and being liable to pay compensation for discrimination which is not subject to a statutory cap.

Rosenblatt can help

We regularly advise employers on all employment law and employee relations aspects related to Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) including socio-economic D&I, including staff data collection, advice on recruitment, retention and promotion policies, use of minority staff forums and mentoring programmes, and D&I policies, staff D&I training and embedding cultural change. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if your business would like to discuss any of these issues or if you are a senior executive or senior professional looking for practical and strategic employment law advice on your own situation.

(Sources: Socio-economic diversity and inclusion – Employers’ toolkit: Cross-industry edition – July 2021 (publishing.service.gov.uk), Social Mobility Barometer 2021 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk))

We at RBG Holdings/Rosenblatt support and encourage free/independent thinking in relation to issues which are sometimes considered to be controversial subject matters. However, the views and opinions of the authors of articles published on our website/s do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, practices and policies of RBG Holdings/Rosenblatt.

Topics