This article originally featured in MediaCat Magazine. You can read the original article here.
Right now the AI scene is buzzing with potential
Businesses are aggressively racing to incorporate AI into their operations, heralding a new era of efficiency. But with this relentless pursuit of innovation comes the risk of staying connected to what matters most: the people. Open AI has just unveiled its latest development, Sora — a text-to-hyper-realistic video tool. This tool can create real-time videos from text prompts with an unparalleled level of realism. While many celebrate this long-awaited development of AI, many are also mourning the ‘death’ of something else — trust. The dark underside of innovative AI erodes trust in the life behind the art. Take the rise of AI influencers on social media, for example. These pixel-perfect, algorithmically generated personalities are raking in cash for brands, with no sleep or coffee breaks needed. Meanwhile, real-life influencers are left competing against tireless, ever-perfect virtual counterparts.
There’s a term I recently discovered, FOBO: fear of becoming obsolete
With AI technology on the rise staff are increasingly worried about their roles becoming obsolete. This fear is of the very practical loss of a role (most likely of someone already from a marginalised community, as studies show) and a wider fear of being left behind. The mass adoption of AI requires a level of digital literacy and agility that promises success to those quick to adopt, and threatens to leave behind those who might struggle to keep up with the pace of change. Implementing AI across a business is actually less about the technology itself and more about the approach and strategy behind the use of AI.
Is AI being developed to rid people of their jobs, or to enhance their day-to-day work and open up space for innovative thinking? Are we designing AI tools to dismantle bias and mitigate harm, or is the pace of development glossing over key ethical questions? Are we leveraging AI tools to uplift marginalised groups in the workplace, or are we pushing people out? And crucially, are we equipping our teams with the skills to navigate this new AI-enhanced landscape, or are we leaving them in the dark? The acute need for a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion lens across all AI strategies is missing in many conversations around AI, even in the ethical AI space. DEI must be a foundational principle to embed AI systems that put people first and to help build trust that AI can benefit all. Applying a DEI lens means prioritising equity, fairness and inclusivity from the get-go.
It means centring marginalised communities in AI’s design and deployment, tailoring training programs to ensure all employees can upskill in AI, and committing to equitable outcomes through AI usage, even if it means taking a hit to the bottom line. In the world of AI video and influencer marketing that’s not likely to mean removing AI video and influencers altogether. But it might mean ensuring rigorous control over potentially harmful content created by these tools. It could mean working with minority-led businesses to shape marketing strategies or ring-fencing budgets to commit to working with human influencers and creative strategists.
With AI development outpacing regulatory frameworks, businesses must take the lead in crafting people-centred AI strategies that leave no one behind. AI has the potential to be the ultimate leveller, democratising access to information and resources, automating routine tasks and opening room for innovation. AI can become a pivotal force for equality when anchored with a commitment to fair outcomes.
But realising this promise depends on businesses’ collective commitment to addressing not just the technological possibilities, but the human implications, so that they don’t lose sight of what truly matters in their quest for relevance.
Swathes of the population who are already facing financial exclusion are not even on the radar of pension schemes, as new research has found that more than one in three pension schemes don’t collect any diversity data on their members at all. And the ones that do often only scratch the surface, tracking just age and gender.
This is not just a logistical hurdle; it’s a symbol of a deep, systemic issue that fuels the cycle of economic inequality.
The Pensions Gap throws a spotlight on how marginalised groups have been missing out on their chance for a secure retirement. Only a quarter of ethnic minority individuals have a workplace pension, compared to 38% nationally, and for those that do have a pension pot, it’s less than half the size of an average white British person. Disabled? Your pension pot might be just over a third of the average. And though we’re chipping away at the gender pension gap, it’s still at 37.9%. That means women are ending up with disproportionately lower retirement incomes than men.
Retirement has become a “privilege”, as one respondent to a study stated. It’s particularly tough for marginalised communities, who often already face financial exclusion through lower-paid jobs, unpaid labour and unemployment. The result? Financial instability, and poor physical and mental wellbeing when they retire, at best. Outright poverty at worst.
When pension schemes don’t track the diversity data of their members, they’re entrentching the economic divide. Without knowing who their members are, and importantly, who is falling through the net, pension schemes can’t create tailored products or provide specialised education that could help bridge the wealth gap.
