POL00447900
POL00447900
fe] Grant Thornton 2
ED&I at the Post Office
Inclusion Insights assessment
November 2023
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Contents
i
a Executive Summary One-page outline of scope of work, findings and recommendations overview
2 Scope of work Outline of the project scope, approach and outputs
3 Inclusion Maturity Assessment An overview of Post Office’s overall Inclusion Maturity, employee insights, and leadership insights, based on evidence from a
triangulated assessment covering diversity insights, inclusion insights tool, focus groups, 1:1s, process owner interviews, and
internal document review
4 Inclusion Insights by factors A deep-dive into each of the five factors of Inclusion used to analyse the level of embeddedness of Equity, Diversity &
. Talent Attraction Inclusion across the employee lifecycle, strategy development at the Post Office, and its external impact
. Talent Development
- Culture
: Strategy Development
. External Impact
I Future Focus areas Insight into the success areas and challenges as themes, at the Post Office, along with key recommendations that are further
defined in the Recommendations Roadmap
2 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Executive summary
Overview
Findings summary
Success and areas of future focus
Grant Thornton were engaged by Post Office Limited (POL) to
assess their current ED&I agenda, its scope and progress, and
suggest the steps required to move the agenda forward. Our
assessment is data led across three key sources ~ diversity and
demographic data, ED&I policies and processes, and the lived
experiences and perceptions of inclusion of employees and
leadership.
This report documents our findings following the
assessment. This should be considered alongside the prioritised
roadmap we have developed alongside the ED&l team for POL
consideration, together with the outputs from a workshop with
the Group Executive (GE) to discuss the ED&I vision for POL and
accountability mechanisms.
Qur data sources for this work:
+ 28 process owner and GE interviews
+ 1,931 responses: employee survey ~ 57% response rate
8/8 responses: GE survey
Four meetings with network group leads
Four targeted focus groups with an average part
11 members
19 additional 1:1s with employees
Document review:
+ 50+ on ED&l embeddedness throughout employee
cycle covering policies around recruitment, selection,
to offboarding/exit and HR policies
* 8+ around strategy, governance, communication,
and engagement
3 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
Our triangulated assessment places you at a Characteristicfocused
stage (stage 2), with examples of showcasing some Emergent
(stage 1) and some Inclusive (stage 3) maturity in your overall
approach. Throughout the report we have also highlighted the
inclusion maturity of each factor.
There is a strong intention to drive ED&I at POL, which is visible in
the organisation's approach to awareness raising through network
groups and ‘let’s talk about’ sessions and policies which are
inclusive and supportive of different lived experiences.
In order to harness this intention and achieve meaningful change,
POL now needs to align this to action through the people agenda
primarily and then embed this more broadly at a strategic level;
set clear commitments and measures of success to embed
accountability against the positive intent.
Successes
Strong ED& policies and well-regarded initiatives
Effective people management and trust in line managers
Recent successes in employer brand and recruitment
experiences
Confidence in the organisation's purpose and intention around
ED&I
Future Focus areas
EDBd is viewed as a ‘people’ objective, not an overarching
strategic objective
EDA strategy is not well communicated, and lacks clear plan
for implementation
Low trust in leadership to drive ED&I agenda
Perceptions of unfairness and lack of equal opportunities to
progress and succeed
Lack of ED&I embeddedness across the employee lifecycle with
limited monitoring and compliance processes
Lack of defined roles and responsibilities to drive the ED&l
agenda across the business
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Our scope of work
Building upon your previous work, we (Grant Thornton) has engaged with POL to conduct an ED&I audit to provide a baseline and an external assessment of
your ED&l agenda and work with you to support to identify key next steps and focus areas.
eae
Diversity Data
Strategy,
communication
& engagement
Policy, Process & Employee Lived Experience
Governance & Leadership Perception
+ Toassess the level of embeddedness of ED&! Triangulated data collection Inclusion Maturity assessment Identification of themes
through the organisation through:
roar eaneton irons Themes identified based on
triangulated data as areas of focus
for development, that could help
further advance the ED&I agenda
Collected and analysed using our
+ Employee lived experiences and ith, inclusion insights tool and responses
leadership perceptions compared against POL 2022 ED&
survey results
Maturity levels mapped across our
5 benchmarking factors:
- Talent Attraction
- Talent Development
- Culture
- Strategic Development
- External Impact to identify
successes and any underlying
barriers to inclusion
+ Review of internal policies, processes
and practices around ED&l Collected using Inclusion Insights
tool, GE interviews and workshops,
employee focus groups and 1:1s,
+ Demographic analysis through an
inclusion and diversity lens
+ To provide an implementation roadmap to driving Reviewed internal policies, processes,
ED&l at POL through leadership workshops and practices, and relevant governance
vision setting for effective implementation procedures around ED&! at POL and
conducted interviews with process
owners
@ Grant Thorton
© 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Inclusion Maturity Assessment -
Overview
) GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Your Inclusion Maturity — an overview
In this report, we have summarised the findings from triangulated assessment of our five factors of Inclusion — Talent Attraction, Talent Development,
Culture, Strategy and External Impact which provide your overall inclusion maturity rating. Each section provides an in-depth analysis supporting the key
findings for that factor. Based on this and after consideration of your Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (ED&I) objectives and focus areas, we have co-created a
prioritised roadmap with the ED&l team which incorporates our recommendations.
Our triangulated assessment places you at a Characteristic-focused stage which is in line with what we are currently seeing in the market. You are also
showcasing examples of Emergent and Inclusive maturity in your approach. Your targeted ED&I policies and awareness raising are indicative of your
intention to drive ED&l at POL. However, a lack of a clear strategic direction including roles and responsibilities, low levels of trust in leadership, and
employee lifecycle processes which do not embed the principles of inclusion act as a barrier to achieving your ED&I goals, and risks falling behind the market.
To drive inclusion, embedding ED&I across the organisation would require an adjusted approach, being driven from the top, which focuses on ED&l more
holistically. There is a strong intent and culturally, there appears to be an appetite or perhaps even demand, for this gear change.
(en oot an enon a naps a ee een esto wm
High a . 1 (1) Emergent Ty (2) Characteristic-focused
Overall inclusion I I The organisation is setting out on its IY The organisation recognises that it
‘ I T inclusion journey and is doing what it needs to provide tailored support to
maturity: I H
I needs to from a regulatory and legal under-represented groups to create
Characteristic H perspective to enable inclusion for it equality of opportunity.
\ Focused // colleagues iH
S /
Impact \ L Stoo nr nnn
4 1 (3) Inclusive 1 (4) systemic
I The organisation is breaking down ') The organisation is reflecting its
! barriers to inclusion for all its I inclusion culture on every touchpoint
1 employees, cognisant of II with stakeholders, suppliers and clients
I intersectionality and helping them bring I, leading their sector in inclusive
{their whole selves to work. I. practices.
Low ‘we oe tt oe
Low Inclusion Culture High
6 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
Your Inclusion Maturity — by key drivers of inclusion
Inclusive
Design of people
policies
ED&I awareness
raising
Line manager
behaviours
High
Characteristicfocused
Network group ways
of working
ED& data collection
and analysis
EDR strategy
Emergent
* Operations and
consistency of people
processes
+ Leadership
accountability and
behaviours
Impact
Low
Inclusion Culture
Low
7 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
piel loo
pccce-
energie arent
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i]
i
1
i]
i
i
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
(4) Systemic t
The organisation is reflecting its
inclusion culture on every touchpoint
with stakeholders, suppliers and clients
— leading their sector in inclusive
practices.
(3) Inclusive
The organisation is breaking down
barriers to inclusion for all its
employees, cognisant of
intersectionality and helping them bring
their whole selves to work.
(2) Characteristic-focused
The organisation recognises that it
needs to provide tailored support to
under-represented groups to create
equality of opportunity.
Be oo os
(1) Emergent
The organisation is setting out on its
inclusion journey and is doing what it
needs to from a regulatory and legal
perspective to enable inclusion for
colleagues.
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Our approach through Inclusion Insights
As part of our scope of work with POL, our Inclusion Insights tool was used to triangulate data sources as well as administer two surveys;
Employee Lived Experiences to understand employees’ experiences with inclusion, and Leadership Perceptions to measure the GE’s perceptions
around inclusion at POL. Both surveys were split into five factors of inclusion.
Factor of Focus area Each question in the surveys is assessed on a five-point scale of -2 to 2, with responses
Inclusion ranging from, ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
Talent Employer brand, recruitment, selection processes, and
Attraction employees’ onboarding experiences. Rees
0 2
Talent The approach to talent and career development of the
Development employees, including pathways to progression, learning Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly agree
disagree nor disagree
and development opportunities, rewards and benefits. I
This scoring mechanism helps suitably allocate negative, neutral, and positive
sentiments across each question. All questions are positively worded such that
‘agreeing’ is positive, and indicative of an inclusive working environment. As such, the
higher the average overall score is, the more consistent and embedded the experience
Strategy Communication and embeddedness of ED&I strategy, of an inclusive working environment.
Development — understanding of organisational purpose, and clarity of
vision and goals for ED&l.
Culture Ways of working, levels of psychological safety,
embeddedness of an inclusive environment across
all demographics, role modelling of inclusive behaviours.
Our approach to analysis considers both the most common response, response variance,
and the sentiment of the response. This is analysed across demographics, functions,
External The approach to driving ED&I externally and alignment grades, and the five key factors to help identify themes. Free text responses provided
Impact with values. are analysed and mapped separately.
Outputs from this analysis are combined with findings from our policy, process and
governance review to build an holistic picture. I
8 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Employee experiences vary but largely agree with positive lived
experiences whilst GE shows differing perceptions
Inclusion Insights registers average employee lived experiences at a score of 0.59 ona scale of -2 to 2, with 62% in agreement or strong
agreement. However, there is a considerable variance observed in responses with the highest and lowest individual average scares at 2.0 and -1.8
respectively. The GE survey, which asks the GE questions about their perceptions of inclusion for employees, and what they as leaders have done
to create that environment, had an average of 0.34 but individual scores ranging from a low of -0.04 to a high score of 0.83.
