Despite decades of well-meaning diversity statements, unconscious bias training, and high-profile campaigns, the leadership of the UK housing sector remains overwhelmingly non-diverse. Global Ethnic Majority (GEM) professionals continue to be underrepresented in senior roles despite their significant presence, skill, and impact across the workforce.
The data is striking. According to the National Housing Federation’s 2021 EDI Report, only 7% of executive roles in housing associations are held by individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds. In this article Lubna Haq argues that this isn’t about lack of ambition or readiness. It’s about unequal access to opportunity, power, and trust. And it’s time we moved from polite conversations to serious action.
The difficult questions that need to be answered
If we are to shift the status quo, we must stop dancing around the problem and start interrogating the structures that uphold it:
- If diversity is so frequently praised in the sector, why does it evaporate at executive level?
- How can an industry that serves some of the UK’s most diverse communities justify such homogeneity at the top?
- Are recruitment and promotion processes designed to be fair, or simply familiar?
- What will it take for GEM professionals to be seen not just as competent, but as leaders?
These questions are not academic. They reflect the lived reality of many professionals who have spent years doing the work, without getting the recognition, progression, or influence they deserve.
Lived Experience: The Talent is There
Amira, a British-Somali regional housing manager, has worked in the sector for over 15 years. She’s delivered multi-million-pound regeneration projects, led high-performing teams, and been recognised internally for community impact. Yet when an executive role opened up, she wasn’t even approached.
“A white colleague who’d been there half the time got the job. My manager told me, ‘You’re so valuable where you are.’ I realised then that loyalty wasn’t the same as leadership potential in their eyes.”
Raj, a policy lead of South Asian heritage, echoes this sentiment:
“I was always asked to comment on race or inclusion. But when I wanted to speak about housing strategy, finance, or planning policy, I was sidelined. My expertise had boundaries, and I didn’t set them.”
These stories reflect the experience of many GEM professionals, trusted to deliver, but not empowered to direct.
So, what is culture?
Culture is what you celebrate. It’s what you tolerate. It’s the lived, shared experience of being in an organisation with like-minded colleagues. It’s the difference between “we care about feedback” and “being let go for giving it.”
If you’re not intentional about it, culture will still exist—it just might not be one you like. Or one anyone wants to stay in.
So maybe it’s time we stop treating culture like a brand campaign, and start treating it like a living, breathing ecosystem. One that needs tending, not just tagging.
“We appoint the best person for the Job”. But who decides what ‘Best’ looks like?
One of the most frequently used defences when challenged about the lack of GEM professionals in senior roles is “We appoint the best person for the job.” On the surface, it sounds fair. But in practice, it often masks bias, reinforces homogeneity, and ignores the structural inequality baked into how “best” is defined. A study by Castilla & Benard (2010) published in Psychological Science revealed that organisations that pride themselves on meritocracy often show more bias in favour of dominant groups, in this case, white men (Castilla & Benard, 2010).
Let’s unpack it:
- Who defines ‘best’? Often, it’s shaped by familiarity, comfort, and similarity to those already in power, usually white, middle-class, and male. That’s not meritocracy; that’s comfort with similarity.
- What criteria are used? Leadership is often measured using subjective traits like “gravitas,” “charisma,” or “presence”, coded language that penalises those from different genders, and cultural or communication backgrounds.
- How fair is the process? If senior roles are filled through informal networks, unstructured interviews, or gut instinct, then the process is not objective, it’s biased by design.
- Where’s the scrutiny? If “the best person” always happens to be someone who looks and sounds like everyone else already in leadership, the problem isn’t the applicants, it’s the system.
Choosing the “best” person shouldn’t be about comfort. It should be about competence, skills, and lived connection to the communities we serve. That means recognising emotional intelligence, cultural fluency, and community insight as leadership assets, not extras.
The Role of Regulation: Compliance Without Commitment
Regulation plays a big part in shaping housing organisations. Many are required to report on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) under governance or charity rules. But regulation can be a double-edged sword. When CEOs and boards only act to meet regulatory requirements, inclusion becomes a box to tick, not a value to live by.
Some organisations now publish diversity stats or hold EDI forums. That’s a start. But where’s the accountability for actual progression? For boardroom diversity? For equitable promotion? Compliance is not commitment. And representation without redistribution of power is just optics.
What must change
To truly transform leadership in housing, the sector must go beyond good intentions:
- Board-level accountability: Inclusion must be a key performance metric for leadership, not just a communications talking point.
- Transparent progression pathways: Everyone should understand how to get ahead, and have a fair shot at doing so.
- Proactive sponsorship: Senior leaders should actively support and elevate GEM talent into decision-making spaces.
- Equity-focused leadership development: Invest in GEM leaders not just as a cohort, but as a pipeline to power.
- A cultural shift: We need to stop rewarding assimilation and start valuing authenticity, challenge, and lived experience.
This Is About Justice, Legitimacy, and Better Leadership
This is not about charity. It’s about recognising that the people who have been locked out of the boardroom have the insight, expertise, and experience to transform it.
We are not short of GEM talent in housing, we are standing on a well of leadership potential that’s been overlooked for too long. The shift is already happening in other places: bold organisations are realising that inclusive leadership isn’t just fairer, it’s smarter. When GEM professionals are empowered to lead, we don’t just get representation, we get innovation, trust, and deeper connection with the communities we serve. The future of housing leadership can be as diverse as the society it supports if we choose to build it that way. Until GEM professionals are present in senior leadership, the sector risks undermining its credibility with the very communities it claims to serve.
Housing isn’t just bricks and mortar. It’s about dignity. It’s about belonging. And leadership that doesn’t reflect the people it serves will never be truly fit for purpose.
At NSCG we help organisations to turn DEI rhetoric into reality. Learn more about our DEI people solutions. Alternatively contact us now to discuss your needs in more detail.