Part of the issue is a lack of engagement of minoritised groups. Studies have shown that over a quarter of those from minority ethnic communities see pension schemes risky and in fact turn to religious institutions to provide financial guidance. Pension schemes need to step up and build trust by really getting to know their members, and fill in the gaps – something shockingly few are doing right now. But collecting data is just step one. It’s on the pension schemes to then take some action.
They can start rebuilding trust by providing financial education in multilingual resources, developing targeted education programmes and tailored pension products. They should also think out-of-the-box, like partnering with NGOs or religious institutions to offer resoures via trusted places. Similarly, they could leverage Diversity, Equity and Inclusion champions in workplaces to hand out financial advice in a way that really speaks to people.
With FCA regulations just around the corner, pension funds are at a crossroads. See this as a tick-box exercise or take this as a chance to win back trust from minority groups and make steps to close the wealth gap.
This is a pivotal moment for the industry. It’s more than just compliance; it’s about stepping up as leaders. Pension schemes have the power to reshape norms, push inclusivity front and centre, and disrupt the cycle of economic inequality. By smartly harnessing data for bold action, pension schemes can lead the charge towards a fairer financial future. After all, a secure retirement isn’t a privilege – it’s a right everyone deserves.
I work closely with large multinationals to help them to meaningfully engage with equity. This often boils down to a question about power. Who has power, and who doesn’t? Who has genuine routes to decision making? Who has the access to relay the stories about themselves? Who has the luxury of time, space and funds for creativity?
When we’re talking about racial equity, we’re talking about redistributing power in a sector where a select few people have been afforded the equal opportunity to forge their own paths.
Our professions don’t exist in a vacuum. They are heavily impacted by world events. We know, for example, that Covid-19 disproportionately impacted the ethnic minority population. We know that health inequity means that Black women are 4 times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth. We know that the cost of living crisis, while impacting many people across the UK, is hitting ethnic minority groups the hardest.
It’s in this context that we need to understand racial inequities in the workplace. Breaking the glass ceiling is only going to go so far if we’re looking at redressing wider societal imbalance – which, I believe, is the true and meaningful work that anyone aiming to embed racial equity into their organisations needs to be looking to do.
So what does this mean in practice? The industry has never been in a better position to tackle racial inequity and has been making those steps over the last two years. Companies are more confident than ever to bridge the gap between external political events and the impact that this has on their employees. To thrive, people need to feel like their experiences are validated, acknowledged and that they are supported.
In the wake of the Black Lives Matter Movement, many companies have started to address this with bold commitments to racial equity, being anti-racist, and often putting huge amounts of money behind those commitments. When these have been done successfully, it’s because of a groundswell of support – from the senior leaders to managers to colleagues. Allyship is also woven throughout the process. It’s part of senior managers’ objectives and KPIs, linked to their performance. It’s not just wheeled out on Black History Month or Pride Week, it’s a consistent flow throughout the year.
Next, we need to think about who we’re reaching. A career in PR is probably not even on the radar of the people who will be our future leaders. So we need to source them. That is through partnering with brilliant organizations like Creative Access, Rare and the Taylor Bennet foundation. But it’s also through doing our own work to go into local schools, work with refugee organisations, run career sessions in prisons. If we’re looking to embed racial equity in our workplace, we need to address racial inequity in society, and that’s through providing opportunity to those that don’t have access to it as easily.
I’ll finish with one final point that I think is crucial when it comes to this topic. We can’t underestimate the power of collective action, and the impact this is having on companies. We only need to look at to Netflix’s walk-out of LGBT+ employees in protest of Dave Chapelle, the protests at Disney to their lack of response to the Don’t Say Gay Bill, and the outrage that ensued when Jay Z hosted the Oscars after-party at Chateau Marmont knowing their history of allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Workers are demanding more from their employers. Embedding equity isn’t just a nice-to-have, or good for the bottom line, it has the power to make or break a company
This article was originally featured in The Guardian. You can read the original article here.
Rape and sexual assault are rife in British universities: men and women need to be taught that sex requires enthusiastic verbal agreement.
The meaning of sexual consent is often misunderstood in disturbing ways by young people. There’s the idea that if you wear sexy clothing you’re asking for it; that silence during a sex act equals consent; and that women are always falsely accusing men of sexual assault and rape. Surveys have shown that one in two boys and one in three girls think it is OK to sometimes hit a woman or force her to have sex. All of which suggests a new approach is necessary. We need to teach young women and men about affirmative, enthusiastic and informed consent.