Outputs fi the employee survey (Employee lived experiences) tputs from the GE survey (Leadership perceptions on inclusion.
{
{
H 1931 responses Overall r00% responses Overall
I 57% response rate average sso I 10K veresponse rate average sco
i 0.34
' Highest
1 lowest individual
{individual average score
1 average score I
' 2.0 Lowest individual Highest
H -18 average score indivi
B 9.00 9 O88) © @ G-) 5) individual
i average score
Hi
H
A 2 0 2 -2 tC) 2
t
1 Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly Agree
H disagree nor disagree agree disagree nor disagree
9 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Overall, gender does not appear to be driving significantly
different experiences of inclusion
However, there are some functions where this is not the case, as highlighted below. In Corporate Affairs, Communications and Brand, women’s
average score is less than half that of men, but in LGC, People and Retail— DMB, women score > 20% higher than men on average. Interventions
in these departments should specifically consider how someone’s gender could be impacting on their experiences of inclusion.
Inclusion scores by gender x function
{Women more than} i Men score more than 20% lower I Men score moi
20% lower I I i I than 20% lower
H H H
H H ' Hi
0.77 ' H H 1 076 078
H ' ' H 0.74 . 0.73
1 0.68 i Hi i
1 H ost 0.63 I 064 ft 0.67 0.65
i 0.60 H $0.59 1 0.59
i i
H i H H
H H H 1 050 951 gag
Hl 1 0.46 0.47 H i
i ' ' '
033 I H i H
H H H H
H 1 H t
H H H Hi
H i ' Hi
H H H H
Hi
i i H H
H I ! i
H i H H
H Hl ' i
H t H H
Corporate atats, I Commercial begat people I Retal-cental I Retal- netail- strtegy& Technology =‘ Oce
communications & 1 compliance, ' 1 ‘ows Supply Chain Transformation —_—Enterprse
Brand ' 1 & Governance i H Cloud
H t
Transformation
30 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. [o] GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
However, lived experiences vary by other under-represented
demographics
Whilst not all under-represented characteristics are driving worse experiences of inclusion, we have identified the ones below with lower
than average scores. Separate focus groups held centred around lived experiences relating to disability, neurodiversity and ethnicity indicated
that systemic barriers to inclusion within people processes and limited trust in leadership to follow through with change are driving these lower
scores.
Scores for demographics scoring > 20% below average
Number of responses for each demographic
' Hi
H H
H
H H
H Hi
H Hi
H 21 13 231 50 32 10 44 51 33 244 57 H
H
i 0.59 1
H H
H 0.47 Hi
1 0.45 0.45 1
H 0.42 0.42 H
i 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 i
i 0.33 i
H 0.29 i
H Hi
H H
i Hi
H i
H H
H H
H Hi
H i
' Hi
H i
H Hi
H H
' H
H H
H Primary carer to a Pagan Has a disability Mixed or multiple Other ethnic Trans Primary caring Other religion or Primary carer toa Neurodivergent Black Overall average
{ disabled child / ethnicities background responsibilities belief disabled adutt(s) H
' children covering multiple H
! categories i
i
41 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. GrantThornton
Intersectionality
What is intersectionality?
Everybody has their own unique lived experience, based on their characteristics and experiences.
Intersectionality acknowledges that there may be commonalities of experience within those who have
similarity across multiple marginalised characteristics (e.g.,a Black gay man, or a Jewish woman who is
disabled) due to the way that different systems of oppression interact and compound each other. In
focussing on characteristics, we can unintentionally exclude as considering one element of a person
ignores those nuances.
Why is it relevant here?
It is important to consider combinations of characteristics in our analysis, to ensure we are identifying
these different experiences in order that they can be addressed. Organisations which are at a
characteristic-focused inclusion maturity are generally considering interventions to support under-
represented groups corresponding to individual characteristics. This can be effective up to a point but
can become exclusionary and create a sense of ‘other’ or competition between characteristics rather
than fostering a more general sense of inclusion.
How have we analysed the data?
All combinations of intersecting under-represented characteristics at POL were considered to
understand the differences in experiences of inclusion. Of these, data has been shown in the next slide
where combined under-represented characteristics is leading to a different experience for individual
characteristics and where the respondent size was more than 10 people.
Recommendations included in the roadmap and the challenges highlighted throughout this report
support movement towards an Inclusive approach rather than a characterised approach. This would
be much more effective in supporting those with multiple under-represented characteristics.
12 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Religion Ethnicity
Socio-economic Sexual
background y orientation
Intersectionality
Caring as
responsibilities Disablity
Neurodiversity
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Low perceptions of inclusion amongst some intersecting under-
represented characteristics
Key combinations of diversity characteristics driving lower experiences of inclusion:
* Gender x Disability/Neurodiversity
* Whilst both genders with a disability show low experiences of inclusion, men with a disability or who are neurodivergent score lower
than women with either of these characteristics
* Gender x Ethnicity
* Whilst for Asian women and white women, ethnicity does not appear to be driving different experiences of inclusion, women from
Black, mixed, multiple or other ethnicities score lower than men in these categories.
* Asian men score lower than Asian women or white men.
* Gender x Sexual orientation
* Lesbian/gay women, and bisexual men score lower than their straight counterparts
Has a disal Does not have a Neurodivergent Not neurodivergent Gay/Lesbian Straight
disability
All 0.38 0.66 0.45 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.63
Women (0.65) 0.46 0.73 0.52 0.72 0.51 0.63 0.70
Men (0.59) 0,29 0.68 0.40 0.67 0.63 0,50 0.64
CSR CRA CE I TR
All 0.56 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.65
Women (0.65) 0.67 0.45 0.29 0.34 0.68
Men (0.59) 0.47 0.52 0.52 0.43 0.62
“responses for non-binary or prefer to selFdescribe gender and/or sexuality not shared as < 10 respondents
Note: Those highlighted in red score at least 20% below the average of 0.59, .e., < 0.47. © GrantThornton
13 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Low perceptions of inclusion amongst some intersecting under-
represented characteristics (cont.)
Key combinations of diversity characteristics driving different experiences:
* Ethnicity x Disability/Neurodiversity
* Individuals with a disability/who are neurodivergent, and are from a diverse ethnic background score lower than their white
counterparts
* Ethnicity x Sexual Orientation:
* Lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB+) individuals from a diverse ethnic background score lower than white LGB+ people
* Ethnicity x Caring responsibilities
* Respondents of all ethnicities other than white register a below average score for primary caregivers
Ethnicity Has a disability Does not have a Neurodivergent Not neurodivergent I LGB+ Primary carers No caring
isability responsi
All 0.38 0.45 0.65 0.60 0.63 0.59 0.62
0.66
Asian 0.28 0.66 0.01 0.68 < 10 people oss 0.51 0.61
Black 0.39 0.54 < 10 people 0.56 < 10 people 0.48 0.34 0.57
Mixed or multiple <10 people 0.45 0.76 0.35 < 10 people 0.40 0.49 0.29
ethnicities
Other ethnic groups <10 people 0.46 <10 people 0.39 < 10 people 0.38 0.37 0.37
All diverse ethnic 0.27 0.56 0.27 056 0.31 0.53 0.47 0.53
backgrounds*
White 0.44 0.77 0.48 068 065 0.65 0.66 0.65
“Diverse ethnic background includes Asian, Black, mixed or multiple ethnicities, and other ethnic groups.
Note: Those highlighted in red score atleast 20% below the average of 0.59, ie. < 0.47, @ GrantThornton
14 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. Results have not been disclosed where there are fewer than 10 people with these characteristics to ensure anonymity.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Inclusion Maturity Assessment
— by factors
) GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Your Inclusion Maturity — by factors
(4) Systemic
The organisation is reflecting its
inclusion culture on every touchpoint
with stakeholders, suppliers and clients
I ~leading their sector in inclusive
practices.
Talent Attraction, Culture, External
Impact
Characteristic-focused/Inclusive
High
i
(3) Inclusive
The organisation is breaking down
barriers to inclusion for all its
employees, cognisant of
intersectionality and helping them bring
I their whole selves to work.
Strategy Development
Characteristic-focused
Impact
1 (2) Characteristic-focused
The organisation recognises that it
Talent Development needs to provide tailored support to
Emergent/Characteristic-focused
equality of opportunity.
Lj
Lj
1
I under-represented groups to create
Lj
1
<_<.
(1) Emergent
The organisation is setting out on its
inclusion journey and is doing what it
needs to from a regulatory and legal
perspective to enable inclusion for
1 colleagues.
eee!
Low
Low Inclusion Culture High
46 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Employee lived experiences of inclusion
External Impact has the highest proportion of positive responses, while Talent Development has the lowest
The employee inclusion score of 0.59 is driven by robust employee lived experiences in the areas of External Impact and Talent Attraction, which
exceeds the overall POL average by 25% and 16% respectively. On the other hand, Talent Development scores the least, falling 8% below
average, with the highest percentage in disagreement or strong disagreement. In contrast, both Strategy Development and Culture align closely
with the overall average, at 62.5% of employees expressing agreement or strong agreement with positive lived experiences forthese factors.
——Section average
Talent Attraction Talent Development Culture Strategy Development External Impact
r + H
t i t
H H 0.61 H {
' H H '
H H t
H i ' 0.59 : oe» Overall average H
i i ' i '
i ! H H '
H Hi i H H
H
' H i 63% 62% i H
I A H if 69% { @ Agree or strongly agree 4
' H ' H Neither agree/disagree H
H
H Hi ! H H
' Hl i { mDisagree or strongly disagree!
H H H 24% H i
H i
' H 29% ! ae 2 22% H '
\ ' H ! i
t i i ‘ '
; L 4 j
H
47 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Employee lived experiences of inclusion
Amongst employees, varied lived experiences of Inclusion are seen across functions
Supply chain scored the lowest in all sections apart from External Impact, identifying this function as a key focus area for future interventions.
Employees in Strategy & Transformation, CFO, and Technology & Enterprise Cloud Transformation responded with consistently above average
experiences of inclusion, and the successes demonstrated in their higher scores should be reviewed for lessons learnt which can be applied across
the organisation.
