UTS Women in Leadership Initiative

Professor Carl Rhodes (Moderator):  Good afternoon, and welcome to this webinar proudly hosted by UTS Business School.

My name is Professor Carl Rhodes and it's my pleasure to be the convener of the panel. I'd like to begin with an acknowledgement of country.

UTS Business School, where I speak from you right now is on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, a land that was never ceded. The Gadigal people have cared for their community, land and waters for thousands of generations based on their deep knowledge of their country. I'd like to pay respects to their ancestors, the elders and acknowledge the ongoing status as the first peoples of this land.

Now, just to begin with a few house rules, today's webinar is being recorded and will be made available as a download soon by email by various UTS social media channels, including the UTS YouTube channel, and that should all be sometime early next week.

To minimise any technical interruptions or distractions, we've deactivated your cameras and microphones. But I do encourage you to submit any panel questions or comments in the Q&A box in your Zoom control panel - we'll try to get as many questions get to as many questions as possible. And thanks to those who submitted questions when registering for today.

Now, we are joined today by a highly distinguished and experienced panel to discuss the question: “Women are just as good if not better leaders than men, so why aren't more women in leadership roles?”

And before we get to the panel, I'll just make a few opening remarks. And one of the most remarkable features of today's question is how long it's been around? It feels shameful that we live in a society that has long recognized the fundamental injustice that privileges men when it comes to taking leadership roles, but at the same time has failed to effectively resolve it. We of course need to recognise the achievements of the many women who have and do serve for example, as the world's leaders, we can think of Cory Aquino, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Julia Gillard, and Jacinta Ardern. To suggest that women are not capable of leadership at the highest level is ignorant and prejudicial. But to say that women are in the vast minority is an absolute fact.

If we look a little closer to home in Australian business, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reports that while women make up half of the workforce, they occupy less than a third of key management positions. Just last year in 2020, there were 25 newly appointed CEOs in Australia - only one of them was a woman. All of this contributes to the gender pay gap in Australia of 21%.

That was even worse for women of colour. 97% of Australian chief executives come from Anglo Celtic or European backgrounds. A simple and woefully false explanation would be to assume that women are not as good as men at business leadership, and so they simply don't rise to the top. All evidence proves otherwise with research showing, for example, that companies with female chief executives and chief financial officers perform better than those with men in those positions. To suggest that nothing can be done is also wrong. Much of what's been achieved, for example, by the work of people on this panel - through the Diversity Council of Australia, the Champions of Change, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and Chief Executive Women Australia - shows that things really can be done.

So why are there so few senior women leaders? To consider this question, let me introduce you to our panel.

In alphabetical order:

We have Liz Broderick, who's Principal of Elizabeth Broderick and Company, and Chair-Rapporteur of the United Nations Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls. Liz was a 2016 New South Wales Australian of the Year and Australia's longest serving Sex Discrimination Officer - welcome Liz.

Stewart Irvine is Chief Executive Officer of Lion. He also chairs the Business Council Australia's Governance and Citizenship Committee, and is founder-member of the BT Climate Leaders Coalition in Australasia. Stuart is a dedicated public supporter of the role that corporations play in delivering value for society. Welcome, Stuart.

Next we have Kevin McCann, who is chairman of Telix Pharmaceuticals, a trustee of the Sydney Opera House, a foundation member of the Champions of Change, former chairman of Macquarie Group and Origin Energy. Last year, Kevin became an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to business, corporate governance and advocacy for gender equity. Welcome, Kevin.

Nicky Sparshott is Chief Executive Officer of Unilever ANZ and Global T2. Nicky has 24 years of experience in leading global corporations and consumer goods retail luxury and e-commerce. Nicky is the board director of the World Wildlife Fund Australia, and NED of global sisters. She is a passionate advocate that businesses should play a key role in building a more equitable and inclusive society. Welcome, Nicky.

Deanne Stewart is Chief Executive Officer Aware Super, one of Australia's largest super funds. Deanne was previously CEO of MetLife Australia and held executive roles at BT Financial Group and Merrill Lynch. Deanne is also a workplace gender equality agency pay equity ambassador. Welcome Deane.

And last in our alphabetical list, Professor Noreen Young leads the indigenous people and work research and practice hub at UTS Jumbunna Institute. Noreen is one of Australia's most respected workplace diversity practitioners, thinkers and influences. She was formerly director of Price Waterhouse Coopers indigenous consulting, Chief Executive of the Diversity Council Australia and Director of the New South Wales Women's Centre. Welcome, everybody. Welcome to our panel.

