Challenges and Opportunities in Inclusive Leadership

What does it mean to truly embrace disability inclusion in the business world? Join us for a revealing conversation with Diane Lightfoot from the Business Disability Forum, as we unravel the complexities of making disability inclusion a central pillar of corporate responsibility. Highlighting insights from the Global Business Disability Network conference by the ILO, we examine how this crucial issue has evolved from a marginal concern to a mainstream agenda. Diane shares her expertise, guiding us through the intricate balance between ethical imperatives and compliance-driven approaches. We also discuss the potential hazards of focusing solely on the business case, such as microaggressions and tokenism, as pointed out by a Catalyst report.

Our discussion takes a deeper turn as we confront the challenges businesses face in addressing larger social issues of identity and inclusion. We consider the fragmentation within identity groups and the complications that arise when individuals are hesitant to identify with them due to societal perceptions. Diane and I ponder the power of unity and community, debating whether the division of employee resource groups aids or impedes their strength in collective action. We wrap up with a thoughtful exploration of the differing responsibilities between employers and the state in tackling health and social issues, focusing on the disparities smaller organizations face compared to larger enterprises. This episode encourages a rethinking of traditional strategies and roles, urging businesses to integrate disability inclusion meaningfully into their broader objectives.

Transcript

Neil Milliken: 0:00

I'm delighted that we're joined today by Diane Lightfoot from Business Disability Forum. Diane, it seems like ages since I saw you. Well, maybe yesterday, because we were at the ILO at their Global Business Disability Network conference, where we were talking about taking accessibility, disability, inclusion in business from the margins to the mainstream. So it's great to have you and to be able to follow up on that conversation today. And thank you for putting up with me for yet another day. I mean, it's a pretty long week for you, I have to say.

Diane Lightfoot: 0:38

Well, I think it's probably the other way around. Thank you for still having me on after me, probably boring you silly at various points or something silly anyway, at the ILO. And yet it does seem like only yesterday, possibly because it is.

Debra Ruh: 0:54

Yeah.

Neil Milliken: 0:55

So I mean, it was great to see so many businesses gathering there and sending people to share what they're doing and their best practices and so on. And we've both been going and, deborah, I know you've also, you know, been from from time to time. You couldn't be there this year because you were eating turkey, because we're recording this over thanksgiving week, um, but when we started, it was definitely just, you know, the disability people and the and, to a certain extent, the HR people, because it was the DEI diversity disability people rather than the accessibility people that were. Time that's changed.

Neil Milliken: 1:43

What I've noticed over the last couple of years is there's actually sort of several different groups of people now attending.

Neil Milliken: 1:50

You've got some technical people attending.

Neil Milliken: 1:52

You've still got the DEI HR people attending it is the international labour organisation, after all but then there's also the CS, the csr and sustainability people um taking part now and this created a a really interesting dynamic and we were talking about this off air and maybe, deborah, you want to come in on this where there's um different viewpoints as to why you would be doing disability inclusion right.

Neil Milliken: 2:27

So there's the viewpoint of we do this because it's the right thing to do. You know, it makes us better organizations, it makes us more attractive, it's part of our employee value proposition, or we do it because it's compliance. And then there's the sort of well, we do it because it's kind of compliance, but we have to report on it, and and so there's the, the, the lenses through which we were looking at it were really quite different throughout the day and maybe, like diane, because you were there, you might say something and then, deborah, you can comment sure, and I think I think that whole thing around the business case versus the kind of ethical, moral case, if you like it keep it keeps coming up all the time.

Diane Lightfoot: 3:08

And, um, yesterday morning I think it was yesterday morning, it feels like it could have been a year ago or about half an hour ago um rubina singh from the ilo was talking about their new report, which is called putting the eye in esg, and she was talking about double materiality and talking about social stuff. So obviously, in this context, disability inclusion in both a qualitative and a quantitative way. But then she said but the message is not hire disabled people because it will make you more money. That is not. That is not the message. The message is it's the right thing to do, and I'm paraphrasing here, neil, you can correct me um, and then if investors will start looking for that because they believe it's an important part about being a responsible, sustainable corporation, not because they're just seeing pound signs on people's heads.

