Our 2022 diversity and inclusion report

24 posts were merged into an existing topic: Removed Posts - May 2023

What are PNT people, please?


Sorry. Acronyms!

Predominant neuro type, so people who are not neuro divergent


Thank you!

I agreed with the broader point, but didn’t quite understand the acronym (although I kinda understood the point in context).


I’ve been reading a lot about autism recently (I was only identified as autistic a year ago - it has been an interesting self-learning curve), so these terms are sort of ingrained!

For anyone interested, Devon Price’s Unmasking Autism is a really great read on social theories of autism and overcoming disadvantages.


Hey everyone :wave:

Thanks for using the flagging system to bring the discussion to my attention and thanks for taking a breath while you waited for me to moderate. Sorry for the delayed response - been fighting off norovirus so haven’t been able to jump on!

I’ve removed posts that derailed the topic and didn’t fall within the Code of Conduct which everyone can read here. We want to create a space for discussion and debate, as long as everyone follows this guidance, which we have to keep the forum a healthy place.

In line with our guidelines, please do use the flagging system to highlight posts that need attention, rather than replying in a confrontational way.

If anyone wants to discuss these actions, please feel free to send me a DM :inbox_tray:


Hey :wave: – thanks Alan

On the wider topic of how we think about representation, as Kirsten said earlier we don’t hire to quotas. But we are thoughtful about representation in our community. Where we know there are systemic barriers that prevent people from certain groups being included, then we focus our attention there.

We focus on making sure there are no barriers to entry or barriers to safety and progression once people are here, as an inclusive environment benefits everyone.

We use targets (not quotas) as a guide to drive progress. They aren’t an exact science and we aren’t trying to achieve representation that matches the census to the exact percentage point! To create targets we take into account a range of factors, like our Monzo regions and how they align with the census, as well as things like how that group is represented in the wider industry right now (which is usually the pool we’re hiring from).

Our community will change year in year out as people join and leave Monzo, and we will always keep an eye on census data, but our continued goal will always be to have the most high performing team that we’re able to achieve.


On the topic of representation, and Monzo’s diversity and inclusion report, Monzo is clearly taking concrete action to adjust its hiring/retention to fit certain “targets.” It claims to want to represent the wider population, which is a laudable goal (although it’s unfortunate if meritocracy is set aside to achieve this).

But is Monzo consistent and fair in its approach?

That is, where Monzo staff is over-representative of a certain demographic vs. the UK population, is it taking steps to redress this (regardless of which demographic is over-represented)?

Or does Monzo see itself as an activist organisation that would over-represent certain groups in order to “correct” what it perceives as a wider national imbalance among business?

Isn’t this answered here?


On the subject of autism (a somewhat personal concern of mine), does Monzo plan to represent the wider population, even if this presents challenges in the workplace and may not ultimately improve Monzo’s performance to users?

I ask this as a sincere question, as someone with strong autist traits.

Nope, not at all

There is a specific example of one massively over-represented group on Monzo’s report. (I’m not going to name it here in case certain forum participants claim I’m being “bigoted”). And, just to be clear, I’m not talking about straight white males.

What concrete action, if any, is Monzo taking to address this over-representation? Because we rarely hear the details of action in this “direction,” and I’m curious to know if any company even has a strategy to hit targets in the “non-classic” direction.

To be clear, I bear no resentment toward this demographic.

But I think it’s important that if a company starts taking concrete action that favours certain groups, there is a reasonable goal in mind, and when that goal is hit, the action is stopped. And when the goal is over-shot, to the possible detriment of other demographics, then there’s some kind of strategy to move in the other direction.

Otherwise, what we’re looking at here is political activism, and not a genuine strategy for equality of opportunity, right?

What does it matter if a group is over-represented as long as they are good at their jobs?

If Monzo is over-represented with employees who identify as autistic compared to the general population, do you think it is a good thing to stop hiring autistic people? That is what you are saying about other groups of people.

1 Like

So what you’re saying is that concrete actions taken for “diversity and inclusion” (such as those taken by Monzo) are unnecessary? I generally agree with that sentiment. We should hire the best people for the job and be completely blind to people’s birth characteristics - because doing anything else would be discriminatory and prejudiced.

But we’re talking about a company that is taking concrete actions, so my interest is in the fairness of those actions.

Actually, what I’m saying is that the ideal number of autistic people hired might be lower than the general population - it depends on the data on how employee autism affects commercial performance of a company, doesn’t it? I say this as an autistic person. Autistic people likely outperform neurotypical people in some roles, so I think there’s definitely a non-zero ideal proportion of autistic people in an organisation - particularly in companies that build software. But I don’t think this ideal proportion necessarily reflects the general population.

You’re speaking from the perspective of hitting or overshooting quotas. But quotas are not the approach monzo is taking to diversity and inclusion (from what I can tell from the report). They talk about reducing barriers to entry by improving discoverability of vacancies, improving workplace culture and tackling barriers for progression for under represented groups (barriers that are not present for other groups).

1 Like

Whether we describe them as “quotas,” “targets,” or “goals,” I think really we’re talking about the same thing.

There is concrete action being taken to alter the representation of certain demographics at Monzo. Disclaimer: I think strategies like gender equality for parental leave, disability-accessible workplaces are very positive and non-discriminatory steps, and we should applaud Monzo for those.

But I’m interested in the other things Monzo is doing to hit its “goals” - and let’s be clear. Monzo has goals.

Here’s an example from the report where a numeric percentage has met a “goal”

22.9% of our leadership are now [a certain demographic], meaning we met our company-wide goal to grow representation at the senior levels of Monzo

And then, more obviously:

we have a specific company-wide goal to have at least 4% representation of [a certain demographic] staff in leadership positions by September 2023

But we still need to work on this to meet our company-wide target of 40% [a certain demographic] in leadership positions

That sounds to me a lot like a “target” or a “quota,” but perhaps I’ve missed something subtle about the semantics of these words.

I think it was also mentioned above that they’re targeting (or headhunting so to speak; which is the only way we recruit folks nowadays, because it works better for us) talent from specific demographics to help close gaps and meet targets faster.

I presume, once the gaps are closed, the objectives will switch to one more of balance and maintenance of ratios, but of course there will always be some new inequality challenges to tackle, so these things will likely forever be in limbo and fluctuating. The right balance forever remaining just beyond reach.

It’s an art not a science. Cultivating the right culture, in theory, should eventually lead to the prospect that hiring the best candidate for the job will wind up mirroring the diversity of society at large much more closely than it does at present, and, as you say, I think that’s the end goal of these initiatives.

I agree with you it’s the same thing, but you’re drawing the conclusion that there is a nefarious outcome.

AutisticPerson, BlackPerson and NeurotypicalPerson all apply for the same job. If Monzo only consider the first two then that is totally different to making sure that the 1st and 2nd are given equal opportunity and a fair crack at the application whip.


but what about:


Is that an “equal opportunity” strategy?

1 Like

As long as those headhunted are given the same chance as a neurotypical white person, then yes.


Statistically, though, the neurotypical white person is less likely to hear about Monzo’s opportunities in the first place, given that headhunting deliberately excludes them.