in his own words - 50/50 by 2030 foundation...leadership: “if your leadership team isn’t...

In his own wordsThe male perspective on gender diversity

Foreword

I’m pleased to share with you EY’s fifth instalment in our Women in Leadership series, In his own words – the male perspective on gender diversity.

This report is a culmination of nine interviews with some of Australia’s most prominent male leaders from both the public and private sectors who have generously shared their insights on this critical issue. The results support the long argued case for change and highlights the important role that men need to play in driving this agenda.

2012 marked the tenth year of the Australian Census of Women in Leadership – a decade of measuring the progress that Australian companies have made in terms of female representation on boards, in executive positions and in management teams. Women still hold less than 10% of executive positions in ASX 200 companies and only 6% of line positions.

These results are a reminder of the work that still needs to be done by both women and men across business, government and the community.

This issue is not only of economic importance, but also critical to the social advancement of the nation – it’s about building a better working world. Through our Women in Leadership series, EY is contributing to the important conversation around gender equity in the workplace.

I hope that you find this report helpful and insightful.

Rob McLeod Oceania CEO and Sub-Area Managing Partner

In his own words | 1

The following report is based on interviews with nine male leaders in the public and private sectors:

David Gonski AC

Dr Simon Longstaff AO

General David Hurley AC DSC

Ian Narev

Alan Joyce

Dr Martin Parkinson PSM

Brian Schwartz AM

David Thodey

Brian Hartzer

We asked them:

• Why is gender equity important to Australian organisations?

• Why aren’t our current initiatives working?

• What should companies and governments do differently?

Their candid, and often surprising, answers lead to the inescapable conclusion that Australia is having the wrong conversations about gender equity.

This is not a battle of the sexes — it’s the battle for Australia’s future prosperity. And we should all be on the same side.

Winning it will require radical change in perspective and approach by companies and policy makers, as this report explains. We hope it will galvanise business and government leaders into meaningful action.

EY contacts

Regional Office Managing Partners:

Adelaide Chris Sharpley Tel: +61 8 8417 1686 [email protected]

Canberra Lucille Halloran Tel: +61 2 6267 3872 [email protected]

Melbourne Gerard Dalbosco Tel: +61 3 9288 8658 [email protected]

Perth Michael Anghie Tel: +61 8 9429 2324 [email protected]

Queensland Jenny Parker Tel: +61 7 3243 3673 [email protected]

Sydney Lynn Kraus Tel: +61 2 9248 4244 [email protected]

Diversity & Inclusiveness Edyta Torpy Tel: +61 2 8295 6454 [email protected]

Strategic Communications Kate Davies Tel: +61 2 9248 5428 [email protected]

2 | In his own words

As Australia’s progress towards gender equity in the workplace slows, prominent male leaders from the public and private sectors speak candidly about why gender equity is a national imperative, why diversity initiatives alone aren’t working — and the changes Australia needs to embrace for everyone’s benefit.

In his own words


Gender equity may be an issue receiving much attention in recent times — both in Australia and around the world — but our efforts to make a sustainable long-term impact have not as yet been realised. Despite daily media stories, constant executive and board attention and multiple corporate initiatives, Australia’s actual numbers remain unimpressive:

fewer womenthan men participate in the workforce1

14%of ASX 200companies have no female executive KMP1

60%more than

On average, women are still paid

less than men for the same work1

17.5%in 10

executive key management personnel (KMP) of ASX 500 companies are women1

1fewer than

in 10directors of ASX 500 companies are women1

1fewer than

1/3more thanof ASX 200 companies have no female directors

1 Workplace Gender Equity Agency

Why is gender equity important?Beyond the ethical argument, male leaders believe Australia simply cannot afford to leave half the population out of the hiring equation. In their experience, diversity at all levels lowers risk and improves organisational performance. In a diverse organisation: leadership groups make smarter, more informed decisions; customers are better understood; employees are less cynical and more engaged; and organisations gain competitive advantage.


Brian Hartzer, Westpac’s Chief Executive, Australian Financial Services says gender equity is an economic imperative.

“To me, productivity is really about three things: being more innovative, helping more people get into and stay in the workforce and, most of all, it’s about helping people achieve their full potential. What does that have to do with gender equity? Well, everything. We know innovation comes with diversity of thinking. We know diversity in executive teams and in the boardroom helps drive better financial results. We know the rise in female employment has boosted Australia’s economy by 22% per cent since 1974. And we know closing the gap between male and female employment rates would boost GDP by up to 13%.”

“That’s why it makes economic sense for Australia.”

As Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, Dr Simon Longstaff would love to plead the gender equity argument in terms of social justice. “We have a majority of women securing very good university degrees and going into business, yet they are significantly under-represented in executive suites and on boards. How can you deny people the opportunity to make the best of their skills?”

However, as a pragmatist, he too comes back to the economic argument: “How can you have so many talented people available to the country and not use them?”

David Gonski agrees — on both counts: “From both a social justice perspective and from a practical standpoint of wanting the best person for the job, I think it’s frankly ridiculous that we only appoint senior people from 49% of the population.”

It’s a situation uniquely acute in Australia. Currently, we have both one of the world’s lowest rates of educated women participating in the workforce and one of the world’s highest rates of female education. In other words, we are getting the world’s worst return on the multi-billion dollar investment we make in female education every year.