Diane Lightfoot: 4:01

And that was really interesting for me because I was reading a report a little while ago, before one of our other events that we had, from an organization called Catalyst who had surveyed, I think, six and a half thousand people with disabilities. And they were saying that the kind of business case around productivity, if used on its own, could lead to an increase in microaggressions and tokenism and all this kind of stuff. And so they were saying, if you're going to use the business case, you have to use the ethical, moral case as well, otherwise it drives the wrong behaviors.

Debra Ruh: 4:36

So I thought that was fascinating yes, and Diane, I know that we were talking before we got on air and we definitely need to let you reintroduce yourself, just in case our audience I mean, we just know you so well and you've been on the show multiple times but I'm going to make a quick comment and then give it back to you so you can reintroduce yourself and your amazing organization, Because Neil had said in the comment I forgot to let her introduce herself. Yes, so, but I would just say make this comment and then turn it back to you and Neil can comment is. I think you're right. I think that the times have changed so much and the expectations that the community which, by the way, who is even the community? The community is so splintered and um and it's uh and, and this cancer culture and all the things that are happening right now, it is making it very tricky. And I think it is very tricky for corporate brands. I think it's also very, very tricky for organizations like yours, Diane, which I would consider a business to business group, and so I think that and I know some the tones are getting aggressive some ways, I would say even the comment, Diane, you had made about the wonderful speech that was done at the ILO. That was done at the ILO.

Debra Ruh: 6:02

Sadly, here in the United States and I want to mention again, I love being an American, but sadly here in the United States we were really hopeful that when the funders, the private equity firms, the angel investors, came in and said, wow, let's stop talking about the business case, or the business case is ethical and everything. Let's make sure we're meaningfully including these people. Unfortunately we did not have. Sadly, here in the United States, we, certainly in the accessibility field, did not have the kind of success we were hoping for. What we saw instead was private investors jumping into this, spending tons of money, reducing it down to as unhelpful to us as possible, creating all these overlays, using these index tools and different things against the community. It's just sort of sad how some of it has unfolded, and so I think there's good reasons why we're having these difficult, tough conversations. But sometimes, Diane, it feels to me like we keep making the same mistakes over and over again. But let me turn it over to you and I'll hush.

Diane Lightfoot: 7:12

So if you want to introduce myself, now that I haven't, I could say that I am an international woman of mystery. Unfortunately that is not the case, but I am lucky enough to be CEO of Business Disability Forum, which is based in the UK and now works with over 600 businesses across all the sectors. At least half of them are global. But we describe ourselves you're right that we are a business to business organisation and we're a non-profit. But we we describe ourselves as sitting kind of at the intersection of business, government and disabled people, and that's that's really important that all our positions and all our advice is informed by disabled people, informed by the community. And it's somewhere between 60 and 65 percent of our team identifies having a disability or long-term condition, and that's something that's really really important to us about what we do. It's it's not kind of. This is what we're going to sort of say, that we've kind of cooked up. This is actually what we've learned from the community, from within our own and and also kind out there.

Diane Lightfoot: 8:25

And I liked what you were saying about angel investors. That's such a great term, isn't it? I suspect they probably aren't as angelic as the term suggests, but just yesterday again in this same panel, two different panellists had different views on. One said they were in favour of targets and not quotas, but then the other one said they were in favour of quotas as a means for drawing down investment. So not quite the same as you get a fine if you don't meet it, but you get money if you do meet it and of course that is well. From my perspective, and I'm sure yours, Deborah, that is fraught with, let's at least say, unintended consequences potentially, which does worry me.

Neil Milliken: 9:13

Yeah, oh goodness. Yes, I must have been lacking in attention at that moment. I would have been raising an eyebrow when people were saying we think that quotas are a good thing well, it was one, only one person, and it was towards the end of the panel.

Diane Lightfoot: 9:31

And I think it was also because I'd sat near the front on the second day and I discovered the little earpiece thing which meant you could hear a lot but, I, did kind of go, oh, but then the panel wound up, so uh yeah so it's interesting.

Neil Milliken: 9:44

I think that you can reward people for hitting targets but when you make them mandatory, that becomes really challenging and it does, as you say, drive these unintended behaviours, because you end up with things like phantom hiring or you know um sheltered workshops where, yes, you get numbers of people that are ostensibly employed, but the quality of those jobs is usually at the lower end and people don't get the career progression and everything else. And so what are you? You wanted to come in or you? You're doing deaf clapping there, deborah on that, no, no I agree with you yeah, yeah, okay, so, yeah, so.