: --
H i i i H
: Employee lived experiences by functions i
I Response count % 82% 93% 102%* 59% 95% 61% 31% 51% 83% 54% 57% 33% i
H i
i ‘i 0.93 !
77 H
H 0.72 on i
! 0.63 0.56 056 053 0.60 0.64 0.59 H
H 0.46 i
H i
t H
i Commercial Corporate Affairs CFO Legal, Compliance —_—People Retail-Central Retail-DMB — Retail -Supply _—Strategy& —Technology& —_—Post Office Payzone* I
i and Comms & Governance Chain Transformation Enterprise Cloud _ overall !
H Transformation !
i
{Talent Attraction 0.66 0.68 0.74 0.64 0.73 0.66 0.81 0.61 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.93 H
i i
! H
} Talent 0sa 0.44 0.66 0.48 0.48 0.54 0.63 0.38 0.67 0.67 0.54 0.89 !
I Development H
H i
t H
1 Culture 0.72 0.69 0.76 0.87 0.82 0.59 0.60 0.49 0.80. 0.74 0.61 0.97 !
H 1
{ Suateey 0.61 0.49 0.70 0.58 0.51 0.62 0.57 0.47 0.84 0.66 0.59 0.90 H
I Development H
' H
I External Impact 0.74 053 0.85 0.74 0.53 0.79 0.79 0.64 0.92 0.78 0.74 122 i
{ ‘Figures in % represent response count percentage by function; CFO registers overreporting ~ a5 employees selt-selected on thi category, tis may have resulted in some errors; results or Payzone resus have been separated and shared ina separaterewrt owingto
Ladi Note: 5 7 i
48 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
Employee lived experiences of inclusion
SLP register lowest overall inclusion scores
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
SLP scores the lowest, especially around Talent Development and Culture, where low scores are being driven by employees disagreeing that
there are equal opportunities for progression, and appropriate allocation of responsibilities and decision making. There is also a significant
variance observed between functions in terms of scores for SLP, indicating that there are function-specific challenges that need to be
investigated. This has been explored further under analysis by factors.
Low score driven by Supply chain
employees within this grade
Talent Attraction
Talent Development
Culture
Strategy Development
External Impact
{ Note: Scores in red indicate > 20% below average score
PO/Admin
0.70
0.50
0.53
0.56
0.73
Overall Inclus
0.68 0.66 0.65
0.63 .
: : i :
28 20 3B 3A 4
0.75
0.65
0.69
0.66
0.86
0.72
0.64
0.66
0.65
0.83
0.70
0.58
0.64
0.65
0.76
ion scores by grade
0.72
0.59
0.64
0.70
0.76
0.62
0.55
0.53
0.63
0.42
SUP Overall
Post Office
053 0.70
0.34 0.54
0.42 0.61
0.49 0.59
O51 0.74
19 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
[eo] GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Talent Attraction
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Talent Attraction: Summary of themes
Talent Attraction covers perceptions around the application process, expectations of cultural fit, and experiences of inclusive practices
throughout the application process.
POL performs strongly around Talent Attraction with a strong intent to hire diverse talent and values which are well understod and reflected during
the application process. Candidates align with the brand’s stated values and register a strong sense of belonging and fit wit POL. This is reflected in
the well-above average scores in this section, especially for those having joined in the last three years. However, gaps are oberved in translation of
values from recruitment and selection stages to onboarding, where lived experiences differ greatly even within demographicsLack of internal
controls to ensure that fair and transparent recruitment processes are being followed, especially for the leadership, are als impacting experiences
of employees in this area.
Strong perceptions of belonging and cultural fit on the back of POL values
Positive perceptions around alignment with employer brand, but experiences differ once onboarded
Mature recruitment and selection policies but weak implementation/compliance
Wider perception around biased hiring processes and lack of transparency
24 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Triangulated assessment summary
Inclusion Maturity Assessment:
Characteristic Focused / Inclusive ¥ ED&I considered through characteristic focused approach to
Vd designing recruitment and selection policy
We saw evidence of POL of moving towards an inclusive approach, ¥ Dashboard providing key demographic and diversity
demonstrated by high scores from respondents who joined the Policies, ‘overviews maintained and shared with GE
organisation in the last three years. However supporting processes Processes, X_ Lack of a clearly defined candidate journey, which embeds
Governance access requirements through to onboarding
need further development and embedding.
P 8 * No internal controls to ensure policies and processes being
complied with consistently and at all levels
¥ Strong perceptions of inclusion through the applicant process
C - employees register a strong ‘sense of belonging and fit’
Systemic during application process
~ Inclusion Insights x Mixed perceptions around stated values translating into what
Talent attraction - Survey they experience after joining
- Interviews * Whilst leadership is committed to eliminating bias, employee
- Focus lived experiences revolve around biased hiring processes
Groups/1:1s
Pad x Data not used effectively to inform recruitment strategy
dt, X Diversity data does not reside with the talent acquisition
team to help inform their approach
Diversity and
demographic
Insights
Low Inclusion Culture
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
Hi
1
i
i
i
Hi
i
i
1
H
H
i
1
t
i
4
1
1
t
i
i
i
1
‘
1
i
i
1
i
i
4
(© 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Employees align with employer brand, however experiences
post onboarding differ
Talent Attraction is the second highest scoring factor — 19% higher than average perceptions of inclusion with a score of 0.70 on a scale of -2 to
2. In their responses, employees have indicated they expected to ‘fit in’ when applying to work at POL, however, once onboarded, a significant
proportion register different lived experiences.
0.70 0.59
Agree or strongly
Neither
agree/disagree
Disagree or strongly 29% 25%
disagree
Talent Attraction Overall
“Figures in text box represents average score
23 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL registers its second highest score in Talent Attraction, with an average of 62.5% responses in
agreement or strong agreement with feeling included. Primarily led by feelings of belonging,
support through the application process, and a sense of ‘fit’.
“Inclusive ee I Sense of I
ee of fi? I bene I
L060 i! 0.65 L071
2 0 2
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
disagree
However, clear dissonance is observed between how applicants perceive the organisation's values
and culture to be during the recruitment process and their perceptions post coming into the
organisation. With a score of 0.52, on “My recruitment experience reflected the organisation’s
values and culture as I understand them now”, this is the only area of Talent Attraction with a
lower-than-average score.
“My first impression of the Post Office was very good and very “If I'd known how toxic the actual
positive. The story changed however when I progressed to the culture was, I'd never have
on-boarding stage.” progressed with the interviews.”
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Attraction capabilities have improved over the years
Whilst there is a general trend of rising scores in this space, general experiences of inclusive practices being adopted through the attraction stage
has improved significantly in the last three years when compared against 2016-2020.
Steady increase in lived experiences around with the
highest score in last three years on the following
questions:
Inclusion average scores around Talent Attraction
by years of joining*
0.90
“I feel supported to be the best version of me
through the application process”
Overall average 74% agree or strongly agree
score for Talent
Attraction
“I felt the people involved in my recruitment valued
my unique perspective”
82% agree or strongly agree
“I felt that I could succeed here before I applied”
77% agree or strongly agree
1960-1980 1981-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Last three
years
“I felt I would fit in when I applied to work here”
80% agree or strongly agree
24 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
However, scores vary for under-represented demographics
When scores for employees with under-represented characteristics are split by year of joining, there is a pronounced increase in scores between
people who joined pre and post 2018. This could indicate improvements in recruitment processes in bringing in diverse talent in an inclusive
manner.
However, scores remain lower on average for these under-represented groups, and this is primarily driven by a disconnect between perceptions
during recruitment, and experiences once an individual has joined the organisation. This was particularly supported by focus groups for those
with a disability, who shared challenges of not being able to access the support they required during onboarding, despite being well supported
during the application process.
“The TA and interview panel
F 7
H Hi
H 0.89 i
H 0.82 i were extremely positive
i 0.79 i
H H throughout the process, and
1 0.69 H
' 0.66 0.65 o.6a 0.63 H enabled me to present the best
H 0.61 H version of me”
' 0.52 05 048 0.55 0.54 i
' 0.45 ° i
H Hi
H 0.24 i
i Hi
1 1
H H
: i
H i
t i
{ Hasadisability Gay /Iesbian Bisexual Neurodivergent Black Mixed or multiple Other ethnic Average section i
' ethnic groups background score 4
i i
Hi t
i :
i
Before 2018 2018 and after
25 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Lived experiences also vary by grades and functions
Whilst Talent Attraction has higher scores on average, functions and grades where scores are below average should be considered separately to
understand what targeted interventions may be required to address poorer perceptions of inclusion. Similarly, success from higher scoring
functions should be reviewed to see what lessons can be learnt.
0.81
0.68 0.74 0.73 0.80 0.75
0.66 0.64 0.66 0.61
Commercial Corporate Affairs cro Legal, Compliance, People Retail-Central Retail DMB —Retail-Supply _ Strategy & Technology & Post Office overall
and Comms Governance chain Transformation Enterprise Cloud
Transformation
3A 4 SUP GE Post Office overall
PO/Admin
‘Scores highlighted in red bars represent >20% below section average for Talent Attraction (ie., <0.56), scores highlighted in
a ae
26 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
Well-defined policies with inconsistent application
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Objectives around attracting diverse talent are clear, however the implementation, monitoring, and adoption of data to revise/update internal
recruitment strategies and approaches is inconsistent. Furthermore, internal controls to ensure processes are consistently followed are weak or
non-existent, and alignment with ED&I principles during recruitment is dependent on the hiring manager from the business.