Simon Longstaff believes the disadvantage this gives us as an economy is replicated at the organisational level, creating exposure to unnecessary risk: “Without diversity, you quickly descend into ‘group think’ and fail to take into account strategic threats and opportunities — because you just cannot see them.”

Employee engagement is also an issue: “If you alienate people who have different ways of seeing the world — and treat them unjustly — people will disengage from your organisation.

You don’t just lose their insight, but all the discretionary effort that comes with their loyalty. Instead, you generate corrosive cynicism that puts your harmonious workplace at risk.”

Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, says diversity is important for any company. “It allows you to tap into an unbelievable talent pool. If you don’t, you’re fishing in a very small pond.” He cites multiple benefits of having a diverse workforce at every level: “There’s a solid business case for diversity. Companies that embrace inclusion and diversity outperform the rest of the market. It makes you better at planning, making decisions, managing risk, driving innovation and implementing strategy. That’s why we’re passionate about diversity at Qantas. It’s better for our customers, employees and shareholders.”

Australia has a very small population compared with other countries. If we are to remain competitive, we must look for talent from our entire population.David Gonski Chairman Coca-Cola Amatil, Investec (Australia), Ingeus


IAG Chairman, Brian Schwartz, believes companies with a mixed customer base are particularly vulnerable if they have uniform leadership: “If your leadership team isn’t representative of your marketplace, then you’re leaving a lot on the table.”

David Gonski picks up the theme: “If we are going to clone one set of people and continuously make them the only decision makers, we run the serious risk that they will make the wrong decisions,” he warns.

“There is a difference between men and women — just as there is a difference between an older person and a younger person, or someone who was raised in Australia and someone who spent their formative years overseas. These differences make for better decision making and better results for organisations.”

The ability to respond to female needs is hugely important for companies like banks, where women form a critical customer segment. Brian Hartzer explains: “At Westpac, we see diversity as a competitive advantage. More than two million of our primary account holders are women. These women are buying homes, running businesses, investing their earnings, and planning their retirement.”

Telstra CEO, David Thodey, sums it up: “Companies will not fulfil their potential unless they have a far more diverse leadership and gender equity at all levels of the organisation.”

Our interviewees aren’t talking in the abstract. They have all experienced the benefits of diversity in a decision making team.

Alan Joyce credits the success of his multi-national leadership team to its diversity. “We have three women — two running operational divisions — and a host of different backgrounds including people from engineering, accountancy, maths, finance and consultancy. The result is better ideas, better strategy development and better risk assessment.”

When he moved from the male dominated world of Treasury to become Secretary to the Department of Climate Change, Dr Martin Parkinson found himself with a large majority of female executives. “I was struck by the totally different dynamic among the leadership group, because it was dominated by women. I realised how important it is to pick our leaders from more than half the gene pool.”

Brian Schwartz, talks about similar experiences: “The mood of the board changes when you get a better mix.”

For the Chief of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), General David Hurley, the argument boils down to numbers: “We are competing for the workforce of the future. As the market gets tighter and the pool of candidates gets smaller, we have to create a brand that people will be attracted to and it is imperative that we take women into consideration.”

This is a particular problem for the ADF, which doesn’t have the option of sourcing people trained by other organisations. “We need to recruit people at the bottom and train them as they work their way up”. It’s a dynamic that makes retention vital: “If we cannot retain the women we have recruited, it will cost the ADF millions of dollars in lost investment.”

For many organisations, this was the initial business imperative for addressing gender equity. When, decades earlier, Brian Schwartz took the issue of women in leadership to his then fellow partners at a professional services firm, he found his equity argument didn’t get much traction. Then he did the maths. “At that time, it was costing us $300,000 to educate a female manager — at which point they walked out the door. As soon as my colleagues understood the profit impact, we started taking the issue seriously.”

Our interviewees agree that urgent action is required. “We need to do more, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do for our country,” says Brian Hartzer.

I am all for businesses doing good deeds, but this isn’t in the ‘good deed’ category. This is in the ‘you’ve got to get this right’ category.Ian Narev CEO, Commonwealth Bank of Australia


Why aren’t our current initiatives working?

Our interviewees are frustrated that, although people are interested in and talking about gender equity, many initiatives aren’t working. They believe that, to overcome this apparently inbuilt resistance, organisations need to deal with a variety of issues:

Fear of competition and changeAsked why gender equity initiatives are being resisted, David Gonski doesn’t mince his words: “Firstly, I think there are some men who fear having to compete with women. I think these men are in the minority, but they do exist. Secondly, I think it is easier for everyone to go along with the norms of today than it is to challenge them.”

Simon Longstaff believes it’s also down to ignorance: “The older generation doesn’t appreciate the capacity of the women coming through.” He says organisational culture is often based on bad habits: “People are used to having a certain kind of person succeed. If you challenge the whole basis on which the role is secured then that’s threatening, so people resist.”

That said, the Commonwealth Bank’s CEO, Ian Narev thinks the tide is turning: “Increasingly organisations are becoming more uncomfortable places to be in if you resist. I don’t think we are necessarily near where we want to be yet — I have no doubt you could find ongoing pockets of resistance at CBA (we can’t purge that in a day or a month) — but I think I am being realistic in saying that resistance is waning reasonably quickly.”

