November 2025

Contents

• Blue Tulip Consultancy – Welcome
• Does being Included come at a cost
• Case Law –  Leicester City Council v Parmar: Discrimination on the grounds of race.
• Good Stories
• Blue Tulip Consultancy In action

With our training and consultancy support the primary focus is on

• Proactive and Preventative Actions to Sexual Harassment
• Understanding and controlling Microaggressions
• Organising and Managing Reciprocal Mentoring
• Finding Your Mojo – Professional Leadership Development Programme for Ethnic Minority Groups
• Inclusive Leadership Coaching – one-to-one or group coaching

---

Welcome

This particular year, I’ve noticed the pendulum swing from organisations stepping back or showing reluctance to embed inclusive practices, to others getting more creative and intentional about making inclusion real and impactful.

Amid all the uncertainty at a local and global level, one question remains constant for me:

How included do you feel when you are at work, and what impact does this have on you — both at work and at home?

Inclusion isn’t a policy or a trend. It’s an experience, a feeling, and its ripple effect goes far beyond the workplace.

 Does being included come at a cost? 

There have been many positive strategies and actions aligned with organisational values to ensure that all employees, because of and irrespective of their differences, feel valued and included. Yet it raises an important question: does being included sometimes come at a cost to one’s sense of self and wellbeing?

I was recently coaching an African man from Zimbabwe who shared, with a quiet sadness, how being authentic had made feeling included more difficult for him. He described how he naturally uses his hands when speaking, a form of expression deeply rooted in his cultural identity and communication style. However, his manager advised him that such gestures, especially coming from a tall African man, might be perceived as intimidating, and that it would be “easier” for others if he avoided communicating that way.

The question “easier for whom?” speaks volumes. It highlights the subtle ways that workplace expectations can ask individuals to shrink or soften parts of themselves to make others comfortable. What may appear as advice on professionalism can, in reality, become a quiet instruction to conform at the cost of being true to oneself.

Vernā Myers, an American diversity advocate said, “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance.” However, in many workplaces, more people, from diverse backgrounds, are indeed invited to the party but are then quietly, sometimes vehemently told how to dance.

I continued to reflect on my client’s comment and realised that the pressure to be included can sometimes cause discomfort, tension, or even anxiety. Inclusion isn’t always effortless, in some cases, it comes with hidden expectations that can leave people feeling drained or alienated. But what are the occasions when being included is at a cost?

In many workplaces, there is an implicit pressure to conform to the dominant norms and behaviours of the majority, regardless of whether these standards are practical, inclusive, or respectful of individual differences. Colleagues often receive the message, “We want to include you—just behave like us.”

For some, this means engaging in ways that feel unnatural or uncomfortable, suppressing aspects of their identity to gain acceptance. This expectation of ‘adapt to our stance’ can manifest in various ways:

• Identity adaptation: Individuals may feel compelled to alter their names, accents, or mannerisms to make interactions easier for others.

• Cultural and religious suppression: Colleagues might choose not to share or practice aspects of their cultural or religious identity, fearing exclusion or misunderstanding.
• Concealing personal responsibilities: One colleague, for example, found it easier to say he was delayed by traffic than to admit he was taking his children to school. While the former excuse received understanding, the latter often drew dismissive reactions such as sighs or eye-rolling, revealing subtle biases about childcare not considered as important.

The Gossip and Complaining Culture

Another dynamic observed in workplace environments is the prevalence of a ‘gossip culture’ an informal expectation that everyone will engage in conversations about others, often framed negatively. This culture can also manifest through habitual complaining, where discussions revolve around dissatisfaction with work, managers, organisational changes, or even external factors such as the weather or current affairs.

Within such an environment, participation in gossip or collective complaining becomes a form of social currency—a way to signal belonging and alliance. The maintenance of this culture relies on mutual engagement; silence may be interpreted as disinterest, disloyalty, or unwillingness to “join in.” As a result, individuals who choose not to participate may find themselves subtly excluded or perceived as outsiders.

This dynamic demonstrates how group belonging can be tied to negative communication patterns, where inclusion depends on shared criticism rather than constructive dialogue. Over time, such a culture can erode trust, lower morale, and stifle genuine connection.