This year colleges at Cambridge University have introduced consent talks and workshops after a student survey revealed 77% of respondents had experienced some form of sexual harassment. This culture isn’t restricted to Cambridge. It’s estimated that more than 400,000 women are sexually assaulted each year in England and Wales, and I have friends in universities across the UK who have described being raped, assaulted or coerced into sex. One friend, who has been sexually pressured on a number of occasions, confessed that she was afraid of men walking out on her if she didn’t do what they wanted.
The introduction of consent education in Cambridge sparked controversy among students. It was suggested that the workshops and talks would be patronising and useless, because everyone already knew about consent. Some students reacted to the idea that consent workshops should be compulsory by saying this would be a “contradiction in terms”. One, writing in Cambridge’s Varsity newspaper, was furious that consent workshops equated rape, “a criminal act”, with “behaviour they [women] find offensive”. Others responded: “As future leaders, it is our responsibility to support [consent workshops].”
It’s an odd argument that these talks and workshops should be supported simply because students will soon be in positions of power. It’s also worrying that their introduction fuelled such a backlash. Universities are in desperate need of consent workshops because rape and sexual assault are rife in these environments. The Hidden Marks report by the National Union of Students showed that, from a nationwide sample of 2,000 female students, one in seven had been seriously physically or sexually assaulted, 68% had been subjected to sexual harassment, and 16% had experienced unwanted kissing or touching during their time at university. In other words, ask any female student and it’s highly probable that she will have a story to tell you about sexual harassment, which either she or someone she knows has experienced.
I think some of the fear around consent workshops stems from the way they bring rape so worryingly close to home. They acknowledge that a rapist isn’t just a stranger in a dark alley – it’s more likely to be the person next door who you were too drunk to consent to sleep with, or the friend who refused your request to stop halfway through. We need consent classes to teach students that sex is an activity that requires the enthusiastic verbal agreement of all participants. No absolutely means no. And yes absolutely means yes.
But the workshops are also a chance to discuss the subtleties of particular situations – those in which a person may not be able to consciously consent to sex, or those in which “yes” is assumed. Consent has to be a conscious, willing agreement, made without pressure or coercion.
Consent workshops aren’t about preaching or judging. I attended a training session earlier this year that explained how they would work, and we discussed the sorts of things in everyday life we typically ask consent for. This ranged from seeing if a chair is free, to going to the toilet during a class. It revealed that we ultimately ask for people’s consent all the time, so in sex it should be no different. We also discussed how to “check in” with your partner, to see if they consent at different stages of an encounter, and the ways in which people in ongoing relationships can negotiate an understanding of consent. When feeding back to the session, the phrase that kept being repeated was “Just ask”.
The idea of affirmative and enthusiastic consent encourages people to regard sex as a positive, willing action. It’s about teaching women and men not to be ashamed of sex, and to proceed consciously and confidently. An understanding of consent engenders respect for everyone: from those who choose to refrain from sex to those who are in relationships, and those who engage in sex in a wide variety of situations. Consent is about ensuring that people are completely comfortable in their sexual decisions, whatever those might be.
Colleges at Cambridge have taken a big step by introducing consent talks and workshops – but I’d like to see these made compulsory in all universities across the UK. The workshops bring home the difficult truth that we are all capable of violating someone else’s consent, while creating a safe space to discuss the meaning of consenting positively and enthusiastically. They are empowering, and absolutely necessary.
Glocalisation refers to the concept of adapting global ideas, processes or products to local environments and contexts. Businesses have been adapting a glocal mindset for years, understanding that international success is best achieved when local perspectives are accounted for and products are adapted to appeal to local cultures.
Organisations should be adopting a glocal mindset not just when it comes to the expansion of their products, but also when it comes to the expansion of their Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. A glocalised Diversity and Inclusion strategy would allow for local cultures to either adapt a centralised strategy to their own culture and values, or to create their own strategy altogether to appeal to the local perspective.
In “Is Glocalisation the future of D&I”, Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett explores three models that multinational organisations use to address, elevate and celebrate the multicultural and multifaceted nature of their teams.
The first model, “When in Rome” speaks to creating an individual strategy based on the local culture, values and environment. This would be a decentralised approach that gave full autonomy to local regions to create a strategy that fit their local perspectives.
