Sue Gray, former senior British public official, came into the limelight once again last weekend. Since resigning her position to serve as chief of staff to the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer last year, she’s scarcely been absent from media reportage.
A story from the Mail on Sunday, comparing her to the fictitious White House chief of staff from television series ‘The West Wing’, was the latest coverage of Gray’s exploits. Having been implicated in various conspiracies, from attempts to topple Boris Johnson to claims of espionage on behalf of the UK government in Northern Ireland – all of which she resolutely denies – this report seemed rather tame.
Yet, one aspect of Gray’s story is particularly striking – her relatable, unadorned background. She never attended university, a fact that was evocatively highlighted on the BBC in 2022 when she held the role of second permanent secretary in the crucial Cabinet Office. This positioned her just below the ranks of permanent secretaries – heads of Whitehall departments.
As per a 2019 study conducted by the social mobility charity, the Sutton Trust, Gray’s lack of a university degree set her apart from her peers, none of whom were without such qualifications at the time. Most had actually attended either Oxford or Cambridge, as was the norm for most high-ranking judges, cabinet ministers, and diplomats.
In contrast, fewer than one percent of the general population of the UK attended these esteemed institutions, and a mere seven percent graduated from the private schools that nurtured most permanent secretaries, top judges, and lords.
Notwithstanding, educational attainment is not the sole determinant of social strata. Parenting roles also figure prominently. Yet, Gray’s trajectory illustrates the marked exceptionality of her position in a society where a microscopic ruling class wields massive influence. She is set on wielding her influence to propel the Labour party into power, breaking through the ‘class ceiling’ – a hurdle proven by some metrics to be greater in the UK than in some similar nations.
Despite these ambitions, the idea of creating a ‘classless society’ is by no means innovative. It was the dream John Major, the last UK Prime Minister without a university degree and former Conservative leader, championed three decades ago.
Some UK businesses are now taking the initiative to address career progression disparities among their staff, indicating some key observations about contemporary professional life in the UK. For instance, it appears that social class potentially has a larger influence on promotional opportunities than factors such as gender, sexuality, or ethnicity.
Professional services company KPMG led the charge on this, conducting a comprehensive analysis of the professional trajectories of its 16,500 UK-based partners and employees about a year ago. The firm established an individual’s class by determining the profession of their highest earning parent, a method also utilised by PwC, Slaughter and May law firm, and other organisations striving for social class diversity.
KPMG’s findings showed that employees hailing from working-class backgrounds took, on average, 19 per cent longer to receive a promotion, or even up to an additional year, in comparison to colleagues from more affluent upbringings. Career progression was found to be even more delayed for working-class staff members who were also women or from ethnic minority backgrounds.
However, some anomalies were observed in the upper echelons of the firm, as KPMG’s findings showed faster progress for working-class individuals at higher levels. While the reasons for this have not yet been confirmed, KPMG UK’s head of inclusion, diversity and equity, Jenny Baskerville, suggested that these employees may be highly exceptional, thereby navigating their way to partner level more rapidly once reaching leadership positions.
Despite these findings, there remains a significant wage disparity between classes in the UK, with one research suggesting an average wage gap of £6,291 (€7,335), or 12 per cent, favouring the middle and upper classes. This disparity is three times larger in the finance sector, purportedly the industry with the widest wealth disparity.
While regulators have been cautious about enforcing mandatory reporting of social class, noting concerns of the burden of data collection in an industry that rarely collects such data, experts insist that this is a necessary change. This comes amidst realisations that high-achieving students from less privileged backgrounds are still at a disadvantage in securing premium employment opportunities compared to their privileged counterparts with lower academic achievements.
Companies like KPMG are demonstrating how understanding an employee’s socio-economic background can help determine who might be disadvantaged, and subsequently identify actions to ensure every capable individual progresses. This approach is not only equitable but also good commercial practice. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024.