Management structure has become increasingly bloated over time. New layers of leadership are regularly added without clear rationale, often placed above existing experienced staff rather than growing talent from within.
There is a concerning pattern where Grade 8 staff — particularly staff of colour — find that a peer colleague is quietly elevated to a Grade 9 and placed above them, framed as a "strategic" hire or restructure. These are not external senior appointments; these are colleagues at the same level who get bumped up and repositioned as line managers, often with no transparent process, no interview and no conversation with the people affected.
The disparity in career progression is significant and consistent. Staff of colour are actively discouraged from applying for secondments or promotions — often told their current role is "too important" or that staying in grade is the right move for them. Meanwhile, white colleagues are given secondment opportunities, internal moves, training budgets, and development resources without the same friction. Internal vacancies are frequently filled through informal networks before they are ever properly advertised, making genuine competition a fiction.
There is also a visible disparity in how performance is managed. Staff of colour are disproportionately placed on Performance Improvement Plans, while equivalent or comparable performance issues in white colleagues are met with training opportunities, coaching, and support. The difference in how the same standard is applied depending on who you are is stark.
Promotions and appointments frequently appear to favour personal networks over merit.
Hiring decisions can feel insular, with a noticeable tendency to elevate people from within the same social circle rather than recognising those already doing the work. The homogeneity of who gets elevated is hard to ignore, and it sits uncomfortably against UCL's very public commitments to equity and inclusion.
