I suspect it will take English cricket a while to recover from the recent racism scandal.
Former Yorkshire player Azeem Rafiq recently gave evidence to MPs on the issue, highlighting racist language used at the club and giving an emotional account of his feelings of isolation and humiliation.
Examining the fallout, one sports editor described it as an example of the way sport “regularly forces society to confront some of its most important issues”.
That’s certainly true in this instance because, in the weeks that have followed, it has sparked much debate around the subject of institutional racism and how to stamp it out.
Something a lot of organisations have adopted as part of their equality, diversity and inclusion strategy is unconscious bias training. It aims to identify beliefs or stereotypes we may have that could guide our behaviour without us knowing.
England’s cricketers are amongst those to have taken part in this type of training – I remember reading about the Professional Cricketers’ Association bringing in experts to deliver workshops on unconscious bias.
You’d think any moves to tackle discrimination would be welcomed but I got the distinct impression there was some cynicism about the workshops.
News reports talked about staff being “forced” and “lectured” on “banter”. One article branded it “bizarre woke” training, almost ridiculing it.
The words made it sound trivial.
I don’t think it’s trivial at all – there are a lot of people who believe unconscious bias training can have a powerful and positive impact. It most certainly can’t hurt to gain insights into how we are programmed to think and act and be aware of the impact on others.
But there are mixed views on how effective it is and whether it can really contribute to meaningful change. Some critics believe it’s just a token gesture by companies who want to be seen to be doing something.
I don’t believe it’s the magic solution to changing attitudes, but I do believe it has its place so long as it is part of a wider package of measures which look at diversity and inclusivity.
The CIPD is a good place to look for guidance – it has created six principles to help businesses develop their anti-racism strategies. They include clarifying your company’s values, appraising your people management approach and connecting with your people so they can help inform your strategy.
It’s also worth looking at the work being undertaken by Scottish-based consultancy Masters in Minds which develops strategies for high performance by enlightening mindsets and transforming behaviours.
Its MD Julie McCann talks about “conscious culture” and stripping back ingrained ways of doing things that don’t work. Most importantly the company acknowledges the need to keep evolving and uses a phrase which I love: “Culture is a living thing. It is a leadership choice to actively cultivate or leave it to chance.”
I work with a diverse range of leaders and believe good leadership happens decision by decision, one issue at a time, and always with an eye on what you will and won’t tolerate in your organisation. Certainly, times are changing, and what was once tolerated is no longer (and nor should it be) acceptable.
It’s important to set boundaries and build an inclusive team while still allowing employees to show their individuality. There’s a great book called Inclusify by Stefanie K Johnston PhD which looks at this in more detail and examines how it can be used to build productivity.
If you are working to create a more positive environment in your workplace, that embraces diversity, this is a book well worth seeking out to help you build a more engaged, productive and empowered team.
Laura Gordon is a CEO coach and group chair with Vistage International, a global leadership development network for CEOs
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here