Men don’t realise how privileged they areThere’s a general consensus that most men don’t realise the privileged position they are in — that men have a sense of entitlement.

General Hurley says: “We recruit young men from a society where they grow up with certain views of the roles that women play and they bring these views into the organisation. Sometimes it takes a long time to move beyond their original perceptions. Many of our biggest scandals have involved small ‘boys clubs’, where there is a dominant 24 year old, for example, who creates a view about women and others unfortunately follow.”

Such cases are isolated and the ADF is working hard to change the thinking that causes them: “Individuals with this view will not last too long. Our responsibility is to ensure that we drive this change as quickly as possible. We have a lot of conversations about respect and what this means.”

Simon Longstaff says male privilege is a historical idea that was once tied to sacrifice: “Men used to die down mines or go off to war to be cannon fodder. Today, some men still sail through life believing they are entitled to hold a leadership position because of who they are: where they went to school or who they know. It has nothing to do with merit.”

Despite our best intentions, gender equity is constantly being de-railed by a range of largely cultural factors. Initiatives don’t work unless organisations also address: resistance to change, ingrained organisational and cultural beliefs, unconscious bias, societal norms — and sometimes sheer ignorance.

Men rationalise their privilege without realising they validate

every belief through prejudice.Dr Simon Longstaff Executive Director,

St James Ethics Centre


This debunks the main argument against setting targets to increase female participation in leadership positions. Detractors argue that setting gender targets goes against meritocracy. But if our current system isn’t based on merit, as Dr Longstaff suggests, gender targets may actually help to address this issue. Female merit needs to be considered against the same criteria that is used to measure male merit.

People genuinely don’t think the problem exists Ian Narev believes an organisation’s failure to address gender equity often comes down to unconscious bias. “It’s one of the main barriers to progress on this issue. Unconscious bias leads to one of the biggest pitfalls for leaders: recruiting in their own image. Sometimes unconsciously, and sometimes consciously, decisions are being made that see men recruiting more men.”

“This is why, at CBA, we put all our top 300 leaders through unconscious bias training. An understanding of unconscious bias gives you the language to say, well, even decent people who all think they are doing the right thing are being held back by their biases.”

Alan Joyce recently put Qantas’ top 500 managers through a similar program. He says people are initially sceptical and then get the shock of their lives. “I continually hear: ‘It doesn’t apply to me’ and then people come out of the course — even female executives — saying: ‘I do have an element of unconscious bias that I wasn’t aware of.’ It’s very important to make sure people identify their own bias and have the right processes in place to correct it.”

Martin Parkinson recalls instances of unconscious bias at work in Treasury: “We had been picking people for positions who were like the people that were already in those positions. We were making assumptions about what people were able and willing to do, without speaking with them. This meant that, unintentionally, women were sometimes getting work that was perceived as being of lesser value, or being excluded from experiences that would enhance their development.”

Brian Hartzer believes unconscious bias deserves much more attention than it has received to date.

“In my experience, very few men in senior business roles are consciously biased against the advancement of women. On the contrary, many, if not most men want to do what they can to support women.”

However, despite their best intentions, he says men often inadvertently contribute to work practices that make women feel excluded or develop candidate pools in ways that overlook important sources of high potential women.

“They select candidates based on a model of what they think is needed to be successful, not realising their model is based solely on their experience of male approaches to the role. In other words, they’re tripped up by unconscious bias. So the solution is not about how women need to change – instead, organisations need to work harder to remove unconscious bias.”

To this point, Westpac is currently providing training to make its people aware of gender bias.

No consequences for missing gender targetsDavid Thodey says it’s one thing to set targets, but quite another to act on them. He admits to questioning his own actions: “When I’m reviewing performance, people may do well in a business sense, but fail to meet their gender targets. Do I rate them down as much as I should?”

Alan Joyce says, at Qantas, it’s no longer enough for people to deliver on their KPIs — they have to do it in the ‘right’ way. “We measure everything you can imagine in terms of behaviour: whether managers include people, how they leverage diversity, how they’re seen by their peers and their direct reports. It means the people who are going to be promoted are the people who genuinely value diversity. I think it’s the best thing you can do for your organisation.”

There’s no silver bullet. Nothing will change until you have an authentic conversation — until it touches you in some way.David Thodey CEO, Telstra


Initiatives don’t work in isolationOur interviewees believe organisations often get a number of gender equity initiatives in place, but don’t address the cultural change required for them to work. “There’s not a lot of tolerance for professionals to job share or take up other flexibility options in senior management positions. We expect people to be available 24/7,” says David Gonski.

Martin Parkinson speaks from experience: “When around half of Treasury graduates were women, we thought we had fixed the issue. We thought that, over time, we would see greater proportions of women coming through into the senior executive ranks. In fact, this did not happen.”

“In hindsight, we did a lot of things right. We encouraged part-time work, supported child care arrangements on site and encouraged both men and women to continue to study — and we did increase the number of women at lower executive levels.”

However, women still didn’t make it into the senior ranks. Mystified, the department ran interviews and workshops to understand what was holding women back.