So we're going to start straight into asking some of the questions. And I might start, Liz, with you? I mean, the premise of this discussion is that women are just as good, if not better leaders than men. Do you think that's the case? Or is it that women are different to men as leaders? I mean, are we in danger here of judging women by standards that are set by and for men?

Liz Broderick:  Thanks very much, Carl. And kind of Yes, yes, and yes. But to go into that in more detail. And to first off, say that I'm so looking forward to our discussion today.

I'm joining you also from indigenous lands, I'm on the lands of Wattamagul Clan, so the first peoples of this land in Hunters Hill here in Sydney, land that has never been seen. And so I just want to start by acknowledging the traditional owners, and their continuing connection to land, waters and culture and to pay my respects.

I also just want to start also by acknowledging that as a pandemic rages across the world, and inequality is growing, I just think it's so timely to have a conversation like this.

And in starting that, and I suppose in recognition of the work that I'm doing globally, through my UN role, I do want to acknowledge the loss of life and livelihoods, and very much the loss of hope, in so many nations of the world, and particularly amongst the most marginalized in all our communities. Because as we will discuss today, you know, the less power you have, the more deeply and negatively this pandemic is impacting on you.

But today, we're asking are women just as good, if not better leaders than men, and I try to stay away from generalities. I suppose in the work that I do, I try to make sure that it's evidence based. And also to make the point that, you know, gender equality is not a zero sum game. It's about lifting everybody. But there's no question that there's many, many reports which point to the strength of women's leadership capability. And I thought I might just start by looking at one example. And that is women's, how are female leaders faring during COVID.

And there I'm talking about nation state leaders. And it was interesting, I don't know if some of you may have read an article, which was published in The Lancet just a few weeks ago, which looked at 35 countries and how they're faring during COVID. And what they found conclusively in The Lancet, a very evidence based publication, they found that countries led by female leaders have fared significantly better during the pandemic than those that are led by men. In fact, the three best standouts at the minute in terms of national performance were Taiwan, New Zealand, and Iceland, and what they have in common, one of the things they have in common is that they all have female leaders. And in the article also looking at the three worst performers, the USA, Brazil and UK. I'll leave it up to you to determine what they all have in common there.

But interestingly, the researchers noted that there was a set of correlations. They said that countries led by women experienced much fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita, and they were more effective and rapid, flat flattening the epidemic’s curve, particularly with lower takes in daily depth. And when they interrogated as to why this might be the case, they found that most women led governments.

Firstly, they listened to the science. Secondly, they prioritize public health over economic concerns, although they saw the strong link between loss of life and loss of livelihoods. They also determined that female leaders were more successful at eliciting collaboration from their populations, their citizenry. And they found that finally that country's led by women that have a stronger focus on social equality, human needs and generosity, they placed social and environmental well-being at the core of national policymaking.

Now, I was kind of reflecting on that and saying, well, why would any of us be surprised, because I wasn't certainly surprised. But I think coming back to our discussion today, it is some of the differences in the way women lead. And I'm also saying that men can lead in this way as well but it requires both feminine and masculine energy, it requires the ability to be vulnerable, compassionate, listening, the ability to build bridges of understanding in a much more polarized world. And often, it's these types of skills that are more correlated with women's leadership than with men's leadership.

So I do believe that, you know, leadership across the world, and in all the work that I'm seeing in many, many nations, it has a very masculine face in 2021. And it's not that style of leadership, which is going to enable us to solve some of the most complex and pressing problems facing the world.

So just in closing, I just want to add, there is one real bright spot in terms of women's leadership across the world today. It's not all negative news. And I think that's about the rise of feminist organizations, and particularly non-government organizations all across the world. Because what we're witnessing at the minute is new and creative forms of civil and civic participation and action, particularly with young women. They're shunning traditional notions of leadership and power. And they're leading in different ways of powerful agents of change. I'm talking there about the new movements that we're seeing across the globe calling for equality, democracy, economic and climate justice. And I'm thinking about what was just last month in Argentina, around women's reproductive rights.