Social Bonding Through Informal Conversations

Another common feature of workplace culture is the ongoing discussion about television programmes or sporting events. These conversations often serve as a form of social bonding, a way for colleagues to connect through shared interests, informal chats, and light-hearted exchanges about topics unrelated to work. Such discussions can act as conversational openers, strengthen team relationships, and even provide moments of stress relief during the working day.

However, while these shared rituals of connection are valuable, they can also create implicit pressure to participate. Colleagues who do not follow popular shows or have little interest in sport may feel excluded or compelled to engage in conversations that do not resonate with them, simply to avoid being seen as distant or unfriendly. In this way, what begins as a gesture of inclusion and camaraderie can inadvertently produce feelings of discomfort or social isolation for those whose interests differ from the majority.

The Pressure to Engage in Jokes

Humour, too, plays a big part in workplace culture. Laughter can bring people together, but it can also divide. Many people have felt that awkward pressure to laugh at jokes that don’t sit right, just to avoid being labelled “too serious” or “no fun.” And when someone does speak up, the response is often, “It’s only banter.” This comeback is a way of brushing off discomfort or avoid accountability

This kind of banter culture can create an environment where individuals feel obliged to laugh along or appear to agree, even when the humour conflicts with their personal values or makes them feel awkward.

Over time, this can normalise behaviour that crosses boundaries and silences those who feel uncomfortable.

So does the pressure to be included come at a cost? In many workplaces it can. The subtle yet angst ridden pressure to join in, laugh along or adapt to the perceived norms of the majority can lead to colleagues hiding parts of who they really are for the ease of not being called out and mocked. Genuine inclusion should not come with that price tag.

Workplaces that want genuine inclusion need to pay attention to these quieter cultural expectations, the small, everyday ways people are pressured to act, talk, or think in order to be part of the group.

Having a sense of belonging and feeling valued happens when colleagues are able to contribute, share and connect without needing to edit themselves. It’s about creating a culture where difference isn’t just tolerated but genuinely valued — where opting out of a joke, skipping the football chat, or sharing a part of your identity doesn’t make you an outsider. Inclusion is about ensuring that there is space for people to be themselves and still be part of a team.

Interesting Case Law

Leicester City Council v Parmar: 

In Leicester City Council v Parmar, the Court of Appeal recently upheld the decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal that a senior social worker had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of race.

Background

• Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian origin, began working for Leicester County Council in 1989 and transferred to Leicester City Council in 1997. She became Head of Service for Locality West in 2015, with over 30 years of unblemished service.
• Ms Lake, Director of Adult Social Care and Safeguarding, oversaw eight service areas including Mrs Parmar’s.
• In 2018, the Head of Service for Contact and Response (C&R), a white British colleague, raised concerns about workload distribution, suggesting Locality West take on more work. The tone of the email was deemed unacceptable by Mrs Parmar.
• Mrs Parmar complained about the email and later accused Ms Lake of unconscious racial bias, citing her seating preferences in the office.
• In January 2021, following ongoing tensions, Ms Lake initiated a disciplinary investigation against Mrs Parmar and temporarily removed her from her role; no other Head of Service was suspended.
• Allegations against Mrs Parmar were vague, lacking specific details. A new investigator, Ms Tote, later took over but did not provide Mrs Parmar with access to witness transcripts or recordings.
• In May 2021, Mrs Parmar was informed there was no case to answer. She subsequently filed an Employment Tribunal claim for direct race discrimination.
• Despite the disciplinary case being dropped, Mrs Parmar was dismissed in April 2022. Separate legal proceedings regarding her dismissal are ongoing.
• Mrs Parmar alleged she was treated less favourably than white colleagues, citing vague allegations, disproportionate disciplinary action, and lack of transparency.
• A Data Subject Access Request revealed that since 2017, only ethnic minority employees had been subject to disciplinary action in Adult Social Care. No white employees of comparable grade had been investigated.
• The only other Head of Service investigated by Ms Lake was also of Asian origin, suggesting a pattern of disproportionate disciplinary action against ethnic minority senior staff.
• Mrs Parmar needed to show that her treatment was more likely than not due to her race. If successful, the burden would shift to the Council to prove otherwise.