“The results shocked me and my colleagues on the Executive Board. For example, they showed that, although we had done a great job in providing flexibility and supporting part-time work, we had not actually re-designed jobs to suit the staff. Meetings were being held at times when people with caring responsibilities could not attend, and the work cycle tended to allocate work after hours. One young man mentioned that if he stayed back after the part-time workers had gone home, he had a much higher chance of getting decent work.”

“This was just one example of how systemic the problems were. I realised that all the interventions had been quite ad-hoc — in response to symptoms. We were not getting to grips with the underlying causes.”

A lot of people don’t think unconscious bias is an issue for them. I think it’s an issue for everyone in every company. You have to be continually vigilant and make sure it’s not a problem in your business.Alan Joyce CEO, Qantas

In other words, the initiatives failed in part because the system was still set up to discriminate against people who took advantage of flexibility.

General Hurley describes a similar situation at the ADF: “Nearly all the senior women we have produced have left the department and gone on to senior positions elsewhere because the department had not created the opportunities for them to step up. We are now actively working to change this dynamic, creating opportunities for women to participate more in senior leadership roles.”


What should organisations do differently?

Organisations need to address the cultural issues that are stopping targets and flexible work practices from having their intended effect. This will require all leaders — particularly men — to step up and support embedding gender equity into organisational DNA, making flexibility the norm and thinking differently about career paths.


Men have to get involved and take action Our interviewees universally agree that the issue of gender equity is a conversation that needs to be taking place between men — and that men often have to lead the change.

“These issues need to be led by the CEO of an organisation, and supported by their leadership team. And it is men who are still predominantly running large organisations in this country. They are the ones who are making the decisions about their successors and their executive teams,” explains Martin Parkinson.

David Gonski believes it is “incumbent on men to open up the opportunities for women in business. If you want women to thrive and do well, the most important thing in any organisation is for the CEO to understand that it is their responsibility. I think if the CEO doesn’t support gender equity, the chance of it happening is very small.”

Ian Narev says men need to sell gender equity to the organisation in business terms: “You have to get to the heart of what drives value in business. Men need to articulate the business imperative in such a way for it not to be seen as a good deed, but rather just seen as how the business is run.”

While agreeing with his peers, Simon Longstaff points out that if men are to be the catalyst for change, they will need to summon their courage: “You will have to go against the tide, because lots of people don’t want you to prosecute this agenda. It takes moral courage to challenge orthodoxies, especially those you hold yourself. You have to open your own mind to new ways of dealing with the business environment — and stop yourself from falling prey to unthinking custom and practice. You may have to engage in acts of ‘constructive subversion’. Sometimes this is the only way to help an organisation to become the thing it wants to be — open to diverse opinions and skill sets.”

He says that the capacity to identify talented people, of either gender, and to nurture them is rare and greatly undervalued. “It’s a different model. It doesn’t require people to be a clone of the leader — it actually welcomes constructively critical people. That can feel threatening, because if someone is really talented they may challenge you. In fact, the most successful achievements often come from leaders who promote people who will challenge them. Constructive criticism will not diminish you — you will actually flourish.”

Brian Schwartz encourages leaders to take risks: “Men need to embrace change and stop being threatened by it.”

What can leaders do differently?• Articulate the business case for gender equity

• Constantly communicate the value of gender diversity among the leadership teams and more broadly across the organisation

• Stop promoting clones — recognise the value of having people who think differently on the leadership team and across the organisation

• Give equity targets real consequences — consequences that will challenge the teams to promote and role model positive behaviours

• Welcome constructive criticism and new ideas

If men don’t talk to other men about this, it will forever remain

a women’s issue.Dr Martin Parkinson

Secretary to the Department of Treasury


Build gender equity into the cultureOur interviewees agree that, for gender equity to be sustainable, it must be part of an organisation’s culture — embedded in day-to-day operations.

Alan Joyce draws the analogy of safety at Qantas: “We’ve been doing safety fairly well for 90 years — but we never get complacent. We have safety meetings, safety managers — we talk every month, every day about safety. That’s how we make sure it’s top of mind and part of our DNA. I think about diversity in exactly the same way. If it’s going to be real in your organisation, you have to believe in it — you have to talk about it every day.”

General Hurley says the new generation of women coming into the ADF expect nothing less: “If you look at women in the ADF, we have three distinct groups: there is the more experienced group of very senior women who were the first women to enter the ADF, there is the next generation of women who joined in the early ‘90s, for whom the rules did change, but who still had to fight hard for equality. Finally, you have the younger group of women now who just demand equality. The younger women in the organisation will expect it, so if they do not receive these opportunities, they will walk.”

However, he warns that achieving the cultural change required to support that expectation will take radical and decisive action: “If you wait for this change to occur by gravity or by nature, it is not going to change quickly enough — you need active intervention for the culture to change.”

David Thodey agrees: “It’s the only way to future proof gender equity progress. If it’s real and part of your values, it will last forever. If it’s just another program you threw some money at, it won’t last.”

He says the days of the ‘trophy CEO’ who changes the world are gone. “Real leadership is about a strong group of people who stand for something — who embed values deeply in an organisation’s culture. That’s the way anything gets sorted out. Gender balance is just one of them.”