Argentina will now have the most progressive legislation across the “LAC” region (Latin America and the Caribbean). I'm talking about all the women who are marching on the street in Poland, particularly around the Constitutional Court's ruling on an abolition on abortion, I'm thinking about the way they are linking issues such as violence against women to other movements, including workers rights and reproductive rights. And just the way they are calling for accountability and action for the protection of their own communities and the world that we all share together. So I believe women's activism, young women's activism in particularly is and their leadership is a really strong ray of light in a pretty dim world. Thanks very much, Carl.

Carl: Thanks so much. There's I mean, that's a really, you know, insightful comment, in a sense on women's leadership being different. And then you know, the current terrible example of COVID showing in cases in which case clearly more effective. So just following up from that Noreen. So if this is the case, why is it that so few women do progress through the corporate and political ranks to the top? I mean, in your experience with diversity, what do you see as the barriers to women leading major corporate organizations and countries and political institutions?

Professor Noreen Young:  Thanks, Carl and I too want to acknowledge that I'm working today from Gadigal Land and I'm an Eurora descendant. And I want to acknowledge my ancestors, elders, past present and emerging and acknowledge that this land sovereignity was never seated, and that we are only is it two days away from invasion day that brings with it so much sadness and so much grief for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and descendants of those communities and for I think our country, more generally, and so much is lacking in resolution for us and there's so much still to do.

I think what it despite I think, I agree with Liz on the question. I think that we're way beyond talking about big data and where we are is talking about different. I think it's clear that in this country, there a lot of men and not you know, here we go, not all men, but a lot of men are simply not prepared to give up the power. And it's the culture of institutions and workplaces that is what's important.

Obviously, as a descendant of Aboriginal people, I'm going to take the black feminist position here and say that, in corporate and mainstream feminism, not much has been said to women of colour either. And that's really problematic. And I think that given the worldwide movements that Liz is talking about, it's time for Australian feminism, to take a good long, hard look at itself.

I don't know if anyone else is saying the recent movie, around the beginning of the second wave women's movement in Australia and Aboriginal women have been fighting around the plight and their placing feminine Australian feminism for a long time. And I think we're seeing women of colour more generally, be more assertive. And so I think it's a it's a combination of things around women of colour in particular, that there has to be consideration and thought given among corporate and mainstream feminists, to the position of women of colour, and women from coloured background in this country. We are not other. We are, in fact, the mainstream. And that movement has to occur. And those men in power, have to give up some of that power and also thinking about the culture of workplaces and institutions more generally.

As you know, Jumbunna (at UTS) released a report on the workplace experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people last year called Gari Yala (ed: which means ‘speak the truth’ in the Wiradjuri language). Casual and appearance racism is still absolutely rife, when we're still dealing with issues as basic as that, how do you advance? So I think there are still a lot of issues to be dealt with.

Carl:  Look, thanks so much, Noreen. I mean, obviously, central points to this discussion, and we might just continue talking about women leadership, but specifically issues related to women of colour.

And the appointment of Kamala Harris, as Vice President of the United States has been hailed by many as a breakthrough for women of colour. And, as you say, who are even more under-represented, indeed, vastly under represented compared to white women in countries like the United States where she is and here in Australia.

I mean, Kevin, in your experience, what do you do? What difference do you think Harris's appointment will make for women with a diversity of ethnicity and class and other backgrounds?

(I think you're muted Kevin)

Kevin McCann:  Its that better? Yeah, thanks. You've picked a perfect day because the New York Times has an article called proudly diverse Australia is still run by people who are white. So I commend that article to you all. Right. Kamala Harris is really an interesting case, isn't she because she's the daughter of two immigrants. A man from the Caribbean who presumably was African American, and a woman who was Indian.

Perhaps I could reframe the colourpoint I think we I'd like to not only include indigenous people, and people from Africa and India, but also our Asian population, which is really remarkable.

I suppose there's some background I just make is that, firstly, Australia is overwhelmingly white, and 75% of Australians are English, Irish, or Scots, or call themselves Australians. And then when you add other Europeans like Greeks, Italians, Germans and East, East Europeans, you probably have around the 90%.

And so you've got you've got the indigenous population at 3.3%. And now very interestingly there is that one third of that population is under 15. And the median age of the population is 21. So in terms of pipeline, we have an issue and I'll come back to that.

And 3.1% Chinese heritage and 1.4% Indian, and there are also other Asian groups, particularly Vietnamese.

I think one of the issues with, unlike the United States is the indigenous community has suffered from not having access to elite universities until recently.