Neil Milliken: 10:34

So I think that you know, whilst the intent is good, we've, we've, we've observed over many decades that the outcomes can go awry. And I think that you know when I talk about sheltered workshops, there are disability-friendly companies in places like France that are starting to change the model from the sheltered workshop to something that's a bit better, because I, when I first started working for my current company, was somewhat surprised the way that things operated in France. It's like, oh no, it's okay, we all, we outsource our disabled people. Now we could. We don't employ the muscles, we outsource them working for an outsourcer.

Neil Milliken: 11:23

That was even stranger for me, um, but, but what I'm seeing among some of the better ones now is that they actually have a model where they want high employee churn so that what they're doing is they're they're training people up, they're giving them real jobs and they're getting them to a point where they want them to leave, to go into the employment in the mainstream companies, and I think that that model probably does work. It's the ones where you have people doing the low end jobs that are just parked there for the rest of their lives, where there's no prospect of being able to progress. That I get really concerned about.

Diane Lightfoot: 12:06

Totally agree with you and I think, also the expectations.

Diane Lightfoot: 12:11

So when somebody goes to a sheltered workshop or a trainee scheme or whatever it is and I say this, having worked for a learning disability charity for 13 years before I came to BDF just being really clear at the beginning that this is not where we expect you to stay forever.

Diane Lightfoot: 12:29

It's going to be somewhere that is hopefully a stepping stone and a springboard and all those kinds of things. And sometimes, to be fair to some of the projects that I've seen, people don't want to move on because it's cosy and it's comfortable and they came into it without an expectation of it moving on and they know all the staff and they've got all their friends and it's lovely. So I think you have to be really clear from the beginning to say this is about training you to get mainstream employment with a mainstream employer. This isn't somewhere where you're being parked. Whether you actually end up saying, well, I quite like being parked here. Thanks very much. And that's quite a difficult mindset and conversation for a lot of the people that run these projects, I think well, I know all this.

Antonio Santos: 13:17

I want to bring two, two issues to to the conversation. One is the boston consulting uh um research that uh told us that organizations believe have a certain number of people with disabilities, but then they have a lot more than they think they have. You know some numbers believing oh, we have 5%, in the end they have 20, 25% because many people don't identify themselves. So how can we all? Right, we have quotas, but there's always a number of people that are not going to be included or considered because they don't identify themselves. And the other angle is okay, we have quotas, we hire people with disabilities for certain jobs. How will that affect the perception that we have about what a person with disability can do? Because you see them doing oh no, it's someone that is taking care of the copies at the printer. So I just want to bring this because I think sometimes, when we go into the conversations of the quarters, we might miss the bigger picture. I don't know what you think of this.

Diane Lightfoot: 14:39

I think you're right. I think you're right, and I mean it's an incredibly live discussion at the moment in the policy space because it's very likely that pay gap reporting will be introduced in the UK, or at least consulted on, and we all and in terms of workforce, we already see that the most inclusive organizations can have the lowest number of people sharing that they have a disability or condition, because they don't need to, because the infrastructure is there. The choice is there, the flexibility is there, you can self-serve adjustments whatever it is. So there's choice is there, the flexibility is there, you can self serve adjustments whatever it is. So there's that angle on it. And then, when it gets to the pay gap piece specifically, you see all these issues of people being refused to work part-time or something like that, because it messes up the pay gap. And, as you say, if people don't tell you in the first place that they have a condition, then you end up with very, very narrow ideas of what disability is or what disabled people can do, let alone all the monitoring and reporting.

Neil Milliken: 15:38

So yeah, you're, you're absolutely right yeah, it's going to be a real challenge because, I mean, we, we in principle support the process of closing the disability pay gap, we've committed to doing it, but you're working with very fragmented and very poor data and to really address, you're only addressing it for the ones that have made a declaration officially, um and and so you then have a huge communication exercise and a huge trust exercise to go through with the rest of your employee base to say you know, we want this because we want to do right by you, serious effort and some serious convincing from employers to get through to employees that the rationale behind this is to pay them more, because that's not usually what employees are expecting their employers to be wanting to do.

