That’s a really good question! Ultimately all of this is to build the best team in order to make progress on our mission. Diverse teams are more high performing and achieve more. There are loads of studies and examples that have proven this to be case. These targets help us build the best team, make better decisions, build a better product and provide better solutions to our customers problems. I believe that a core part of our success has been because we have prioritised and cared about diversity and inclusion from the beginning.
In terms of extolling the benefits of focusing on diversity, this is something that is key to how we talk about D&I internally. The reason we publish these reports externally is because we believe we have a wider responsibility to the industry and society to hold ourselves accountable, but also to share what we’re doing because we know it makes us a better business overall.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