Focus area Successes Challenges Maturity Assessmen
Policies, Processes, Procedures
+ Recruitment & Onboarding defined
Policy + Thorough pre-onboarding checklists for
+ Manager guides and managers
training
* — Induction toolkits
Candidate sourcing, Recruitment + Multiple channels being used to attract
and Selection talent — diverse pool
* — Stated values are showcased well
27 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
Activities and responsibilities of different
teams involved in the process clearly
No narrative on how it aligns with the overall ED&l
‘objectives — lost opportunity to drive the focus on
the agenda for hiring managers/recruiters
Lack of processes/structure to monitor managerial
accountability
ED&l goals not included in the Induction toolkit to
showcase how values can be translated into action
No clarity on what a “candidate journey” looks like
Diversity data is not effectively tracked end-to-end
Missed opportunity on showcasing ED& objectives
in job descriptions
No consistent approach to candidate and hiring
manager feedback mechanism
Current processes do not mandate inclusive hiring
practices be applied
Lack of oversight by TA
Strong policies and documentation of
approach but missed opportunities to
fully embed the agenda in the
Attraction, Selection, and Recruitment of
diverse talent
Adopted practices and activities relating
to recruitment and selection are at an
early stage of maturity
While the focus on hiring diverse talent
exists, there is no clear roadmap to
implementation
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Lack of trust in the leadership owing to perceptions of biased
hiring processes
There appears to be a significant gap between the design of recruitment and selection processes and how they are implemented by the
business, especially within the leadership. There have been numerous mentions of “biased hiring”, “nepotism”, “lack of transparency in the
hiring process”, reports of unfair/by-passed hiring practices that have been raised in focus groups, one-to-ones and qualitative survey responses.
This appears to be due to limited internal controls and monitoring from the central Talent Acquisition team. This directly links to perceptions of
inclusion, and employees trust in the organisation and its leadership, as evidenced in the feedback from the focus group sessions.
“There is a lot of nepotism at the
Post Office... hiring is often based
on ‘who you know’ not ‘what you
know’ ”
“There is a lot of “The management creates roles for
favouritism involved in mates and appoints them (...) It’s
the selection process” an absolute joke”
© GrantThornton
28 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Talent Development
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Talent Development: Summary of themes
Talent Development covers lived experiences around employees’ progression, performance management, fairness of pay and reward, and
managers role modelling inclusive behaviours.
Whilst Talent Development scores below average, the gap between the overall average score and Talent Development is not as lee as we typically
see. Low scores are driven by lack of confidence in meritbased progression, and a general perception that opportunities to progess are limited,
especially for under-represented demographics. There is a perceived lack of transparency around how performance is assessed, andwhilst
employees share positive experiences around supportive line managers, there are lower scores around seeing leaders and manages challenging
behaviour which isn’t inclusive.
Themes
Effective people management by line managers
Limited trust in meritbased progression and rewards
Lack of career pathways and progression framework
Poor representation in senior leadership and GE
Perceptions of unfair performance assessment process
30 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
Triangulated assessment summary
Inclusion Maturity Assessment:
Emergent / Characteristic Focused
High scores around people management are indicated by confidence
of employees in the inclusivity and support of their line managers.
However, lack of clear pathways to developing talent internally and
creating equal opportunities for success and progression places
Talent Development as an area of focus for POL.
High 1
Talent Development
on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Inclusion Culture
Impact
Low
7
H
i
H
H
i
H
H
H
H
i
H
i
H
H
i
H
H
i
H
H
H
H
systemic H
H
H
i
i
H
i
i
H
H
i
H
H
H
i
H
i
H
H
H
H
3
3
© 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Policies, Processes,
Governance
*
Inclusion Insights
- Survey
- Interviews
- Focus Groups/1:1s
“ne
Diversity and
demographic
Insights
x
x
Lack of career pathways and roadmaps for employees
across grades
Focus on learning and development opportunities is
increasing, however, adoption is not tracked effectively yet
Strong perceptions around effective management and
support from line managers
Low perceptions of development and growth opportunities
Lack of trust in the organisation to support employees of all
demographics to progress
Lack of trust in the organisation to follow through with
actions due to minimal diverse representation in the
leadership
Lack of effective guidance to employees on implementing
their personal development plans
Poor representation as grades progress — particularly for
under-represented demographics
Low perceptions around opportunities to progress after a
certain grade
Varied experiences of inclusion across demographics
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Statements relating to Talent Development have the greatest
proportion of disagreement
Talent Development is the lowest scoring factor for POL — 8% lower than average perceptions of inclusion, with a score of 0.54 ona scale of -2 to
2. In their responses, employees have low scores in relation to equal opportunities to progress in the organisation, being assessed transparently
on their performance, and being able to see the organisation’s commitment to representation in action.
16% of responses are in disagreement or strong disagreement with feeling included in this area.
Primarily led by well below average scores in merit-based progression, rewards, and diverse
representation as grades progress.
Employee inclusion scores
% of total responses being disagree / strongly disagree
Merit based I Merit-based reward Diverse
progression I _andbenefits __representation _
0.05 I I
oO
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
disagree
Concerns around fairness of progression are at the forefront, with employees voicing their
concerns in internal POL surveys, our Inclusion Insights survey, focus groups and 1:1s.
Talent Talent Culture Strate External Impact
" By ° “Unfortunately, hard work, being innovative, “Empty promises of progression and
Development Attraction Development :
excellent attendance does not lead to progression development. Never comes to
at the Post Office” fruition”
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
i
H
! 16%
i 12% 13%
H
H 0%
i 8% we
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
!
32 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Poor perceptions of fairness and transparency around
progression (1 of 2)
Experiences vary across functions, with four out of ten scoring lower than POL average for Talent Development, driven by a lak of diversity as grades
progress, and poor experiences around meritbased progression and rewards. Across functions, SLP scores significantly lower forrepresentation,
followed by grade 4 — further evidence of perceptions that progression is limited past a certain grade.
Functions scoring above average register considerably high scores around the inclusivity of line managers, driving their scot upwards.
Transformation
4
Hi 0.67 0.67 H
H 0.63 H
H
! H
t H
le ee =—=—6he =I !
iH 1
' POLaverage I
i 0.38 forTalent I
i Development I
H 0.54 !
H H
' H
H
{ 1
' '
; 1
H 1
H H
' Commercial Corporate Affairs and Legal, Compliance, People Retail - Central Retail - DMB Retail - Supply chain Strategy & Technology & I
Hi Comms Governance Transformation Enterprise Cloud H
H H
i t
I 1
H
‘Scores highlighted in red bars represent >20% below section average for Talent Development (ie., <0.43), scores highlighted in green bars
represent > 20% above section average (i.e., >0.65)
© GrantThornton
33. © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Poor perceptions of fairness and transparency around
progression (2 of 2)
Scores around progression, and fair and consistent performance management are significantly below average. Perceptions of merit-based
progression sees the lowest score of 0.05 on a scale of -2 to 2, with only 29% in agreement or strong agreement. While perceptions around this
area of talent development are visible across the organisation, they vary considerably by demographics and are much lower for those with
under-represented characteristics and the SLP.
H Inclusion scores by low scoring questions around Talent Development and by under -represented demographics {
H H
H Hi
Hi 0.44 {
H pane i
H 0.33 = i Overall i
H i
' H
H Has a disability i
H H
H 0.05 H
H was Neurodiverse 1
H -0.10 “0.13 -0.09 i
P {
i nen er Gay/Lesbian women}
i -0.28 H
H ~ i
H 0.38 @ Black/Mixed/Multiple t
i 0.44 4 ethnic backgrounds I
i Progression here is based on merit, no matter I feel the way performance is managed here is My performance and progression are not _ I feel that reward decisions are based on merit i
' who you are fair and consistent wholly dependent on one person's views. mSLP {
H Hi
i i
t {
Lo.
**Question highlighted represent >20% below section average for Talent Development (i.e. <0.43)
34 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Varied experiences around merit-based rewards between
departments, and demographics
Scores on this topic vary by department and grades and is particularly low for employees with under-represented characteristics. This
misalignment is further validated through feedback from focus groups and 1:1s where employees have openly expressed their concerns
regarding fairness of reward systems. Interventions should include specific focus on these demographics to ensure root causes are being
addressed.
Q: I feel that reward decisions are based on merit
Leadership survey Employee survey
0.0172 Average
functions / grades
mStrongly agree si 009 _—«_~
mAgree Corporate Affairs and Comms -0:36 eee
oe Neither agree/disagree People 0.05
Disagree Retail - Supply chain 0
Legal, Compliance, governance = 001
: mStrongly disagree
0.1207
Diversity characteristics
I feel that reward decisions are based on merit Mixed or multiple ethnicities 15
Black 0
Neurodiverse 0.03
Disability - yes (15 ene
i
H
t
H
H
i
H
Hi
H
H
i
H
i
H
H
i
H
{
i 0.2586
H
i
H
Hi
i
H
i
H
t
H
H
i
H
i
H
H
i
H
(© 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Perception of low transparency around progression
There is a significant perceived lack of trust in the organisation to develop progression pathways and ensure transparency in the performance
management process. Wider perceptions are that progression is dependent on the connections one has within the organisation or the ED&I
objectives for the year, and furthermore that opportunities to progress are only limited up to a particular grade.
“There does seem a culture of
people being cherry picked for
progression with individuals being
offered opportunities that are not
advertised to others”
“promotion, recognition and pay
rewards at POL are unfortunately
not based on merit”
36 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
“Development/Progression is
geared towards meeting ED&I
targets... can’t challenge...
Groupthink has taken over our
leaders”
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
While experiences with line managers are positive, it differs by
functions, and with the senior leadership
Employees across departments generally respond positively in response to statements relating to the inclusivity of their line manager, with 80%
in agreement or strong agreement with the statement ‘I feel that my manager values me for who! am’. An outlier to this is Supply Chain, where
perceptions of line managers being advocates for them is far lower, as seen below.
Furthermore, focus groups and 1:1s indicate that whilst experiences with line managers are largely positive, this does not translate to the rest of
senior management/GE where feedback indicated a lack of trust and confidence in the leadership.