What can organisations do differently?• Make gender equity a company value and expect people to

live that value every day

• Talk about gender equity every day to the whole organisation, not just the leadership teams

• Embed it in processes for attracting, retaining, developing and progressing the workforce

• Provide unconscious bias training for every manager in the organisation to start the process of change

New research shows flexibility boosts productivity

Companies that get flexibility right will massively improve productivity across their female workforce. New research3 shows women in flexible roles (part-time, contract or casual) are the most productive members of your workforce. This is in sharp contrast to common assumptions about women in flexible roles, who are often accused of ‘not pulling their weight’.

In fact, the research found that women in flexible roles waste only 11.1%, compared to an average of 14.5% for the rest of the working population. In an average year, these women effectively deliver an extra week and a half of productive work, simply by using their time more wisely. In other words, for every 71 women employed in flexible roles, an organisation gains a productivity bonus of one additional full-time employee.

3 Ernst & Young Australian Productivity Pulse™ Wave 4, May 2013

Men need to embrace change and stop being threatened by it.Brian Schwartz Chairman, IAG


Make flexibility workOur interviewees agreed that, to date, flexibility has been great in theory and often ineffective in practice. “If a high potential woman comes to me and asks to work three days a week so she can look after her children the other two days — this is a no-brainer — at least philosophically. However, in a practical sense, we are still evolving in our acceptance of flexibility,” says Ian Narev.

This is a polite way of saying that people in flexible roles are largely sidelined in big organisations. Flexibility is often viewed as a career killer. In many organisations, employees who take advantage of flexible work options are routinely given lower levels of responsibility, left out of communications, excluded from invitations and passed over for promotions.

Just as Martin Parkinson discovered in Treasury, although flexibility is available, the system is still set up to support the default setting of 9-5, full-time work. Many organisations use flexibility to attract high calibre candidates and promote themselves as ‘employers of choice’, but the truth is that many people’s experiences of flexible work practices don’t match the rhetoric.

David Thodey says it’s time Australia moved into the 21st century: “Every job can be done flexibly. We have the enabling technology, now we need the enabling culture. It’s not about how many hours you do at your desk, or how you do the job, it’s about outcomes. You need a performance-based culture where flexibility is just built-in. It shouldn’t be ‘well, yes you can work flexibly, but you need to get your manager’s approval’. We should just expect people to work flexibly and measure their performance.”

Alan Joyce agrees. “You have to make flexibility mainstream. The first step in doing this properly is making sure it’s acceptable for the entire organisation. People need to be assured that flexibility is appropriate — that you should have work life balance. Even with our senior executives, we’re careful to allow for flexibility. So we don’t have meetings at 7am when people need to get their kids to school. And we don’t make people feel bad if they need to take a day off to take care of their family. It’s never seen as a black mark on people’s performance.”

In Norway, this cultural acceptance is actually written into legislation. Fathers have the right to leave the office by 5.30pm to spend time with their families and adjust office hours around pick-up/drop-off1.

1 Norway is proof that you can have it all, Paul Cleary The Australian July 15, 2013 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/executive-living/norway-is-proof-that-you-can-have-it-all/story-e6frg9zo-1226679266322#sthash.1vycI4Kt.dpuf

Brian Schwartz believes unless organisations can really be flexible in this way, they will continue to lose great people. “That’s a big risk when women return to work and are told ‘you can only deal with the little projects, because major clients require you 24/7.” He points out that, in a job share each person does three days. “So the client actually gets someone for six days a week.”

Brian Hartzer says over half of Westpac’s staff work flexibly in some way. “We’re striving to make sure our workplace is built around the needs of everyone.”

General Hurley is highly aware that the ADF’s resourcing is at risk if it can’t get flexibility right. “It is difficult to get women into the organisation at times, but once they are in, they stay and they only leave if we cannot match their expectations around flexibility in terms of family commitments, for example.”

He’s currently working on formalising flexible working arrangements. “Workforce flexibility is available for all our people, but many of these arrangements are informal. We recognise that this is not going to be enough going forward. We have to intervene and create more formal flexible work arrangements. I believe we can create greater flexibility without challenging the productivity of the organisation.”

What can organisations do differently?• Make flexibility the norm for both genders — expected

and acceptable

• Introduce or expand flexible work options in all roles

• Stop punishing people who take time off for family emergencies or personal requirements

• Assess whether people in flexible roles are being sidelined — and change the system to support them in progressing their careers

• Introduce methods to assess and redesign roles to support flexible work options — such as additional assistance with administrative tasks

Gender equity is not about women’s interests — it’s

about the national interest.Brian Hartzer

Chief Executive, Australian Financial Services, Westpac


De-gender the conversationAfter years of discussing flexible work options, many of our interviewees have come to the realisation they’ve been having the wrong conversations.

General Hurley explains: “In the ADF, we probably started this on the wrong foot. We talked about diversity very much in terms of gender instead of broader terms. The policies we introduced are beneficial to women, but they are also beneficial to men. Flexibility and similar policies are just as important to men and apply equally to men who want to take time off to be at home or do other things. You cannot exclude men from the discussion. Our previous approach implied that what we were doing only involved women.”