Employment Tribunal (ET) Decision

The Employment Tribunal agreed that the facts raised an inference of discrimination, specifically in several comparable cases where a disciplinary investigation might reasonably be instigated, Ms Lake decided not to do so when it involved employees of a difference race to Mrs Parmar. Instead, Mrs Lake’s normal approach was to offer mediation or to deal with it informally by discussion. She took “much more drastic action” against Mrs Parmar after she had accused her of unconscious racial bias. This shifted the burden of proof to the Council to show race was not the reason for the treatment. The Council failed to do so, and so direct discrimination was established.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Decision

The Council appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal who dismissed the appeal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed the main reason for the burden of proof shifting to the Council was the disparity in treatment, finding that Ms Lake had not disciplined employees of other ethnicity other than that of Mrs Parmar in similar circumstances.

The Council appealed again to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal. In particular:

• The circumstances of the evidential comparators were sufficiently similar to those of Mrs Parmar to mean that their different treatment by the Council supported an inference of discrimination.
• The Tribunal was entitled to draw adverse inferences from the Council’s failure to disclose relevant documents. They did not treat them as ‘automatically’ shifting the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Tribunal had clearly considered whether the Council had discharged the shifted burden of proof and had found that it had not. The Tribunal did not think that the explanations were credible. If the explanations were not credible, they could not displace an inference of discrimination.

Outcome

Mrs Parmar had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of race.

This case demonstrates that employers need to be wary of treating employees inconsistently, and a failure to do so could give rise to a claim. Union representatives should ensure the employer has provided details of the allegations such as dates, conduct, witnesses, and details of the specific standards breached to the employee. They should scrutinise the basis of any investigation and ensure fair treatment, and where disciplinary action appears to disproportionately affect those with a protected characteristic, they should raise concerns and gather evidence.

Source: Morrish Solicitors October 2025

Sharing Good Stories

Longhurst Group partnered with a disability-job-board (Evenbreak) to attract disabled candidates. They changed job adverts to include disability-confidence logos and began collecting data to track how many disabled candidates applied and were offered roles. The organisation is exploring more remote working to attract and retain a diverse workforce including disabled people who find It easier to work from homes that are already adapted to their needs. The group is moving beyond its current flexible working to more agile working practices such as giving employees the flexibility to make relevant appointment with the trust that they will make up the time. Source CIPD

Employees at Rolls-Royce gain an insight into the lives of one of their colleagues. Posted on the intranet of the British FTSE 100 group, under the banner “Being Like Me”, employees share their personal experience of everything from coming out to what it is like living with physical differences. Colleagues have the opportunity to write stories about “what makes them who they are”, The initiative allows people to “come to work and not necessarily feel that they have to edit themselves when they walk through the door. The company has led initiatives to allow people to be “open and honest. This helps foster inclusion and psychological safety. Source Financial Times

Hootsuite (Global social media Company) set a target to retain at least 80% of employees from under represented groups. They changed their recruitment process; new hires must meet with multiple (up to seven) interviews from diverse backgrounds. While this has slowed the recruitment timeline, Hootsuite intentionally took this approach to mitigate bias and improve decision-making, citing it has “slowed down to speed up’. Source CMI

December 2025 marks the 30th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act. Initiative UK and Media Trust are working in collaboration to co-design campaigns and communication strategies that champion accessibility, representation and inclusion across paid media.

About Blue Tulip

Blue Tulip Consultancy supports organisations to develop, lead and execute Diversity and Inclusion strategic objectives. The process involves working with senior leadership teams to establish and implement measurable D&I objectives and goals. We also include an analysis of the current trends, identify key areas of opportunity with creative, compelling recommendations to effect change. Blue Tulip Consultancy provides guidance on how to implement the recommendations into practice.

If you would like more details about how we can help your organisation please have a look at our website or if you would like a short chat over the phone please email hello@bluetulipconsultancy.com to arrange a convenient time.

Snéha Khilay
Managing Director
Blue Tulip Consultancy
hello@bluetulipconsultancy.com
www.bluetulipconsultancy.com

Inspired by the famous Gandhi quote, “be the change you want to see in the world”