The next model, “Embassy”, speaks to creating a sub-set of the central HQ Strategy. This would be an adaptation of the central strategy based on local culture and values, with some key common values weaved throughout.
The final model, “Advocate”, speaks to a position in which the organisation believes that there are some universal values that supersede local perspectives, such as LGBTQ+ rights or the rights of women. In these instances, organisations would like to use their power to influence behaviour, rather than compromise on what is believed to be objective truth.
While these models have power in enabling an organisation to unify under a global approach, I believe that the rigidity of these models does not allow for real, authentic and diverse innovation. Any diversity strategy will most likely be an amalgamation of aspects of each of these models, or at the very least have room to allow for an agile shift from one model to another.
Rather than wedding an organisation to a particular model, I argue that there is a body of work an organisation needs to undertake to appropriately understand the values, meaning and principles that underpin any diversity work. A framework in this manner would allow an organisation to interrogate their current diversity strategy with a view to build a global strategy with local perspectives.
The “Glocal Engagement Framework” is a framework developed by Fay Patel particularly aimed at glocalisation within a higher education context. Fay describes the Glocalisation Engagement Framework as “a learning and teaching quality paradigm embracing equity, inclusivity and diversity as a sustainable, forward looking international higher education paradigm”.
Source: Fay Patel 2019
The Framework aims to encourage communities to find common ground, and to cultivate new shared meaning in order to action change. It especially aims to encourage the “respectful and negotiated exchange of cultural wealth”. The framework is made up of Global Engagement Dimension (GED) and Principles of Global Engagement (PGE). The GED is based on the values that determine the fairness of any actioned outcome, while the PGE is based on Klyukano’s principles of intercultural communication which allow for the successful, fair and just development of a new shared meaning.
The Global Engagement Dimensions aim to ensure that any outcome is fair and just. These dimensions have been developed by Patel and address the core traits that one must hold to create any truly glocal strategy. The Dimensions focus on traits such as Intellect, Morality, Emotion and Action.
Intellect refers to knowledge, education and wisdom. Emotion refers to sensitivity and compassion. Morality refers to integrity, virtue and fairness, and action refers to the desire to change situations.
The Principles of Glocal Engagement refer to the values that underpin a genuine, respectful exchange of cultural wealth. These values have been adapted from Kluykanov’s Intercultural Communication Principles which outlines principles that allow for constructive, continually negotiated and sustainable interaction between people with diverse cultures, traditions and identities.
Source: Fay 2017
Fay describes the framework in a higher education context as “a forward thinking, proactive framework. In committing to mutually acceptable norms of engagement (respect, voice and trust, for example), stakeholders engage respectfully in the consensus seeking dialogue.”
I believe we can adapt this framework to work in a Diversity and Inclusion context. A diversity strategy that genuinely seeks to support the global employee group whilst adequately addressing local perspectives will benefit from a strategy that is based on a glocalised framework, i.e. a framework that speaks to the engagement of multiple stakeholders with multiple global perspectives, mutually agreeing on a shared vision.
I will use an example to showcase how the Glocalised Engagement Framework (GEF) can be used in practice. In this instance, the GEF will be used to test whether a strategy is truly glocal in nature. I believe that the GEF can also be used to create a strategy in the first place, to ensure that a glocalised approach is at the very heart of the strategy.
Let’s take international law firm Herbert Smith Freehill’s 2018- 2021 Global Diversity Strategy as our example. Herbert Smith Freehill’s diversity strategy focuses on the inclusion strand of D&I, with the aim to “place the creation of a truly inclusive culture front and centre of our strategy”.
Their Leading for Inclusion strategy takes us through four key pillars of inclusion. These pillars range from Talent to Clients to Innovation and Values, ending with a section on how they will measure success.
Herbert Smith Freehill’s strategy is rooted in values of connectedness, collaboration and leadership. The strategy does reach each of the Glocal Engagement Dimensions as set out by Patel. The strategy clearly displays Intellect by outlining the ‘why’ behind the strategy, such as the benefit of inclusive teams and the centrality of inclusion to reach authentic diversity. The strategy also displays an appreciation of emotion as it discusses the impact of diversity on the psychological safety of individuals within an organisation, “there is a high level of psychological safety within an inclusive organisation”. The strategy’s sense of morality can be seen in their values to connect, collaborate, excel and lead. And their resolve to build and change situations can be seen not only in the creation of the strategy, but in the fact that they have publicly shared their strategy online.