“This is absolutely a broader discussion than just women and children,” says Ian Narev. “I’ve had many animated discussions with both women and men who have chosen not to have children who want to make room for other things in their lives. They argue this debate is too much about children. My focus is on creating an environment where personal choice is paramount and the only thing that is being judged is talent. If another individual wants the same work arrangements because they love playing the violin and want to do this two days a week, why should that be seen as any less worthy of flexibility?”

But, he says it’s complicating factor in performance reviews: “How do you compare the person working flexibly with their peers who have made the choice to work full time and expect to be rewarded for their dedication?”

What can organisations do differently?• Fund parental leave centrally, rather than by division or

service line, so business functions aren’t penalised for having a high female representation

• Stop talking and thinking about parental leave as an entitlement. It’s just another benefit like long-service leave or training — part of the mainstream cost of keeping and developing talent

• Encourage paternity leave

• Support all employees in pursuing their passions outside of the work environment — recognise the value of a well- rounded employee

• Encourage everyone to implement a form of flexibility in their work patterns — and talk about it in the workplace as business as usual

Change our thinking about linear career pathsAs a society, we need to rethink what it means to have a successful career.

“We need to redefine what a successful career is for both men and women,” says David Gonski. “Many women think that if they want to take a bit of time off to have children, this will affect their careers negatively. They think it’s an either/or scenario. Whereas, I think we’ve got to move towards a better, more imaginative tracking of a successful career.”

He says our idea that careers must be linear is an issue, not just for women, but for men too. “I really feel that big organisations need to have individual career maps for their people, which demonstrate that career paths can be successful without being linear. I would be encouraging both men and women to take time off to do post graduate study or something similar.”

Brian Schwartz says the notion of ‘up or out’ still exists. “It may well be right for some organisations, but most will have to be much more flexible.” He thinks a less traditional career path would actually produce a more skilled and capable workforce. “When people try something totally different, it makes them better for every future role. I believe you need diversity of thought and opportunity in any career.”

Alan Joyce thinks linear careers are out-dated. “In this modern age, you can’t just follow one management line. You need diversity in backgrounds and diversity in experience throughout the organisation to get a well-rounded and competent management team. At Qantas, we deliberately plan for diverse career paths. We’ve just moved our Chief Information Officer sideways into a strategic planning role, and our head of airline planning into a US role, to broaden her experience.”

David Thodey agrees: “Linear careers don’t always equip people well for complex leadership roles. It would be great if people were encouraged to do more external study, or climb mountains, or work in a completely different industry or sector, like government.”

However, he also thinks changing the corporate mindset on this will be a hard sell. “Linear progression is out-dated, but it will be hard to change. People are afraid that if they’re out of sight, they’ll be out of mind. That’s why they don’t go and do what they really want to.”

“Today, linear careers are a safer bet, but I wish it wasn’t the case. I’d like to think we can change that.”


What can organisations do differently?• Keep in touch with those on leave — make sure managers talks

to them regularly• Present new opportunities when they arise to as wide a

candidate pool as possible — particularly to people who are on leave

• Plan and support non-linear career paths through thoughtful planning and proactive career development discussions

• Encourage people to pursue diverse roles and opportunities, both in the organisation and as secondment opportunities elsewhere

• Support sabbaticals for study or following personal goals • Include diversity of experience in hiring and promotional

criteria

• Making on-boarding and off-boarding easier

Get women into the pipelineIan Narev puts it in a nutshell: “There are so many outstanding women around, but often they can be a bit harder to find just because, at the levels you are recruiting, they are under-represented.”

While acknowledging this to be the case, our interviewees believe it can be remedied — if organisations are prepared to find out why women aren’t making it into the leadership pipeline and actively address the issue.

This is how Westpac achieved its target of having women in 40% of leadership roles two years ahead of schedule (last September) and is now gunning for 50% leadership representation by 2017.

Brian Hartzer admits achieving those numbers won’t be easy. He says Westpac has numerous initiatives in place: “Genuine intent, combined with stretching targets and a clear focus on removing unconscious bias, can make a real difference. We’re actively encouraging our best and brightest female employees to participate in our leadership programs. We’ve made it a principle that at least one woman should be on the shortlist for every senior position – not as an act of tokenism, but as a statement of serious intent.”

“I know this is last point is controversial for some people. But I believe it’s important, because whether they are chasing their first job, restarting a career, or seeking a leadership position – talented women deserve to be seriously considered, rather than dismissed out of hand.”

Martin Parkinson recalls the process he went through at Treasury: “In a series of discussions with senior women we realised we were often putting new female graduates into outfacing roles, due to their perceived better communication skills, and male graduates into roles involving more technical and conceptual work. The result of this was that, as women approached Senior Executive levels, they were not getting the same experience of demonstrating conceptual and analytical skills, skills that are valued highly in Treasury. We didn’t realise that we were inadvertently nudging people into certain career paths and rates of progression.”

Brian Schwartz believes if women aren’t coming up fast enough via the traditional careers paths, you have to try something different. “Maybe expand the size of your board. Create a new position on the board for a less experienced director, who can be helped into the role. It doesn’t detract from the overall strength of your board — and it keeps the skill set appropriate — but it does build a pipeline. When you try innovations like this you recognise the positive sides that gender balance brings into organisations.”