Post Office overall
Technology & Enterprise Cloud Transformation
Strategy & Transformation
“My direct manager is
extremely supportive
however the Senior Mangers
Retail - Central . : above don't seem to be,
People ; which is a huge barrier”
Legal, Compliance, Governance (III 0.85
EERE 0.26
Corporate Affairs and Comms i aaa 1.14
Retail - Supply chain
Retail - DMB
© GrantThornton
37 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Lower confidence in diversity of those who progress
Inclusion Insights survey responses, inputs from interviews, focus groups and 1:1s, all indicated that a key barrier to trust in the ED&l agenda is
the perceived lack of diversity in leadership roles. This is especially true for under-represented demographics, and more senior grades (SLP in
particular).
i
i Q: I see true diversity in those who succeed and progress here
H
H
H
H
t
H
H
H
H
t
H
H
i 0.01 0
I of — =
i -0.05
H -0.12
H
H
i -0.26 -0.26
H -0.31
H
H
t
H
H
H -0.74
H
H Grade - 4 Grade-SiP Has adisability Neurodivergent Gay/Lesbian Black Mixed or Other ethnic Primary carers Secondary carers Post Office
1 multiple ethnicities background average
H
H
u
‘Scores only highlighted for demographics and characteristics scoring >20% below average for this question
38 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Culture
39. © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Culture: Summary of themes
Culture covers lived experiences around psychological safety, sense of belonging, ways of working, and role modelling of inclusive behaviours.
Survey results, interviews, focus groups and 1:1:s indicate positive lived experiences on the back of recent ED&l initiativedbeing implemented and
positive experiences with managers. The HR policies are welldesigned and targeted, however, in practice they are not consistenty applied, and their
benefits are not being experienced by all employees. Furthermore, those with underrepresented characteristics register considerably lower levels
of psychological safety, and less inclusive experiences around fairness of roles and responsibilities and interactions withdadership.
Themes
Largely flexible ways of working
Positive perceptions around inclusive behaviour demonstrated by line managers
Low fairness regarding allocation of roles and responsibilities by grades
Lack of visible role modelling by the leadership
Low psychological safety while approaching leadership
40 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Triangulated assessment summary
Inclusion Maturity Assessment: is ,s—==éeC
Characteristic-focused/Inclusive x Well-designed policies for employee support; caters to
We saw evidence of the strong intent and welldesigned approach to Va different demographics and under-represented groups, but
building an inclusive culture at POL. However, gaps are seen in not consistently or appropriately applied in practice
implementation around areas of policy compliance, low psychological ; Policies, Processes, ¥ ED&l activities such as ‘Let’s talk about...’ received positive
Governance feedback
safety for those with underrepresented characteristics, and limited
role modelling of inclusive behaviours by leadership, which act as
barriers to achieving the desired culture.
x Poor experiences with Occupational Health provider and
associated processes not fit for purpose
:
H
i
i
i
i
H
H
i
I & ¥ Employees generally feel comfortable with the ways of
ie working and register a high level of trust in managers
i supporting employees with flexible ways of work as
i
H
i
i
i
H
H
H
H
i
H
H
H
H
i
H
© I Ssystemic Inclusion Insights required/relevant
- Survey x Lower confidence in allocation of roles and responsibilities
Culture - Interviews through the organisation
- Focus Groups/1:1s x Lower scores around being able to speak up/raise concerns —
limited psychological safety
x Less prevalence of inclusive behaviours being adopted to
ensure employees across demographics are being involved in
(relevant) decision making processes
x Higher than average scores registered by LGB+, secondary
dg and primary carers, but overall, almost all under-represented
demographics score <10% below average
Tow Trelusion Culture High Diversity and
demographic Insights
‘41 © 2023 Grant Thornton UKLLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
63% of respondents in agreement of statements indicative of an
inclusive culture
Leading with inclusive ways of working, supportive working relationships with line managers, and alignment of individual and organisational
values for employees, Culture scores 0.61 ona scale of -2 to 2. However, psychological safety, especially regarding leadership and wider practice
of inclusive behaviours, scores lowe
Employee inclusion scores Culture registers relatively high scores around flexible working practices with employees
feeling comfortable being their full selves at work and accommodating access requirements.
These perceptions, however, differ by demographics which is explored further in this section.
0.61 0.59 There is less confidence in fair allocation of responsibility, and trust in decision making
processes.
Fair allocation of roles I I Flexible ways
and responsibilities I I of working
0.21 i
Being your true
self at work
0.89
‘Strongly agree or agree {S072
Neither agree not disagree I
i Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly disagree or disagree
disagree 25% 25%
Furthermore, as explored later, there is a lack of trust in the leadership to challenge behaviour
which isn’t inclusive, and a significant proportion of employees are not comfortable speaking
up/voicing their concerns to the leadership. Qualitative feedback substantiates this with
Culture Overall S a
employees openly expressing this issue.
42 © 2023 Grant Thornton UKLLL. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Experiences of Culture vary by functions
Below average scores for Culture seen in Supply Chain and People are driven by low scores around fair allocation of roles and responsibilities,
low psychological safety, and lack of role modelling by the leadership. Any interventions addressing these concerns should focus specifically on
these functions, as well as incorporating any lessons learnt from higher scoring teams, such as Strategy & Transformation.
0.49 POL employee
average for
Culture
061
Commercial Corporate Affairs CFO Legal, Compliance, People Retail - Central Retail-DMB —Retail- Supply Chain Strategy & Technology &
and Comms Governance Transformation _Enterprise Cloud
Transformation
"Scores highlighted in red bars represent >20% below section average, scores highlighted in green bars represent > 20% above
section average
© GrantThornton
43 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Low perceptions of fairness in allocation of roles and
responsibilities, particularly for senior grades
Grades 3B and above register lower than average scores in this area, with grade 4 and SLP significantly below average. Through a diversity lens,
the scores are much lower for employees with a disability/employees of a diverse ethnic background. However white respondents in SLP, who
generally score higher than people from diverse ethnic backgrounds in this grade, also scored low for this question, indicating that perceptions
of unfairness in allocation of responsibilities is a consistent experience across this grade.
job titles
0.37
0.28
0.21 0.25 g g 0.19
Section Question PO/Admin 2B 2A 3B
average average
score score
Disability (Yes) : Disability (Yes) :
“0.11 -0.05
0.18
-0.01
Q: I feel that responsibility is fairly and consistently allocated in the organisation, in line with
-0.26
Disability (Yes) :-0.94
Asian: -0.28
"Scores only highlighted for demographics and characteristics with > 7 people
44 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
0.38
GE
“There is a great
disparity between roles
at the same grade and
their responsibilities”
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Lack of psychological safety from under-represented groups
Responses indicate low levels of psychological safety to be able to speak up and raise concerns across the board. In-particular employees with
under-represented characteristics registered lower and varied scores on being able to speak up/raise non-inclusive practices, as indicated by
below average scores. This was also reflected by outputs from focus groups, where there was a pervasive lack of trust that mechanisms to raise
issues were truly anonymous and would result in a fair and satisfactory outcome.
(Srrpeconomerar I krlow how to raise that I don’t feel included without feeling afraid of negative repercus
le i t forme
os7 demographics H
Hi
Hi
0.47 H
H
H
H
H
H
0.18 i
oa
t
'
Section average score I knowhow toraise that! _‘I feel comfortable see my leaders and H
don't feel included without approaching more senior managers challenge people H :
feeling afraid of negative people in the organisation acting in a way that could I Hasa disability Neurodivergent Mixed/multiple Asian Black Average
repercussions forme to ask questions or share _ make others feel like they 1 ethnicities
H or other ethnic
my views can't be themselves at Hi
i H background
worl H
H
H
45 © 2023 Grant Thornton UKLLLP. e GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Varied perceptions on leaders' role modelling inclusive values
and beliefs by demographics
While employees have indicated alignment with core values and beliefs of the organisation, it is not evidently role modelled by the leadership, as
indicated by a score of 0.40 in this area. Moreover, this perception is much lower for those with under-represented characteristics.
i
H
i
t
H
H
H
t
H
H
i
H
0.32 H
H
'
H
H
'
H
H
H
'
H
H
H
Hi
H
H
0.4
0.23
02 0.22
. E u ul g
Section average Question —_Hasa disability Neurodivergent Asian Black Mixed or Other ethnic
score average score multiple background
ethnicities
Lene eee eee eee nnn 2
46 © 2023 Grant Thornton UKLLLP. © GrantThornton
Strong HR policies, but compliance is not monitored
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Policy review indicates strong, well-written policies, largely inclusive across demographics (apart from neurodiversity). While policies are people-
oriented, the compliance and action taken on the back of the policies is not monitored effectively, leading to varied (and poor) lived experiences,
especially for employees with under-represented characteristics.
Focus area Successes Challenges Maturity Assessment
HR Policies: overall
Process to access support
through Occupational Health
Clearly defined, well-articulated, and
caters across demographics
Employee and manager roles and
responsibilities clearly defined
47 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
Monitoring compliance and turn-around time
on requests
Awareness beyond desk-based employees
Reasonable adjustments and Dignity at Work
policy misses Neurodiversity
No contact details provided for employees to
reach out to, for questions, concerns,
escalation if any
Poor lived experiences for employees across
demographics in dealing with Occupational
Health services
No structure/process to ensure non-
disclosure of sensitive information without
employee consent
Issues raised with respect to inappropriate
labelling of requests around disability
Mature approach on designing
policies
Less developed approach and
processes to monitor and oversee
compliance
Processes appear not to be
designed or operating in an
inclusive way
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Strategy Development
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Strategy Development: Summary of themes
Strategy development covers experiences and perceptions around embeddedness of ED&I strategy, purpose, and vision of the organisation
around inclusion.
POL’s intention towards driving ED&I across the organisation is evident to the leadership as well as the employees- leadership acknowledges the
value-add to the organisation’s growth and performance, and employees are aligned and engaged with the purpose of the organisabin. However,
there is a disconnect between what is ‘stated’ and its translation into action. The leadership fails to implement and practially drive the agenda
forward and this is reflected in employees’ lived experiences around leadership accountability. Furthermore, the ED&I approak focuses more on
building diversity, rather than creating an inclusive environment for everyone to thrive, leading to the root causes of thealck of diversity not being
effectively addressed.
