The first thing to say about the LGBT dimension of diversity is that it is the one ‘strand’ that can choose to be invisible. The importance of role models is probably therefore even more pronounced because people can come into work and choose to be ‘invisible’ in a way you cannot if you are a woman, or if you are from a particular ethnic background, or if you are disabled. Some types of disability are not visible, of course, but it seems to me that role models become even more important in these contexts, especially high profile and successful role models who address that issue of invisibility.
People may recall what that meant for J. P. Morgan; in 2002 we addressed the issue very tangibly with a cross campus poster campaign which subsequently got wide coverage in the legal press: ‘The Only Gay In The City?’ and ‘Let’s Get One Thing Straight’ and it was enormously impactful. We put it everywhere, across the trading floors, etc (taking it a step further from the usual internal communication areas), and things snowballed from there.
Back in mid-2000, we, along with a number of the other investment banks, were involved in ‘Out In The City’, which was an annual evening event involving panels of employees from various functional groups with a Q&A and presentations. We collectively put money into a pot and brought together a cadre of 60/70 high calibre students, who just happened to be LGBT. We held the event at a neutral venue and gave an opportunity for each of the graduate recruitment teams to have a stand, as well as formal and informal networking with staff. I would often chair the Q&A panels. I can remember talking to students who said ‘I never thought I would meet a gay MD at an investment bank’. Time has moved on, of course, but I believe experiences like this could be invaluable for some aspiring lawyers.
Although there is an element of truth in the statement that you have to be ‘counted in order to count’, I am generally quite skeptical of statistics. I know it is a component of many RFPs, but I have always said that statistics are only one element of the toolkit you could use to assess progress on inclusive workplace environments. I am a greater advocate of ‘soft cultural indicia’ – the messaging you are sending out in your corporate DNA – which are somewhat subjective relative to hard numbers. Clear signals of these are employee networking groups and other support structures including workplace benefits. I can remember a conversation at the establishment of the Joint Associations Committee on Retail Structured Products (which I chair): ‘Well, we are going to comply with the law and regulation so why do we need industry principles or best practices?’ Law firms have made leaps and bounds on this and there has been some very creative thinking in firms about leveraging diverse networks of lawyers across the spectrum of business relationships with clients – for example the annual Art Exhibition that Clifford Chance organises for LGBT clients and counsel.
Fundamentally though, I think it all comes down to professional credibility – to competence, commitment and character. I am keen to be the managing director of J.P. Morgan who is gay – not a gay MD at J.P. Morgan. And one ambition is to be the first Lord Mayor of the City of London who is openly gay – not The Gay Lord Mayor. Professional credibility and achievement comes first (being really good at your job), not diversity as some sort of predefining label – because that is just the wrong way around. That then makes the diversity conversation resonate more effectively and more strategically within an organisation, otherwise it can rapidly generate the perception of a clique with its own set of terms, which is rather ironic when it is supposed to be about inclusion not exclusiveness. If there is a credible business outcome on talent, on organisational effectiveness and performance, then that gets more traction with decision-makers than someone who is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as only advancing a self-interested agenda, however ‘worthy’ it might be at face value.
I am also keen to ensure that we focus on the fact that we firmly contextualise this in work, about the success of the bank, to help people fully contribute and succeed in their jobs, and attracting talent. It is not about being especially ‘nice’ to gay people or supporting worthy causes that have little to do with the day job. There are many things out there that people can support in their own time, but where this has a material impact for J.P. Morgan is in the context of the business.
J.P. Morgan is rightly proud to have been a front runner in LBGT initiatives, but it has been an iterative process. There was an element of nervousness at first: partly people were unfamiliar with the issues, and also there was just a degree of ignorance. I genuinely don’t mean that at all pejoratively. I think there was perhaps a bit of hesitation about asking the questions, but a great deal of goodwill. I can remember we had a successful networking event at the V&A which leveraged an exhibition of Kylie Minogue’s costumes. We threw an event there off the back of this and I wrote a briefing paper to Bill Winters, our former CEO, and other senior colleagues. It was an aide memoir of the different vocabulary used in the LGBT community (such as ‘Why is Stonewall important?’ and ‘What’s the “T” in LGBT?), trying to answer some of the questions not asked before that point. There was an element of a learning curve but there was no resistance or hostility at all. In a sense we were pushing at an open door – it just had to be articulated. This was in 2003/2004, and I would be very surprised if that was necessary in most organisations now. Society has moved on, but the private sector’s paradigm has definitely shifted too, certainly in professional and financial services. I suppose it is valid to ask whether you are actually affecting change or harnessing the undercurrent of change that is already flowing under the surface? I think there has been a bit of the ‘right place, right time’ here, but someone had to edge it constructively forward.
We are confident that LGBT candidates have applied to J.P. Morgan in part because they see the legal department as a welcoming and inclusive place. I have people in my own group who are LGBT and if you asked them whether that was relevant in their deciding to come to us, I think they would say yes. There has also been academic research that demonstrates that places that are welcoming to LGBT are also generally welcoming to women, and that women were looking at that material and basing judgments on where they wanted to work based on that information. Visible role models communicate powerfully that you can be successful, and that being who you are is a non-issue.
What are the strategic imperatives and benefits for J.P. Morgan? Well, I think a balance of different perspectives and the way in which that informs an individual’s approach to an issue, from who they are and what their life experiences have been, can only be of benefit to a franchise which is fundamentally about people and service. The classic example is law firms. You assume a basic technical competence in the law, so beyond that, what are the differentiators? How creatively do they think? Who sees the different angle to the obvious? This is also true for financial services to an extent. If are homogeneous in your recruiting, you do yourself, your clients and your shareholders a disservice, because the creative energy comes from difference. This is an incredibly vibrant and healthy thing and it ultimately contributes to the bottom line.
I think the ‘buzzwords’ that get knocked around are ‘talent’, ‘people development’, etc, but the plain fact of the matter is that the best people come in all shapes, sizes, colours, sexualities and so forth, and any firm premised on people capital that fails to get that fundamental fact won’t succeed in the face of the competition that does. So do I think I personally approach things in a way that is informed by my own professional and personal experiences, that it is different than the way, for example, a heterosexual man or a woman might approach things? Yes, I do – though it doesn’t make me anymore right or wrong with the answers!
I think lawyers are in a unique position on this topic, being potentially powerful advocates and respected and trusted advisers. However, one of the differences between a lawyer in a bank and a lawyer in a law firm is that in a law firm you are the ‘front office’ – the revenue generators – and when you go in-house you reverse that and become a cost (!). What both law firm and in-house counsel have in common is an inherent sense of equity, fairness and justice, as well as the intellectual rigour of the discipline. Most lawyers I know have a basic instinct to do the right thing irrespective of their practice area. It is fundamental to the DNA of a lawyer, even when it isn’t necessarily popular or what people want to hear on a particular issue. There is just an inherent dislike of injustice, discrimination, unfairness, that speaks very powerfully to equality of opportunity and fair treatment of all people.
GC: Do you have any advice for people looking to do more with diversity and inclusion?