No organisation is taking the pipeline issue more seriously than the ADF, which is implementing the Broderick Report’s targets for women in the organisation. “We will be creating a different dynamic for women to rise in the organisation,” says General Hurley. “Our pipeline of female talent at the two star and one star level is strong, so they will be ready for leadership when the time comes.”

What can organisations do differently?• Set targets for getting women onto every succession bench

of an organisation

• Ensure leaders are actively sponsoring women onto succession benches and advocating for them in progression discussions

• Expand the parameters of what leaders look and act like to ensure that less obvious talent is nurtured and developed

• Conduct reviews with women to gather information about the female experience straight from the source — don’t make assumptions about what is happening in the organisation

• Adopt new models for supporting female leadership talent, such as mentoring programs and experiential learning opportunities

• Stop looking at female development requirements as trying to “fix the women” to fit into a traditional leadership framework

• Ask senior women what’s derailing female careers

We will certainly have a woman in contention to be Chief of Navy ahead

of the other two services and it will be a monumental day when it occurs.

General David Hurley Chief of the Australian Defence Force


What should government do differently?Our interviewees did not comment specifically on government policy. However, the following recommendations translate their views on embedding gender equity into an organisation’s culture into national policy recommendations that will create the equivalent societal change.

In future, more Australian families will rely on female breadwinners, with increasing numbers of men taking up primary care roles. The latest census4 shows that, in the past decade, Sydney’s proportion of couples where women earn more than men has climbed from almost one in eight to one in six. If we follow US trends, where 40% of working wives out-earn their husbands, this trend will only continue to rise.

We need a parental leave scheme that matches this reality by better supporting shared care and giving both parents more flexibility to continue with their careers. It is not difficult to find excellent examples of such schemes working well in other countries. Australia needs to learn from the experiences of other countries and other economies as to what works, and borrow from global best practice to support a more productive economy.

• In Iceland, couples get nine months’ leave at 80% pay. Three months are reserved for the mother, three months must be taken by the father, and the couple can choose to share the remaining three

• Swedish parents are given 480 paid days, at $950 a week to be shared between them and used at any time before the child turns eight

• German child-based leave consists of 14 weeks of maternity leave on full pay, followed by three years of shared parental leave at 67% of either parent’s usual salary

• Finland guarantees new parents a total of 47.5 weeks of leave: 17.5 weeks of maternity leave, 4 weeks of paternity leave, and 26 weeks of shared parental leave. Importantly, fathers are urged to take part in childcare from the outset, with services, education campaigns and fathers-only parenting discussion groups

• In Norway, parents either get 47 weeks with 100% pay or 57 weeks with 80% pay. Only the first six weeks are allocated exclusively to the woman. The government policy states that the paternity quota is designed to encourage men to share the role of caregiver at home

Set tough targetsWe need national targets to improve gender equity on Government boards, front bench seats and leadership teams in public listed companies. For example, through the BoardLinks program, the previous Government was on track to achieve its 40 (women):40 (men):20 (open) target for Government boards by 2015. This target should be sustained across government and expanded to the corporate sector at board and executive levels.

Create infrastructure to support Australian familiesAs a country, we need to make a concerted effort to stop talking about and setting policies around parental leave and family responsibilities as if it is the exclusive domain of women. As Alan Joyce puts it, “Family is not a male issue or a female issue — it’s for both genders.”

It is also an issue that not only affects families with children — but all Australians.

Working parents fulfil valuable roles in the community and the economy. They are able to pay taxes that benefit the country and subsequently require fewer government benefits. With a comparatively small population and a shrinking labour market, it makes good economic sense to support those wanting to re-enter the workforce as much as possible.

“I don’t think that either men or women should be forced to stay at home if that is not what they want to do. Both men and women should be given the opportunity to do something that they really love,” says David Gonski.

If we’re serious about improving productivity and growing our economy in a sustainable way, Australia needs infrastructure that enables parents to both work and care for their children.

This will require:

Parental leave — we need social and economic infrastructure that reflects the new shape of modern parenting. We need to recognise that parenting is the responsibility of ever changing households, including single parent families and same sex couples. Traditional family caring roles have shifted considerably over the last five decades. Public discourse and government policies need to catch up to this reality

4 Household incomes get a woman’s touch, The Age, 15 July, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/household-incomes-get-a-womans-touch-20120714-222o5.html#ixzz2eRQwyoEV


Child care — Parental leave is important, but it’s not the first six months that determine whether women will successfully combine motherhood and a career — it’s whether they can afford or find good quality childcare options for the longer term.

• In a recent survey5,257% of women said the cost of childcare has hit their careers, 95% said making childcare tax deductible would attract their vote and 82% would vote for the party extending rebates to in-home care.

• If we want both men and women to be able to contribute to the economic well-being of the nation, we need infrastructure that actively supports this ideal — rather than our current childcare provisions, which make it financially impossible for many women to continue with their careers. We also need an overarching, all-encompassing plan to support working parents — not a series of piecemeal offerings.

• Australia needs more affordable, easily accessible and high quality childcare. We have public education accessible to all Australian families. This ideal needs to be extended to a public childcare system as well.

