Research by Louise Ashley, Hilary Sommerlad and Jo Duberley highlights the structural nature of social exclusion and its connections to unequal access to educational opportunities

Ashley, Louise

Duberley, Jo

Sommerland, Hilary

LSE Research Online

8/5/2015Barriers to entry: social exclusion is rife in elite professionsin the UKblogs.lse.ac.uk /politicsandpolicy/barriers-to-entry-social-exclusion-is-rife-in-elite-professions/Research by Louise Ashley , Hilary Sommerlad and Jo Duberley highlights the structural nature of socialexclusion and its connections to unequal access to educational opportunities. In 2009 long-standing concerns about professional exclusivity in the UK were accentuated bypublication of the Milburn Review. This report noted, for example, that lawyers born in 1970 grew upin households that are better off than five out of six of all UK households, while the families ofaccountants born in 1970 had an income 40 per cent above the national average. Social exclusionis especially marked in the most prestigious, global professional service firms (PSFs).The exclusivity of these elite professions is particularly important not only because of the key socio-economic roles they play, but also because their claims to be meritocratic, socially detachedoccupations grounds their authority and lends a spurious legitimacy to wider social inequalities.In practice, their embeddedness in macro-level social stratification is revealed by the resilience oftheir exclusive character despite the expansion and apparent democratization of higher educationand the move, following deregulation of financial markets in the mid-1980s, from an era where jobswere often secured on the basis of informal social networks, to one of intense competition betweenmultinational organizations. In theory, these changes, which included the development of formalrecruitment and selection techniques, should have led to a diversification of these professions.The wide range of empirical evidence showing that this has not occurred prompted the SocialMobility and Child Poverty Commission (SMCPC) to commission research into the barriers to entryto the elite professions. Our study had two main objectives: first, to unlock the ‘black box’ ofrecruitment decisions within elite law and accountancy firms; second, to understand how these firmsidentify and define ‘talent’.We focused on talent because its meaning is unclear and our own previous research suggests that this ambiguityfacilitates a reliance on proxy measures of potential associated with middle-class status. We wanted to understandwhether more precise definitions of talent might mitigate this pattern. In order to achieve these objectives, weinterviewed fifty-five people at ten leading law and accountancy firms headquartered in the City, and ten generalcounsel (leading the in-house legal function) at FTSE100 companies. Interviewees either had responsibility forgraduate recruitment and HR, and/or had come from non-traditional backgrounds themselves.We also collected quantitative data in order to build up a profile of the current demographic composition of elite firms.This showed that, for example, close to 40 per cent of graduate trainees at elite law firms were educated at fee-paying schools (compared to seven per cent of the population), a figure which is only marginally lower than theprofile for current partners. Within the accountancy sector, at certain firms fewer than 30 per cent of new traineeshad been educated at a non-selective (comprehensive) state school. This compares to almost 90 per cent of thepopulation.These figures can be partially explained because elite firms focus their attraction strategies on a small number ofRussell Group universities. Potential applicants at these institutions are not only actively encouraged to apply, theyare also provided with coaching and support by firms, which helps them navigate the selection process. As a result,up to 50 per cent of applicants to a firm might be from 15 or fewer universities, and these applicants receive up to70 per cent of all job offers.1/3This has a direct impact on the socio-economic profile of professionals at leading firms because students at RussellGroup institutions are typically from relatively affluent backgrounds, and it appears likely that, as other research hasshown, those from lower socio-economic groups tend to self-select out of the application process on the groundsthat they will not ‘fit-in.’Our research therefore echoes the findings of other studies, and highlights the structural nature of social exclusionand its connections to unequal access to educational opportunities. It further suggests that while exclusion is notnecessarily intentional, given the specific focus of attraction strategies, neither can it be described as entirelyaccidental.The data showed that elite firms have developed a conceptualisation of talent which places an especially high valueon individuals who display “polish,” characterised by our respondents as a high level of confidence, strongcommunication skills, and clear ‘cultural competence’. Interviewees acknowledged that these attributes aresignificantly more available to people who have been socialised in a middle-class environment. As one put it:“. . . the people who will be the most confident are generally those who are from what people wouldsee as a more stereotypical background for a City lawyer …  They’ve been used to engaging withpeople in that way through their education system. They’ve probably been more likely to have goneto an Oxbridge university, and again, all those things build up a way of behaving that does projectconfidence.”These findings are of course not new. Indeed, neo-Weberian theory has long underlined the role of exclusivity as aconscious ‘professional project’ in order to attain or maintain an occupation’s high status and rewards. Appointinggraduates with these markers of high status cultural capital is also considered within firms to act as proxies forquality, sending appropriate signals to clients and competitors, and compensating for the ambiguity of knowledgewithin professional work.However, current debates around social mobility and access to the professions take place against a very specificeconomic, social, cultural and political backdrop. We suggest that this context is both cause and effect of multiplecontradictions and inconsistencies in both debates around social background and access to the professions, and thespecific actions taken by firms in response.For example, elite firms are increasingly engaged in initiatives to improve social inclusion, which are motivated inpart by fears of reputational damage and declining legitimacy, in part by a commitment to progressive change, andin part by a business case rationale in favour of attracting diverse talent. Yet the presentation and positioning ofthese initiatives leads to discursive manoeuvring, as firms balance their belief in the objectivity of current recruitmentand selection practices within a ‘perfect market’ for graduate talent, whilst being forced to acknowledge that peoplefrom certain groups are systematically disadvantaged by these very same practices.Social inclusion initiatives operate within these parameters and are arguably compromised as a result. Most aim toattract bright students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and equip them with the social and cultural capital theyneed to compete on a level playing field with more privileged peers. Until recently these initiatives could largely becharacterised as add-ons to existing practice, based in a deficit model of diversity, such that the bright, but non-traditional aspirant professional is required to assimilate to existing norms, limiting the success of these initiatives.More recently, there has been a  focus on fair selection techniques, such as CV blind interviews and the use ofstrengths based frameworks in assessment; it is, however, too early to gauge the full impact of these practices.Our research also highlighted the dominance of the ‘death of class’ discourse (despite the evidence of the dramaticincreases in inequality and slowing of social mobility over the last two decades). Interviewees described a generalreluctance to discuss class. There was also a tendency for inherited privilege to be portrayed as unfortunate, but2/3also as natural and inevitable, leading many senior professionals who come from non-traditional backgrounds toseek to hide this fact. As one general counsel at a FTSE100 company told us: “…it’s embarrassing, right, to say thatyou didn’t come from a middle class background?”Against this backdrop, it is perhaps salutary to consider the nature of the extensive press coverage our reportreceived, and its focus on the so-called ‘poshness test’ to gain access to the elite professions. Whilst we welcomedthe media attention devoted to this important issue, we do have some concerns that non-traditional aspirants to theprofessions may be still less likely to apply to elite firms if they absorb this particular message.Further, although our report answers many questions, others remain unanswered, including how to balancepragmatism and idealism in this debate, and how to generate a conversation around social class and access to theprofessions, which is sensitive to the many nuances and subtleties involved.About the AuthorsLouise Ashley  is a lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour atRoyal Holloway, University of London and a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Professional ServiceFirms at Cass Business School. Hilary Sommerlad is Professor of Law and Director of Research at the Centre for ProfessionalLegal Education and Research, University of Birmingham. Jo Duberley is Professor of Organisation Studies at the University of Birmingham. 3/3

Barriers to entry: social exclusion is rife in elite professions in the UK

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online