For our July Women in Climate event, we explored the topics of positive action and inclusive hiring practices, discussing the distinctions between these often-confused concepts and how they are used in the workplace.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We were joined by two guest speakers, Jennifer Catto, Professor in Weather and Climate at the University of Exeter, and Caroline Rowland, Head of Ocean, Cryosphere and Climate at the Met Office. Both speakers have experience\u202fparticipating\u202fin recruitment rounds and interviews within their respective organisations.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before hearing from our guest speakers,\u202fthe\u202fcommittee\u202fintroduced the topic with\u202fa\u202fpresentation on positive action and the legal framework surrounding it.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Firstly, we looked at the definition of positive action from the\u202f\u201cPositive action in the workplace\u201d Guidance by the UK Government1<\/sup>:\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n “The positive action provisions\u202fallow employers to take action that may involve treating one group that shares a protected characteristic more favourably than others, where this is a proportionate way to enable or encourage members of that group to:\u200b overcome or minimise a disadvantage\u200b, have their different needs met\u200b, participate in a particular activity.”\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u202fthen unpacked two key elements of this definition:\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n We then discussed the\u202fgeneral steps involved in implementing positive action\u202fmeasures at an organisation\u202foutlined in the\u202f\u201cPositive action in the workplace\u201d Guidance1<\/sup>:\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u202f\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then moved to one example of positive action related to recruitment, which is the use of a “tie-breaker” between candidates of equal merit.\u202f\u202fAs stated in the\u202fPositive action in the workplace Guidance1<\/sup>, it is not unlawful to recruit or promote a candidate who is of equal merit to another candidate, if the employer reasonably thinks:\u200b the candidate has a protected characteristic that is underrepresented in the workforce\u200b, that people with that characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic\u200b.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n We also clarified what positive action is not. This helped challenge some common misconceptions surrounding the term. Positive action is\u202fnot the same as\u202fpositive discrimination, for example recruiting only based on characteristics, quotas (vs targets), schemes that\u202fbenefit\u202fa group without evidence that they are disadvantaged.\u202fPositive action is also\u202fnot the same\u202fas\u202fbroader inclusive or accessibility-focused actions.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n We then shifted into the discussion with Jen and Caroline, who shared their experiences of within the University of Exeter and the Met Office. Both speakers noted a wide range of inclusive actions are routinely used to help ensure recruitment processes are fair and accessible for all candidates.\u202fHowever, the discussion showed that no one had encountered positive action itself in practise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Examples for inclusive actions included:\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n They also covered some inclusive practices that support employees once they have joined the organisation, including:\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n Jen shared her experience implementing a single-gender shortlist policy, whereby shortlists should not consist entirely of candidates from one gender.\u202fThis does not mean swapping out one or more candidates\u202f(more on this below).\u202fThis sparked an interesting discussion about how such a policy works in practice, particularly where anonymised recruitment processes are used. Jen explained that where a shortlist\u202fcontains\u202fcandidates from only one gender, organisations may need to review earlier stages of the recruitment process. This could involve assessing whether the job advertisement\u202fcontained\u202funintended bias, whether it was advertised in the most\u202fappropriate locations, or whether a new recruitment campaign may be\u202frequired\u202fto attract a broader pool of applicants. In some cases, organisations may also choose to expand the number of interviewees to ensure a more diverse shortlist.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u202fBoth Jen and Caroline reflected on their experiences of recruitment and noted that they had not encountered the discussed “tie-breaker” scenario. They explained that candidates almost never have identical qualifications,\u202fskills\u202fand experience, meaning hiring decisions or \u2018tie-breaker\u2019 scenarios where 2 candidates score equally are based on the evidence presented during the recruitment process rather than positive action provisions.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u202fOne of the most useful takeaways from the event was the distinction between positive action and inclusive action. Many attendees commented that they had previously assumed the two terms were interchangeable. Through the presentations and discussion, it became clear that positive action is a specific legal mechanism that requires evidence, justification and careful implementation, while inclusive actions are broader measures that can be embedded throughout recruitment and\u202fworkplace practices to create a fairer and more accessible environment for everyone. The event\u202fprovided\u202fa valuable opportunity to learn from colleagues with practical experience of recruitment and inclusion. It also encouraged thoughtful discussion about how organisations can continue to remove barriers particularly during recruitment.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n References:\u202f<\/strong>\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n