Antonio Santos: 16:49

Something that I follow very closely is about the way how large companies communicate and, to be fair, it's very rarely we see a CEO ever mention the word disability. It's very rare, and I think the fact it's very rare, and I think the fact that it's very rare or sometimes they only talk about this at very specific events is somehow is not actually helping organizations in the overall and people in the organizations to feel the confidence. Yes, I can talk about it because my CEO is talking about it. I think this is that sometimes the people who lead these conversations at organizations are not at the senior level that people feel enough confidence to talk about themselves.

Debra Ruh: 17:48

I would like to come in here and Diane know yeah, I know you have the answer right away, but good point that you were making Antonio, because you know what we've seen. So this is my question for everybody on the call. I just am wondering if society is expecting too much from our corporate employers and for our business, to business groups as well, because the reality is we are asking employers to solve these major social issues that we don't know how to solve as society. So what we've done is we said okay, what I'm going to do is I'm going to break you into all these little tiny pieces so that I understand who you are, debra, so you identify as a woman, you're a woman over a certain age, you're an American, you're blah, blah, blah. Right, we keep going down. Obviously you are neurodiverse, with ADHD, but it feels like because I hear what you were saying, antonio, but it still feels like and the points that both Neil and Diane made, in that once we know you have identified, you've identified we know better how to support you because you've identified.

Debra Ruh: 18:56

But most of us don't want to identify because maybe society or my boss is going to decide that I'm broken somehow and I'm not going to be able to add value. And I think, antonio, even now, if the CEO of my and I've worked for major multi-billion dollar companies, if the CEO of my company and I've worked for major multi-billion dollar companies, if the CEO of my company comes out and says they have a disability, I'm probably going to really appreciate that because of the work and because of who I am, but I don't know that that would make me, as an employee, more willing to come out and admit something that might be seen as a detriment. So I just wonder if we are expecting the wrong things by the leaders that are trying to make a difference for our community. And I know I'm a broken record with this, but I just believe if the community does not come together and convene and become discoverable and have our voices heard in a different way, we're going to continue to fail all of us. I also want to say I know there are business groups out there that don't employ people with disabilities. I'm not going to name names, but I do know who you guys are. I do know that you are out there doing a lot of talking and yet you have one person, maybe with neurodiversity, working for you. So you're not even including us.

Debra Ruh: 20:06

So when we hear things like Diane's group has 65% of our community working for them with lived experiences, we need the allies too. We need our allies. But I just am so worried about it and Neil used the word fragmented and poor data want to applaud, Diane, all the work that y'all have done to make a difference for so many years, the ILO, so many groups trying to make a difference, corporate representatives like Antonio and Neil. But I still say, until we come together with pride and we come together in ways that we have not, I also am starting to get a little skeptical and think and there's a lot of money being spent and yet money doesn't want to flow to these identity conversations. Do the money? People not want us to convene, because if we convene, everything would change in a different, I think in a very powerful way. So, diane, over to you gosh.

Diane Lightfoot: 21:05

I don't know about having the answer, um, but just just some things. And I think you're so right about coming together and it was our global conference, our bdf global conference just over a week ago, a week yesterday, and the closing keynote was from lamondre, pew of billion strong, who is always an incredible speaker, but one, one thing he said that I think lots of people took away was if you're not at the table, you're on the menu, and the need for the community to be together, to be present, to be heard, to take up space. It was very, very well said and very, very powerful, and the fragmentation piece is something that worries me. There was a question at the ILO conference. There was a really good panel on um, ergs, on employee resource groups, and one of the questions was should you separate out neurodiversity and my brackets, other disability in employee resource groups? And the people on the panel all said well, it depends. It depends where you are and what's right for you and those sorts of things, and businesses do different things and I'm not going to pronounce one way or the other, but my, my question when I was listening to that was why? Why do you want separation?

Diane Lightfoot: 22:26

What is the problem with coming together and if we ultimately want to get to a place where we're all just seen as valid, valuable, important human beings, who are all different, then fragmenting further, in my opinion, is not helpful. And it's not helpful to say, well, we don't want to be with you with your dodgy legs or your dodgy ears or your dodgy eyes, because we're this and I just I just don't think that's helpful, and I was, and I was also wrote down. Consider the shared protection of the law also. People may have more than one condition and ultimately, if you experience barriers, then there is more that you have in common than you don't. So I I do really worry about that and then thank you.

