Why can't the diversity zealots leave our workplaces alone?

The demand that employers strive to ensure their workforces reflect the nation at large is just another misguided attempt at social engineering

When your regular refuse collectors turn up to empty your bins, do you ever trouble to consider their biological sex? I guess you don’t. But if you did, you would most likely see that the majority (if not all) of them were men.

Would this fact, as it became apparent to you, trouble you at all? Would you consider that your waste had been collected in a way less effective or professional than would have been the case if at least half the crew were women? Would your trust in the local authority responsible for providing the service be diminished as a consequence, and would you be inclined to suggest that it be placed under some sort of legal obligation to remedy that ‘imbalance’?

What about when you drop your child off at nursery or primary school and see that an overwhelming proportion of those into whose care you are entrusting it are women? Or when you’re driving down the motorway and spot that most of the highway maintenance operatives putting out the cones and working the machinery are of the male persuasion?

Midwives, plumbers, care home workers, crane operators: all jobs in which, again, one sex, in terms of numbers, dominates the workforce. Do you see that as a problem?

Consider race and ethnicity, then. In some industries, those from minority backgrounds are underrepresented; in others (dentistry, taxi driving, healthcare and the security industry, for example), they are are over-represented. Does that concern you?

And what about age? When was the last time you had a pizza delivered to your front door by someone older than 60?

The reality, as we see all around us every day, is that the workforces of most services, trades and industries do not, for all manner of reasons, accurately reflect the make-up of the wider British population. In fact, the imbalances are often quite pronounced. But does that really bother us? Should it? Is the quality of service provided in these cases somehow reduced as a consequence of the fact that the demographics of those delivering it do not precisely mirror those of the country at large?

I ask because it has become so common for members of our political and cultural elites to agitate for maximum diversity in the workplace (just as they argue for it in every other area of life - except in thought and opinion, of course), and to lecture us on how a lack of the same, as well as being evidence of entrenched prejudice, is likely to guarantee a worse service to the ‘end user’ from the organisation in question, and lessen levels of trust in it.

Witness, for example, a post on X (formerly known as Twitter) by Gavin Barwell, one-time Tory MP and chief of staff to Theresa May when she was prime minister (it isn’t just woke lefties who peddle this stuff, you know). In an exchange last week with a former Conservative colleague who had questioned the need for a diversity drive in the armed forces, Barwell wrote:

‘Diversity is not just tokenistic, it matters e.g. a diverse police force will be better able to police a diverse community. And it is perfectly possible to combine merit and diversity - indeed if you are only recruiting from a certain part of society you won't be getting the best.’

He went on to say, ‘It’s not an either/or choice between competency and diversity. If you only attract certain kinds of people, you're highly unlikely to recruit the best.’

Look, I am the first to say that nobody should be prevented from doing a job or pursuing a career path simply on account of their biological characteristics. The alternative - that a woman should not become a refuse collector or a man a midwife, or that a black person has no place in a City boardroom - should be unconscionable to all decent people. And of course it is right that employers make sure their recruitment processes are fair and their workplaces safe and welcoming environments for everyone.

But I must say that I think Barwell is talking nonsense. What evidence actually exists that the greater the diversity of an organisation’s workforce, the more effective and successful it will be, and the greater the level of public trust in it? I mean, I know it’s fashionable to say these things - a bit like ‘Diversity is our strength’ - but can it be backed up with real, concrete evidence, such as improved Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), better productivity, increased profits, more positive user feedback, or suchlike? I’m not sure it can.

To take the example cited by Barwell, the police service is probably more diverse now than ever. But I have never known a time when there was such a disconnect in the priorities of the police and the general public, when the service was so, frankly, useless at doing its job, and when public trust in it was so low.

Similarly - an example that Barwell will himself recognise - parliament is, in terms of the demographic of its MPs and Lords, again more diverse than ever before. But can anyone credibly argue that it has become more effective or respected as a consequence? It would surely be hard to maintain such an argument given the pretty poor calibre of many of today’s parliamentarians and the low regard in which the institution itself is held by voters.

And why is it that those who constantly bang the drum for the maximum possible diversity in the workplace are always so selective in the jobs they cite when they make their arguments? For example, as we saw with Barwell, the police are always getting it in the neck for their failures in this area, and the armed forces and fire and rescue service also frequently find themselves in the firing line. Large corporations, too. But why stop there? If diversity-max is so wonderfully beneficial, and if the likes of Barwell do not wish to be accused of inconsistency or opportunism, why don’t they target every other trade, industry and workplace, including the examples I gave at the top of this piece? Could it be that they realise that to do so would render their argument as both extreme and absurd in the eyes of much of the public? Could it also be that they understand that people would point out the logical consequence of their argument: which is that to achieve maximum success and effectiveness and the highest levels of trust, every employer - public, private and everything in between - must not rest until their workforce demographic is precisely consistent with that of the wider population.

And even if that were possible (which it plainly isn’t), what a dismal, regimented world that would be. What would be trumpeted as the deepest form of diversity would, in fact, be just another type of uniformity.

Unfairness and prejudice should always be challenged, but demographic imbalances in workplaces - as elsewhere in life - are not always evidence of these things. Instead, they are evidence that human beings are complex creatures; equal but different; products of both our genes and environment, shaped by relationships, culture, upbringing, education, class and social mores. All of this means that some individuals and groups will gravitate towards jobs and career paths that hold little appeal for others. That is not inherently a bad thing - it’s just a fact of life - and I’m not convinced that it should be the job of any employer or government to engage in what is ultimately a form of social engineering in an effort to ensure an alternative outcome.

When I asked on X, in the context of Barwell’s argument, whether anyone truly believed that ‘industries and services are less effective because their workforces don't precisely reflect the UK demographic’, someone replied, ‘No, they are more effective - because people chose jobs they enjoy, which is usually jobs they are good at doing.’ I think there might be something in that.

The truth is that, in spite of the value attached to it by our hyper-liberal masters, this stuff is, for most people, just not very important. If a workplace happens to be ultra-diverse, so be it. With luck, the employees there will get along famously with each other and find reward in their jobs. But we should stop obsessing about making every other workplace fit that model. Because, in the end, it really doesn’t matter.

---

A reminder that you can follow me on X/Twitter: @PaulEmbery

---