Themes
Confidence in the organisation’s purpose around ED&l
Well-regarded ED&I awareness initiatives
Lack of a clear ED&I strategy across the business
Low trust in the leadership to drive ED&l agenda
Lack of a clear (aligned) objectives for network groups, network chairs, GE members to drive the agenda
49 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Triangulated assessment summary
Inclusion Maturity Assessment: fae I Neer
Characteristic Focused x ED&I targets are defined, but these are not clearly linked to
Vd activities or objectives which can be implemented and
POL has a clear intent around driving ED&I, however there are gaps in embedded across the organisation
the way it is embedded across the business. Being seen as a ‘people Policies, Processes, x Lack of strategic accountability ‘at the top’ leading to lack of
objective’, the strategy currently focuses on meeting diversity Governance trust in the leadership
objectives, rather than viewing inclusion holistically.
® ¥ Employees feel strongly aligned with the focus of ED&l and
the organisation’s intent
v There is a high level of understanding of the organisation's
Inclusion Insights purpose and how it aligns with their role
High ‘Systemic - Survey x However, clear gap in delivering on the agenda - wider
- Interviews perception is “ED&l at POL is only on paper, nothing
Strategy - Focus Groups/1:1s changes”
Development
x Low levels of trust in the leadership to drive change
Impact
pul x There is a focus on just improving diversity, rather than
pir inclusion as an overarching strategic objective, and a means
to creating more diversity
ae Diversity and
demographic Insights
malar Inclusion Culture High
50 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
ED&l agenda takes a characteristic-focused approach
‘Overview: Key EDI Commitments for 2022
‘Network EDI Team Diversity Targets 2024 I GE/SLS
A review of current agenda and strategy (18month plan) documents reveals a Increase membership, To deliver process and Gender - 50% Tobe decided
diversity-focused approach to ED&l, with a clear intention, targets and a roadmap. elisa a
However, accountability has not been assigned, and neither has responsibility to I jatecdlomsninlontnny rejoin abner ference tine
relevant supporters of change (network groups, people team etc). I SEE et siidaiiianiiias
While awareness building activities are well-designed and welkregarded by Sharer ent Common Sowa Sinn The Race a Work Chane
employees, due to the lack of accountability mechanisms, ED&l is not considered a
priority at the top resulting in a lack of trust and confidence in the leadership’s
commitment to driving change. This is reflected in outputs from the Leadership
survey, which indicated mixed feelings as to the strategic importance of ED&I. I
Source: Post office ED&I commitments 2022 (GE deck)
Shee es
ED&l strategy and supporting Strong commitments to improve No overarching strategic objectives + Characteristic focused approach
documents diversity across the organisation, * Lack of leadership accountability working well to drive specific
supported by targets * Lack of clear objectives for change commitments however fails to be
* Well-regarded initiatives by the owners (network groups, people impactful in driving ED&l across the
ED&I team to drive awareness team, leadership) organisation
around inclusion and diversity inthe * Seen asa ‘tick-box’ exercise by
workplace employees
$1 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Employees exhibit low trust in the organisation and the
leadership to deliver change (1 of 3)
Employee perceptions around Strategy are at par with overall POL average — with 62% strongly agreeing or agreeing with inclusive lived
experiences. This is largely driven by positive perceptions around the ED&l intent and purpose, however, as shown in other areas, lower scores
are seen in relation to trusting the organisation, especially the leadership to deliver on the intent.
Employees feel strongly aligned with the purpose of the organisation and are engaged to support
on this agenda, however trust in leadership to identify barriers to inclusion and address this is
very low.
0.59 0.59 See =
Trust inleadersto I Trust that ED&l is I Understanding
address inequality # I taken seriously I of purpose
0.28 _ 0.70 0.88
m Strongly agree or agree
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
disagree
Neither agree/disagree
‘believe my organisation is pursuing ED&! S01 wie vely good ai verbalising
mst ly di % icie it
trongly disagree or 25% 25% Policies that although on the face of it niente but iitte has changed:
disagree represent a fairer and equal behaviour, es
Oe eee especially with the leadership’
however, it isn’t in reality’
“although it (inclusion and
Strategy Development Overall diversity) is talked about, I do
~
H
H
H
H
i
H
H
H
H
i
H
H
H
H
H
H
i
i 0
H
H
H
H
H
H
i
i
H
t
i
H
H
t
i not see this in action”
i
52 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Employees exhibit low trust in the organisation and the
leadership to deliver change (2 of 3)
Trust in the organisation that ED&l is taken seriously is much higher than trust in leaders specifically, but there is significant variance between
functions, indicating differences in experiences. Trust in leaders around the ED&l agenda is lower across the board, but decreases further for
more senior grades, with SLP and GE registering a particularly low score in this area.
i wl trust that we take diversity and inclusion seriously here mI trust our leaders to make sure we are as inclusive as possible
H
H
H 0.79 0.76
H : 0.70
{ oi ; 0.62 .
' 0.52
H 0.39
H
u f Ba u E
Hi
H
Hl f
H Strategy & Technology & cro Commercial Retail- Ma Retail-Central Legal, Compliance, People Retail Supply chain Corporate Affairs and Average
{Transformation _Enterprise Cloud Governance Comms
H Transformation
H
' 0.80
i 0.70
' 0.61
1 0.52
H 0.45 0.50
H
H
H
H 0.09
H Cd]
i PO/Admin 28 2A 38 4 sue of 013 Average
*Scores highlighted in red barsrepresent >20% below question average, scores highlighted in green bars represent > 20%
above section average } GrantThornton
53 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Employees exhibit low trust in the organisation and the
leadership to deliver change (3 of 3)
The trust in leadership to drive inclusion at the workplace is low across under-represented demographics. This demonstrates the need to target
these demographics when looking to rebuild trust that leaders are committed to ED&l.
ctr rl mak r r inclusi I “ A
Q: I trust our leaders to make sure we are as inclusive as possible have no wuccinthe
0.52 organisation and our leads to
be able to change in the near
future... it makes me
uncomfortable as a minority”
ethnicities
H
i
Hi
H
Hi
H
H
H
H
i 0.39
i 0.35
H 0.25
i 0.21
i 0.16
H
H 0.1 0.09 “We have a million policies
i and strategies in place but
i it won't change if it doesn’t
i change at the top”
Hi
I Section average Question LGB+ Has a disability Neurodivergent Asian Black Mixed or Other ethnic
i score average score multiple background
Hi
i
ts
‘Scores highlighted for demographics and characteristics scoring >20% below average for this question
i
$4 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Strong support for network groups from employees, however
lack of clear objectives limit progress
Employees largely feel very positive regarding the work done by the network groups in driving awareness, providing support and resources to
employees. Insights from interviews with Network Leads and focus groups reveal however that their impact is being limited by lack of clarity
around their purpose and how it is supposed to align to the ED&I goals and agenda of the organisation. They also operate in silos, and there is no
framework to support their collaboration.
"There is no clear ED&l strategy in the
business. There are so many committed
and passionate individuals and groups
(network). I think the organisation
genuinely want to be inclusive but don’t
know how to”
“There is a parent child relationship
where the business in the parent and
the networks are the child... no one
at the top takes it seriously”
“We set our own
objectives, there is no
oversight”
5 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
Key challenges
.
Network role and purpose within the wider ED&l agenda has
not been defined
Ways of working between the organisation and networks have
not been formalised, leading to differences in expectations ‘;
Objectives which are not aligned to the ED&I goals of POL
No framework for relationships with each other which would
help break down the ‘characteristic’ approach to ED&l
The role of the chairs is time intensive, but this investment and —
the resulting value they are driving is not feeling recognised
i
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
External impact
$6 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
External Impact: Summary of themes
External Impact covers perceptions of inclusivity when engaging external stakeholders, and alignment between POL values and he organisations
you work with.
This area registers the highest score for POL at more than 25% above average, driven by strong employee perceptions around t& organisation’s
commitment to driving inclusion externally, and the subsequent impact created externally. A focus area that emerges aligns wh a common theme
observed earlier — trusting the leadership to drive this externally. There is also a gap regarding a process to ensure alignmenbetween internal and
external approaches to ED&l.
Themes
Positive lived experiences and perceptions regarding employees exhibiting inclusive behaviours externally
Trusting organisation’s intent and focus to create positive external impact
Low trust in leadership to drive inclusive practices externally
Alignment of external and internal communications strategy
57 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
Triangulated assessment summary
Inclusion Maturity Assessment:
Characteristic-focused/Inclusive
Employees indicate higher levels of trust that POL has adopted
inclusive practices when engaging externally with customers and
suppliers, as indicated by above average scores in this area. However,
this same level of trust is not extended to leadership. Furthermore,
there are no supporting processes to ensure alignment and
consistency between external messaging and approach and the
experience of employees.
High .
Systemic
External Impact
Impact
Inclusion Culture
58 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
im
Policies, Processes,
Governance
>
s
Inclusion Insights
~ Survey
- Interviews
~ Focus Groups/1:1s
Ht
it
Diversity and
demographic Insights
x
No communications strategy, and therefore no clear
structure to ensure external and internal communications
are aligned in relation to ED&l
High average scores on all External Impact questions,
especially in relation to colleagues’ engagement externally
Positive perceptions around organisation’s focus on ED&l
while engaging externally
Lower confidence in leadership to drive this effectively
through external engagements
Lack of established process to actively engage Postmasters
and customers with ED&I agenda and strategy
Less variance in experiences/perceptions in this area
compared to the others
Employees who are disabled/neurodivergent register much
lower trust in the leadership to ensure external
engagements are centred around inclusion
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
POL’s approach to external engagement seen as inclusive, but
low trust in the leadership to deliver
Highest across all factors, 69% of employees agree or strongly agree on POL’s approach to external engagement and impact being inclusive,
scoring 0.74, ona scale of -2 to 2, in this area. This is led by employees’ lived experiences around treating customers, clients, and suppliers in an
inclusive manner. However, like in other areas, the trust in the leadership to follow and deliver on this commitment scores low.
“Colleagues in my organisation treat (0.93 “We provide a service which is 0.25
customers, clients, suppliers in an inclusive to all our
inclusive manger no matter what Postmasters/customers/end users”
their background”
“I trust my leaders to make sure that 0.62 Asa leadership team, it is 0.75
Agree or strongly agree organisations that we work with are important to us that we have
aligned to our commitment to procedures in place to ensure that
inclusion” we engage with clients, partners,
Neither agree nor disagree and suppliers who have inclusive
practices
m Disagree or strongly
disagree With a score of 0.75, the leadership acknowledge the need to have procedures in place to
ensure effective, inclusive external engagement. However, a low score of 0.25 is seen in its
perception around inclusive services being provided externally to Postmasters/customers/end
users. This is also reflected in sentiments from focus groups and 1:1s where lack of meaningful
engagement with Postmasters was referenced.