Diane Lightfoot: 23:14

Um, I'm sure that will be controversial on the chat. Um, and the thing about expecting too much for employers I'm not sure this is exactly the same thing, but I've been thinking a lot about, like UK government wanting, wanting employers to do more around, say, health prevention and healthcare and those sorts of things. And again I've been sort of reflecting in how much should we say this is what we expect from you employers, and how much we say no, this is the responsibility of the state. But then if the state doesn't have enough funding or isn't doing it, then employers do need to step in. But then you get this divide between the bigger employers that not all but that can see the benefit and afford it, and then maybe the small employers who, even if they do see the benefit, can't, and you risk ending up with sort of two, two, a two-tier or multiple tier system, really. So I think these philosophical arguments are things that we're all really quite wrestling with at the moment. I'm not sure that answered your question, deborah.

Debra Ruh: 24:19

It was wonderful, it was excellent.

Antonio Santos: 24:21

Do you want to comment, Deborah?

Debra Ruh: 24:24

No, no, no, you go ahead, antonio.

Antonio Santos: 24:26

No, I just want to briefly mention the fact that, not just at the employer level resource groups but also if you look at how people with disabilities are represented in different European countries, how organizations are fragmented. Every time that there is fragmentation, the community loses power and loses influence and in some countries, if I go to the south of Europe, sometimes the overall. If we consider people as a community, we see that they don't have the strength and the lobby, the power, because they don't work together differently, so they are not able to come together to be able to be at the table, to be able to buy a ticket to be at the table, because they all work on their own things, they don't even talk with each other. So I think that's an observation that I see that in some situations are putting people with disabilities behind because there's not enough cooperation.

Neil Milliken: 25:44

Yeah, Well, we've heard for years the fact that everybody wants to fight for their piece of the pie rather than fighting to make the pie bigger. I think one of the other things that we were thinking about over the last few days was and I had discussions with a number of people was that when we talk about high performing teams in a different context because we were talking in terms of employment and we were talking about, you know, people with disabilities are really great workers and but we also have to acknowledge that we get sick, that we have to put in extra effort, that that all of these things impact on on our health, because and, diane, you were talking about the employer's responsibility for health. Sports teams have substitutes, they have a bench, and yet when you look to to large companies, the bench is usually the area that no one wants to be on, right, you know, now, to a certain extent, no one wants to be on the bench. If you're a professional footballer, you you want to be substituted onto the field to score your goals or whatever. But but for the good of the team, you need that, um, that ability to move people in and out when they get tired and so on, and we don't really do that in the same way in business, you know, we're always looking at sort of productivity and efficiency and people booking their hours and so on, rather than the outcomes, and I think that I don't have the answer as to how you address this, because actually you need some of that slack time and it's not just have you booked your annual leave.

Neil Milliken: 27:25

I think there's more to it than that in terms of re going to change the way that we work. So maybe it's an opportunity that we can reimagine how we work collectively together so we can substitute in and substitute out, so that people don't get so sick, people don't burn out, because you look all around everyone I was talking to, they were happy to be together, they were happy to conven, convene, they were really happy to see each other, everyone was tired and everyone was really feeling it so. So I wonder whether there's something there. And then the the last thing um was I. We were talking about it before we, before we came on air, and that was whether or not and we've talked about it on AccessTED a lot of times we need to be going out and talking to other industries and getting out of our bubble. But, diane, you said it, there's also something about being with like-minded people as well.

Diane Lightfoot: 28:35

Yeah, there's something about replenishing your energy and getting that kind of affirmation that you are pulling in the same direction, that you are making a difference, even if that's chipping away at it rather than kind of a huge seismic change overnight. So, yes, we need to reach beyond the converted, but coming together as our community also has a huge value, I think yeah, and and and.

Neil Milliken: 29:06

In keeping with that sporting analogy, I mean that that was my last ILO event representing my organisation as chair, so I passed the baton to one of our other former AXSC Chat guests, Steve Fremel from Merck MSD. So I think that it is together. Thank you, Diane, for us all to get together. It's been a marvellous chat, and it's great to have you back with us. I'm sure we'll enjoy the conversation on social media as well. I need to thank My Clear Text for keeping us captured and us for helping stay on air into our 11th year now. So, thank you once again.

Diane Lightfoot: 29:38

Thanks for having me. So thank you once again.