• In Sweden, Each child is guaranteed a place at a public preschool and no parent is charged more than three per cent of their salary, with fees capped at $260 a month. If we had a similar scheme in Australia, it would dramatically improve workforce participation. Women would return to work much earlier and be prepared to work longer hours

Stop writing bias into legislationOn a final note, if we as a country, are committed to achieving a high level of female workforce participation and overall gender equity, as well as making the most of our well educated population, biases that exist in Government legislation need to be addressed.

The new Government’s planned Parental Leave plan will legislate along gender lines. Its model is pegged to the woman’s salary, assuming this will always be lower than her partner’s. And, while the policy is open to both parents, it specifically asks women to stay home for the entire 26 weeks for the ‘good health of the child’.

5 Make Care Fair Survey, Sphinxx, 2013

In fact, studies show that children of working mothers suffer no ill effect due to her working outside of the home. A UK study63 by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) showed no significant detrimental effects on a child’s social or emotional development if their mothers work during their early years. In fact, the ideal scenario for children, both boys and girls, was shown to be where both parents lived in the home and both were in paid employment. Similarly, another UK study from the Academy of Social Sciences74showed that children’s literacy, math skills and behaviour are not affected whether or not their mother works or stays home during the first years of their lives. Again, a US study85found that children who were cared for exclusively by their mothers did not develop differently than those who were also cared for by others.

What can government do differently?• Set up parental leave schemes, education campaigns and

community groups that support shared care and empower fathers to take part in childcare from the beginning

• Provide affordable, public childcare focussed on early childhood education

• Make childcare tax deductible

• Consider making flexible working hours a right for all Australians

• Stop writing bias into legislation

6 Working mothers and the effects on children, Science Daily, 21 July 2011, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110721212455.htm

7 At last, working mothers can ditch the guilt — their children do not suffer, Polly Toynbe, The Guardian, 12 June 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/working-mothers-children-dont-suffer

8 NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2006

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110721212455.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110721212455.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/working-mothers-children-dont-suffer




Our interviewees agree that getting around this bias will require radical changes: from companies placing as much focus on gender equity as they do on safety, to all organisations embracing flexible working conditions as normal and acceptable, to governments providing affordable childcare.

It’s time for all Australians to accept that these changes are not just for the benefit of working women — they are essential changes to the fabric of our society and workplaces, which will benefit us all.

Give everyone a ‘fair go’ For decades, Australia’s campaign for gender equity has been played out in adversarial terms — with measures criticised for being ‘unfair’. Moves to proactively put women in the leadership pipeline are referred to in terms of being unfair to the men whose linear careers naturally took them there; paying parental leave is said to be unfair to workers who do not have children; those who are allowed to work part-time are accused of unfairly leaving full-timers to carry the brunt of the work load.

Yet Australians are sufficiently civically minded to embrace this type of ‘unfairness’ in other parts of our society. The able-bodied are altruistic enough to pay higher taxes to fund Disability Services Australia. People in good health fund Medicare; just as those without children fund public education through the tax system. Why? Because these are issues of social justice and national prosperity.

Looking after the most vulnerable in our society reflects our humanity and supports a well-rounded society. Educating our future workforce is an economic imperative.

Australia needs to embrace the fact that gender equity plays to these issues too. Remunerating people equally for equal work done is a simple matter of fairness. Greater workforce participation increases national productivity and makes the country’s balance sheet stronger: the more people who work, the more taxes are gathered and the less reliant our population is on government benefits.

Time to stop the battle of the sexes

This is not about men vs. women, parents vs. the child-free, or full-time vs. part-time workers. It’s about allowing everyone who can to contribute to the economic wellbeing of the nation — because living in a stronger, more resilient economy will benefit all Australians.

Stop the drain on our economy As our population ages, age pension benefits will become an ever increasing drain on our national resources. One of the biggest hurdles for women trying to accumulate sufficient superannuation, and therefore becoming less reliant on Government benefits, is the penalty of interrupted work patterns. If we could stop motherhood from derailing female careers and reduce women’s reliance on the age pension by just 10%, it would save $2 billion per annum today and $8 billion per annum in 20509.

With increasing pressure on our economy from demographics and globalisation, we need to see gender equity through a different lens.

Organisations and governments need to start having different conversations about gender equity — a conversation that stops pitting men against women. We must recognise the national economic imperative to get this right and accept that measures to date have been impeded by entrenched cultural bias — on all sides.

9 Untapped opportunity — The role of women in unlocking Australia’s productivity potential, Ernst & Young, July 2013

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions |Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.

EY refers to the global organisation, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.

© 2013 Ernst & Young, Australia.All Rights Reserved.

APAC No. AU00001765S1325854ED 010114

The recommendations made in this report reflect the views of Ernst & Young and may not reflect the views of the individual participants (except as specifically ascribed to them).

This communication provides general information which is current at the time of production. The information contained in this communication does not constitute advice and should not be relied on as such. Professional advice should be sought prior to any action being taken in reliance on any of the information. Ernst & Young disclaims all responsibility and liability (including, without limitation, for any direct or indirect or consequential costs, loss or damage or loss of profits) arising from anything done or omitted to be done by any party in reliance, whether wholly or partially, on any of the information. Any party that relies on the information does so at its own risk. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

ey.com

in his own words - 50/50 by 2030 foundation...leadership: “if your leadership team isn’t...

Documents