© GrantThornton
59 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Under-represented demographics have higher confidence in POL
colleagues than leadership
As seen in other sections, there are specific demographics who consistently score lower in relation to trust in leadership to drive ED&l agenda.
People from diverse ethnic backgrounds are also less likely to believe other colleagues will act in an inclusive way, compared to those who
disclosed having a disability or are neurodivergent, indicating more deep-rooted feelings of exclusion by peers as well as leadership.
‘% Colleagues in my organisation treat customers, clients, suppliers in an inclusive manger no matter what their background
'® I trust my leaders to make sure that organisations that we work with are aligned to our commitment to inclusion
ethnic background
.
H
H
H
H
H 0.88 0.93
H .
H 0.85 0.83
H .
; .
i 0.62
H .
H .
H mm
t 0.42
H 0.31 :
i
H ' 0.21
i Has a disability Neurodivergent Asian Black Mixed/multiple ethnicities or other Average
u
“Characteristics indicated have registered different experiences compared to other demographics
e GrantThornton
60 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
However, there is a perception around ‘external image over
everything else’
Whilst experiences have been positive, there is evidence from focus groups, interviews, and 1:1s, indicating a perception that POLs objectives
and work is driven largely by the external image and what it means for the brand. There is no strategy or defined approach to internal or
external communications and engagement on ED&I which would define the principles and approach that should be applied in orderto build
trust and consistently demonstrate the commitment of the organisation. This has resulted in some contradictory messaging. There is also no
presence of a strategy to include ED&l in operations externally and introduction and alignment of this to internal strategy will drive progress
here.
“We have come to hold our
external image above all else...we
talk about D&I but aren’t good at
it... we are confusing and
contradictory’
*Pcople duuice hold . fairly Aligning internal and external approaches to ED&!
high view of the Post Office, Feedback from employees indicate that messaging around
but it is not reflected ED&I seems contradictory at times, due to their own
internally” experiences not aligning with what is being said.
It needs to be ensured that external messaging on ED&I
reflects the experiences of colleagues, and changes which
will positively impact on the experience of under
represented colleagues are prioritised over superficial
“1 only see us making a difference to activities which could be interpreted as ‘lip service’
communities when it makes commercial sense”
61 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Next steps
62 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP ) GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Future focus area
Below are the key pillars which we built your ED&!l roadmap around
Key challenge areas Theme High-level recommendation
* Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities across ED&l agenda not clearly defined Define the roles, responsibilities and governance
1. Roles, responsibility 1 "
bili mechanism around ED&l agenda between networks,
* ED&l strategy and vision not clearly articulated and communicated. & accountability ED&I team and the leadership
+ The engagement and communication approach around ED& is not controlled or
aligned to the ED&I strategy.
Establish consistent people processes aligned with the
ED&I team, which embed the principles of inclusion by
design, and are supported by robust frameworks to
ensure compliance
+ ED&l is viewed as a ‘people’ objective, not an overarching strategic objective
2. People processes
* Low trust in leadership to drive ED&l agenda
* Leadership not seen to visibly role model inclusive behaviours
* Perceptions of unfairness and lack of equal opportunities to progress and succeed
3. Strategy, Re-develop your ED&I strategy, and apply a clear and
+ ED&I not embedded across employee lifecycle, and there is no control framework or communication & consistent approach to communication & engagement
engagement on the ED&l agenda
monitoring in place to ensure compliance with processes.
63 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Future focus area
The recommendations below will be expanded into a detailed roadmap, to allow for clear prioritisation and
analysis
Theme Recommendations
Define the roles, responsibilities and governance mechanism around ED&l agenda between networks, ED&I team and the leadership
1. Roles, responsibility * Define the roles of key stakeholders in the ED&I agenda, including decision makers, relationships between stakeholders, and accountabilities
& accountability * Embed accountability mechanisms for the leadership team, and ensure they have the support and tools they need to drive the ED&l agenda
* Implement a governance framework to report on KPIs, progress against targets and other key measures of success on a regular basis
Establishing consistent people processes aligned with the ED&l team
2. People processes + Ensure that inclusive practices are embedded by design into the employee lifecycle, specifically processes to support recruitment, progression,
and succession planning.
* Create oversight and monitoring frameworks to support the business in being compliant with policies
Re-Develop your ED&I strategy, and apply a clear and consistent approach to communication & engagement on the ED&l agenda
* Re-develop ED&I strategy to ensure it frames increased diversity as an outcome of a more inclusive culture and aligns with the GE’s vision for
3. Strategy, ED&l at POL. Define goals which support this vision
communication & * Prioritise changes which will positively impact on the experience of colleagues over superficial activities which could be interpreted as ‘lip service’
engagement * Build trust through transparent messaging and demonstrating that feedback from employees is being listened to and addressed
+ Take control of the narrative around ED&l by clearly communicating what success looks like, and shift the focus to creating an inclusive culture,
where a more diverse employee population is one of the outputs
© GrantThornton
64 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Key takeaways
) GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Key takeaways
Talent Attraction
Talent Attraction covers perceptions around the application process,
expectations of cultural fit, and experiences of inclusive practices throughout the
application process.
POL performs strongly around Talent Attraction with a strong intent to hire diverse
talent and values which are well understood and reflected during the application
process. Candidates align with the brand’s stated values and register a strong sense
of belonging and fit with POL. This is reflected in the well-above average scores in
this section, especially for those having joined in the last three years. However,
gaps are observed in translation of values from recruitment and selection stages to
onboarding, where lived experiences differ greatly between and within
demographics. Lack of internal controls to ensure that fair and transparent
recruitment processes are being followed, especially for the leadership are also
impacting experiences of employees in this area.
Strong perceptions of belonging and cultural fit on the back of POL values
Positive perceptions around alignment with employer brand, but experiences
differ once onboarded
Mature recruitment and selection policies but weak implementation/compliance
Wider perception around biased hiring processes and lack of transparency
66 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
Talent Development
Talent Development covers lived experiences around employees’ progression,
performance management, fairness of pay and rewards, and managers role
modelling inclusive behaviours.
Whilst Talent Development scores below average, the gap between the overall
average score and Talent Development is not as large as we typically see. Low
scores are driven by lack of confidence in merit-based progression, and a general
perception that opportunities to progress are limited, especially for under-
represented demographics. There is a perceived lack of transparency around how
performance is assessed, and whilst employees share positive experiences around
supportive line managers, there are lower scores around seeing leaders and
managers challenging behaviour which isn’t inclusive.
Themes
Effective people management by line managers
Limited trust in merit-based progression and rewards, and perceptions of unfair
performance assessment process
Lack of career pathways and progression framework
Poor representation in senior leadership and GE
Perceptions of unfair performance assessment process
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Key takeaways
Culture
Culture covers lived experiences around psychological safety, sense of belonging,
ways of working, and role modelling of inclusive behaviours.
Survey results, interviews, focus groups and 1:1:s indicate positive lived
experiences on the back of recent ED&I initiatives being implemented and positive
experiences with managers. The HR policies are well-designed and targeted,
however, in practice they are not consistently applied, and their benefits are not
being experienced by all employees. Furthermore, those with under-represented
characteristics register considerably lower levels of psychological safety, and less
inclusive experiences around fairness of roles and respo! ities and
teractions with leadership.
Themes
Largely flexible ways of working
Positive perceptions around inclusive behaviour demonstrated by line managers
Low fairness regarding allocation of roles and responsibilities by grades
Lack of visible role modelling by the leadership
Low psychological safety while approaching leadership
67 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
Strategy Development
Strategy Development covers experiences and perceptions around
embeddedness of ED&I strategy, purpose, and vision of the organisation around
inclusion.
POL’s intention towards driving ED&l across the organisation is evident to the
leadership as well as the employees — leadership acknowledges the value-add to
the organisation’s growth and performance, and employees are aligned and
engaged with the purpose of the organisation. However, there is a disconnect
between what is ‘stated’ and its translation into action. The leadership fails to
implement and practically drive the agenda forward and this is reflected in
employees’ lived experiences around leadership accountability. Furthermore, the
ED&l approach focuses more on building diversity, rather than creating an
inclusive environment for everyone to thrive, leading to the root causes of the lack
of diversity not being effectively addressed.
Themes
Confidence in the organisation’s purpose around ED&!
Well-regarded ED&I awareness initiatives
Lack of a clear ED&I strategy across the business
Low trust in the leadership to drive ED&l agenda
Lack of a clear (aligned) objectives for network groups, network chairs, GE
members to drive the agenda
fo) GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Key takeaways
External Impact
External Impact covers perceptions of inclusivity when engaging external
stakeholders, and alignment between POL values and the organisations you work
with.
This area registers the highest score for POL at more than 25% above average,
driven by strong employee perceptions around the organisation’s commitment to
driving inclusion externally, and the subsequent impact created externally. Afocus
area that emerges aligns with a common theme observed — trusting the leadership
to drive this externally. There is also a gap regarding a process to ensure
alignment between internal and external approaches to ED&l.
Positive lived experiences and perceptions regarding employees exhibiting
inclusive behaviours externally
Trusting organisation’s intent and focus to create positive external impact
Low trust in leadership to drive inclusive practices externally
Alignment of external and internal communications strategy
68 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Payzone Bill Payments Ltd
) GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Our approach through Inclusion Insights
The following outputs are based on data from our Employee Lived Experience survey for Payzone Bill Payments Ltd (“Payzone”) employees. We
received 28 responses, which corresponded to 33% of Payzone’s overall employee population of 85. The survey was split into five factors of
inclusion: Talent Attraction, Talent Development, Culture, Strategy Development, and External Impact.