Glocal Engagement Dimensions (Patel 2017)
Herbert Smith Freehill Diversity Strategy
Intellect – Ability to demonstrate knowledge, education and wisdom
Yes – a reference to the “why” behind the strategy and knowledge of the context behind the need for diversity
Emotion – Sensitivity, understanding, intuition and compassion
Yes – a discussion of the positive psychological impact of developing an inclusive organisation
Morality – Act with integrity, virtue and fairness
Yes – a focus on values to connect, collaborate, excel and lead
Action – Resolve to build and change situation
Yes – creation of a strategy which is shared widely online to inspire other organisations
So far, Herbert Smith Freehill have ticked every box of the Glocal Engaement Dimensions. This is a fantastic start, and their actioned outcomes are much more likely to be fair, inclusive and diversified. However, on greater interrogation, it becomes clear that the strategy Herbert Smith Freehill have created is global rather than glocal in nature. When we run the strategy through the lens of the Principles of Glocal Engagement, it misses some crucial principles that would root a diversity strategy in a glocal context. While the strategy focuses on some brilliant routes to collaboration through networks and client relationship building, encouraging a building of shared meaning and a shared vision, there is little to show for the local contexts in which this global strategy will be carried out.
For example, “Multiple Global Perspectives” (Principle 6) and “Ground[ing] oneself in Context”( Principle 4) are lacking in this strategy, thus firmly positioning this strategy as a global, centralised strategy with little tailored local implementation. There is little information about the make-up of Herbert Smith Freehill’s global team, the local cultures that make up the company, and current diversity data. The strategy, which is at one point referred to as “Global one-firm inclusive culture”, seems firmly rooted in a non-glocalised approach. However, that is not to say that the strategy is not brilliant in many ways. By taking the strategy through the Glocalised Engagement Framework, we can see the individual strands of the strategy that may need a little more work, and the areas that are well thought out and destined for success. The Glocalised Engagement Framework in this manner is a brilliant framework that allows for a nuanced, well-analysed strategy.
The Principles of Glocal Engaement below refer to the stakeholders most involved in the benefits / impact of the Diversity Strategy.
Principles of Glocal Engagement (Patel 2017)
Herbert Smith Freehill Diversity Strategy
1 – Draw mutually acceptable boundary lines
Yes – developed a governance structure to ensure that there is clear accountability.
2 – Negotiation and sharing of relevant information
Yes – a focus on the role that ERG networks have to increase engagement and share information.
3 – Cultivate new shared meaning
Yes – an established definition of Diversity and Inclusion from their perspective. “Defining what we mean”, ensuring shared meaning.
4 – Position or ground oneself in a context
No – very little information about the context in which HSF have built this strategy, who it will affect, how it will vary in a global context, an appreciation of local nuances.
5 – Find common ground among stakeholders
Yes – a focus on client collaboration and network profiling.
6 – Consider multiple global perspectives
No – little discussion about perspectives from a global nature and the potential impact this might have on the global nature of the strategy.
7 – Consider ongoing interaction in negotiating shared meaning
Yes – working with networks to develop their annual plans based on wider strategy, allowing for local nuance whilst still feeding into wider strategy.
8 – Transaction component of global community building related to exchange of cultural wealth and indigenous knowledge
Yes – found in the ‘Values’ pillar, to connect, collaborate and lead. The aim here is to share cultural wealth via networks and clients.
9 – Cooperative nature and integration of global community building
Yes / No – a focus on collaboration but little discussion of the global nature of community building.
10 – Long term mutually respectful relationship
Yes – a governance and accountability structure in place to ensure that targets are met, and that the strategy rooted in collaboration is followed.
This example serves to showcase how a Glocalised Engagaement Framework can be used to test the glocal nature of a strategy. It is through this framework that we can understand the nuanced nature of the strategy and can identify the key areas that require further development. A Glocalised Engagement Framework can thus be used to rethink certain aspects of a strategy whilst also celebrating the aspects that are working well.
Organisations that wish to expand their global strategy into authentic, local implementation, should adopt a glocal approach, using the Glocalised Engagement Framework as a route for interrogation and adaptation. As a result, Diversity and Inclusion strategies have the potential to be far-reaching, powerful in their capacity to effect change, and serve to unify organisations through consistent collaboration, negotiation and compassion.