Factor of Focus area Each question in the survey is assessed on a five-point scale of -2 to 2, with I
Inclusion responses ranging from, ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’
Talent Employer brand, recruitment, selection processes, and
Attraction employees’ onboarding experiences. ees
2 0 2
Talent The approach to talent and career development of the
Development employees, including pathways to progression, learning Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly agree
disagree nor disagree
and development opportunities, rewards and benefits.
This scoring mechanism helps suitably allocate negative, neutral, and positive
sentiments across each question. All questions are positively worded such that
‘agreeing’ is positive, and indicative of an inclusive working environment. As such,
the higher the average overall score is, the more consistent and embedded the t
Strategy Communication and embeddedness of ED&I strategy, experience of an inclusive working environment. I
Development _ understanding of organisational purpose, and clarity of
vision and goals for ED&I.
Culture Ways of working, levels of psychological safety,
embeddedness of an inclusive environment across
demographics, role modelling of inclusive behaviours.
Our approach to analysis considers both the most common response, response I
variance, and the sentiment of the response. This is analysed across demographics,
External The approach to driving ED&l externally and alignment functions, grades, and the five key factors to help identify themes. Free text
Impact with values. responses provided are analysed and mapped separately.
70 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
74% of Payzone employees agree or strongly agree with
experiences of inclusion
Of the total 1,931 responses we received, Payzone accounted for ~1.5% (28) of the responses, which was 33% of the total reported Payzone
headcount (85). Payzone registers a score of 0.93 on a scale of -2 to 2, with a higher proportion of ‘agree or strongly agree’ responses than all
other POL departments. Despite this high average score, there is a variance observed in responses. The highest and lowest average scores are 2.0
and -0.41 respectively, and a quarter of respondents scored more than 20% below average. In addition, when considered by gender the average
scores for men are 37% lower than women.
Lowest Overall Highest
0.41 average 0.93 average 2.0 average
score score score
Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
Payzone overall
74.1% of responses were ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’
Men score lower than women across all factors
and focus areas
Payzone’s most common response was ‘Agree’ to statements relating to
experiences of inclusion throughout their employee experience
: :
i i
i i
i i
t Hi
i i
i '
i i
! i
H 1
i i
i Men (50%) ae 0.77 H
i i
i i
H i
fl 1
i i
' ;
i i
i i
i i
i ;
i i
i i
Hi 1
' i
i i
i i
t Hi
poce ene n ene
74 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
86% agree or strongly agree with statements relating to inclusive
approach externally
Payzone’s overall average score of 0.93 ona scale of -2 to 2 is driven by high overall scores, particularly for External Impact, Culture, and
Strategy Development, exceeding overall POL average by 57%. Talent Development for Payzone scores the lowest of all factors at 0.89 with
relatively higher proportion of employees in disagreement or strong disagreement to statements indicative of inclusion.
0.93
72%
2% I 26%
Talent Attraction
43
j
Hi
H
i
Ln
Hf
Hi
Hi
Hl
i
i
Ht
Talent Development
ARE
Strategy Development
External impact
i.
72 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
meme Section average
“oon Overall Payzone average
——— Overall POL average
m Agree or strongly agree
Neither agree/disagree
m Disagree or strongly disagree
© GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Talent Attraction
Inclusive experience during recruitment, however less confident in inclusive culture post-onboarding
Employees register strong perceptions of fit and belonging early on in their selection stages and agree with Payzone providing sufficient support
during the recruitment stages. However, when asked about whether the values and culture showcased is reflected post joining, employees
register a considerably below average score.
Payzone employee inclusion scores
72% responses agree or strongly agree with feeling included during recruitment process at
Payzone, primarily led by the support extended through the application process and feelings of
H
0.93 0.93 I belonging and of ‘fit’. However, a dissonance is observed between how respondents perceive the
I organisation’s values and culture to be during the recruitment process and their perceptions post
I coming into the organisation, with this area scoring 31% below average.
H
c ae ' [Post-onboarding experiences against valuesI I PerceptionsI/ Sense of I/ Inclusive I
H & culture seen during recruitment I offi I belonging I behaviours ©
i ‘I 0.64 I 0.85 tl 099 —I 100 I
Hi roe 2
H
26% — I2% 21% 5%, i oe Bee a wut aes
{ EEE H = 0 2
H Talent Attraction Overall H Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
H disagree
Disagree or strongly disagree = Neither agree/disagree _m Agree or strongly agree
“Figures in text box represents average score
© GrantThornton
73 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Talent Development
Low confidence in fairness of pay and rewards, and limited representation of diversity in those that progress is driving lower scores in
this area.
Employees register positive lived experiences around line manager engagement and belonging. However, significantly low scores are registered
around fairness of progression, pay and reward.
Payzone employee inclusion scores
0.89 0.93
% 22% 21%
While 71% responses are in agreement or strong agreement with inclusive lived experiences
around Talent Development, this area registers the highest proportion of disagree or strongly
disagree responses at 7% compared to other factors. Statements relating to pay and reward
fairness had the highest proportion of disagree or strongly disagree (20%) and diverse
representation in progression also scores low at 0.50, ona scale of -2 to 2. Areas of successes that
positively impact the score include inclusivity and support of line managers and belief that
someone like them can be a leader in the organisation.
“Payandreward I Diverse I/-_‘Meerit-based i Belonging II People I
fairness representation I rewards 1.25 I management
0.36 0.50 I 0.50 I I (line managers)
1.29
“coseeineatmcnniqn
71% 5%
Oo 2
Talent Development Overall Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
disagree
Disagree or strongly disagree = Neither agree/disagree _ mAgree or strongly agree
“Figures in text box represents average score
© GrantThornton
74 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Culture
High levels of psychological safety indicated by an inclusive environment and people feeling comfortable speaking up.
Scores indicate that respondents experience high levels of psychological safety and an inclusive work environment, with statements relating to
each scoring 1.14 respectively, on a scale of -2 to 2. However, there are lower scores around perceptions of fairness in the way roles and
responsibilities are allocated.
Payzone employee inclusion scores 82% agree or strongly agree with being able to speak up to leadership, which is indicative of
psychological safety at work. Similarly, 86% of employees agree or strongly agree with being
0.97 0.93 comfortable to be their true self at work. In contrast, only 68% agree or strongly agree with
statements relating to decision making and fair allocation of roles and responsibilities, scoring
more than 20% lower than average scores in this factor, at 0.61 and 0.50 respectfully.
76% 74% “Fairness of role and [Inclusive behaviours I { Being your true I [eacineconcers
I responsibilities allocation _visible at work self at work I leadership
‘ 0.50 i 0.86 t 1.14 HM 1.14 I
19% 21% 5% I
j ° 2 0 2
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
Culture Overall disagree
“Figures in text box represents average score
75 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LP. © GrantThornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
Strategy Development
Strong belief in organisation’s intent in relation to ED&I, however, confidence in leadership effectiveness scores lower.
86% of employees agree or strongly agree that they trust the organisation taking ED&I seriously, with score of 1.07 in this area. Furthermore,
employees align strongly with the organisation's purpose with 81% agreeing or strongly agreeing with related statements. However, with a
considerably lower score of 0.61, there is low confidence in the leadership to be able to address inequality or related concerns when raised.
Disagree or strongly disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree or strongly agre!
: in scores While more than 80% agree or strongly agree with the organisation’s focus and intent around
H ED&I, only 68% agree or strongly agree with trusting their leadership to address inequality,
{ 0.90 0.93 effectively and quickly.
H
' [“Trustinleadersto I I jerstanding II
' I address inequality I of purpose I taken seriously
' 75% 74% I 0.61 ooeee I 1.07
H
' 5% 20% 21% 5% 2 "9 .
' TT ee Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor ‘Agree Strongly Agree
' Strategy Development Overall disagree
H
H
H
H
H
H
“Figures in text box represents average score
© GrantThornton
76 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
External Impact
POL00447900
POL00447900
Commercial in confidence
External Impact has the highest average score, driven by a strong trust in the organisation to consider ED&I while engaging
externally
86% of employees agree or strongly agree with trusting the organisation to consider ED&I and “do the right thing” while engaging externally, and
78% agree or strongly agree with trusting the leaders to align to this commitment while engaging externally.
Payzone employee inclusion scores
i
' 1.22 0.93
H
i oe 74%
i
H
H 3% I 21%, 5%
i 7 a ‘SRA
H
H
i
External Impact Overall
Disagree or strongly disagree © Neither agree/disagree m Agree or strongly agree
‘Figures in text box represents average score
77 © 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP.
Higher than average scores registered around trusting the organisation to create positive impact
externally and engage inclusively externally.
Whilst higher than overall average, trust in the leadership to role model commitment to inclusion
while engaging externally scores slightly lower compared to other questions this in this section,
with a score of 1.14 on a scale of -2 to 2.
{Leadership role} I Intent around ED&l__} I EDR! in external
modelling I _ impact externally I engagement
1.14 1.25 I 1.25
2 0 2
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Strongly Agree
disagree
© Grant Thornton
POL00447900
POL00447900
This report is confidential and it shall not be disclosed to any third party without our prior written consent, except as reqired by law, or any legal or regulatory authority. Grant Thornton UK LLP accepts no duty of
care nor assume any responsibility to any third party other than the Engaging entity (the Company). This Report has been prodced under the terms of the Engagement Letter between Grant Thornton UK LLP and
the Company, and is subject to the Disclaimer set out in the User Terms found here.
The data used in the provision of our services to you and incorporated into the Report has been provided by you. We have notverified the accuracy or completeness of any such data. There may therefore be errors
in such data which could impact on the content of the Report. No warranty or representation as to the accuracy or completenes of any such data or of the content of the Report relating to such data is given nor
can any responsibility be accepted for any loss arising therefrom.
Responsibility for management decisions will remain solely with the directors of the Company and not us. The directors shouldperform a credible review of the Report in order to inform any decision made by the
Company.
© 2023 Grant Thornton UK LLP - All rights reserved. “Grant Thornton” refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member fms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to
‘one or more member firms, as the context requires. Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd(GTIL). GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each
member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are
not liable for one another’s acts or omissions. Please see grantthornton.co.uk for further details.
fe] Grant Thornton
grantthornton.co.uk