I'm pleased to say that I think all of the G8 now have aggressive programs to bring students into courses where you need very high ATAR. So if you want to do law at the G8, you've got to have almost a prolific score. Now the universities are recognizing social disadvantage and allowing access to Indigenous students to those courses and in commerce.

One of the interesting stats from University of Western Sydney is that Australians support multiculturalism by a very, very large number. And I guess my experience in in the workforce has really been through Macquarie and my old law firm Allens.

Macquarie, I'm proud to say is headed by a woman. She is a Tamil and her family were refugees from that country who came to Australia. And she now is the CEO of that company, which I think is one of the largest companies in the Australian Stock Exchange. And the thing that Macquarie and Allens have in common is that, firstly, they seek an inclusive and diverse work workforce, and that they are absolutely committed to excellence.

So that in my experience, Macquarie is really like the United Nations. And it's one of the most if you go to number 50 Martin Place, you'll find one of the most diverse workforces you've ever seen in your life. Now, where does that get us in terms of Kamala Harris? Well, Liz is and Noreen have pointed out the challenge that women have to get into leadership and Liz, didn't, was modest, and didn't mention that she founded the Male Champions of Change, now renamed the Champions of Change.

And that group has done really land-breaking work when flexibility was a dirty word. That was something that was portrayed.

We also had the leadership role of people, making sure that women could shine. We examine bias conscious and unconscious. The fact that men as Noreen pointed out, like to appoint people like themselves. And so the companies with a lot of leading companies, firms, and the public service, did some great work in that area.

And that all having been said, I think you quoted, most of the material you quoted was listed public companies. And that's a very narrow lens, we've got the public service, the university sector. And we've got the non-listed companies where there are a lot of women doing well. But you're right, in the public company sector, it's still challenging outside boards, boards, we've done reasonably well.

So addressing that particular point, why are there so few Indigenous women? Why are there so few Chinese women, Indian women and so on? Well, I think in the case of indigenous people, they have not had the benefit of access to elite universities. And that is important. If you're going to get access, I think to leadership roles. I think that is being overcome. So I'm optimistic that that will improve. Certainly Macquarie and Allens have indigenous programs, where Indigenous students welcomed.

The other area that’s a puzzle to me is really the Chinese women. If you look at the ATARs (Australian Tertiary Rank Assessment) being achieved in 2020, by Chinese heritage people, and particularly women, where are they going? And that's something I think we need some research on. I don't have the data to explain why they're not coming through more strongly. But look, I think that the climate is favourable. People are companies, which wish to promote women. I think they probably haven't put a lot of focus on minority groups of colour and different ethnicity. But I think your webinar is a wake up call for us to, to give that some attention.

Carl: Thanks. Thanks so much, Kevin, and some, some optimism and hope built in with some realism in those comments, which is, which is very well.

Now, of course, I mean, these issues we've been talking about, you know, aren't just about power, privilege and position. They're also about more tangible material things like income and wealth as reflected, for example, in the stubborn gender pay gap, both here and elsewhere. Something that Liz kind of alluded to this earlier to look at the recent report by Oxfam, the billionaires of the world, they're coming out of COVID pretty well off, where everyone else, inequality is widening.

I’ll throw to Deanne in saying that, you know, it's still the case that on average, women earn significantly less than men, as well as have much less superannuation. But what do you Deanne as the main issues and how can financial inequality be addressed as part of this overall discussion we are having today?

Deanne Stewart: Thanks, Carl. And certainly, yeah, the financial impact is pretty significant. So maybe if I start with a couple of the facts, just to sort of lay the groundwork, and then speak to a couple of the things that I think is really going on, which I think speaks to part of the answer, although I'd say there's no silver bullet to this.

So the facts are certainly here in Australia, there is a pay equity gap between men and women of around 14%. That means we're doing the same job at the same level, and earning 14% less.

So think about that, over the course of a lifetime, or a working career, together with the fact that women tend to have lower workforce participation and work more part time, what that ends up meaning as you head into retirement is a retirement gap of around 40 to 45%, between men and women.

So it ends up having a hugely consequential impact on, quite frankly, the dignity and how people can experience their retirement. So that really is significant concern, and probably even more exacerbated through COVID as well, I would want to acknowledge that as well.

Part of the reasons why I mean, part of and I'm sure we'll get more into it, but part of the reasons why you've got this huge gap by the time people get to retirement is the fact that men and women are still today paid differently for doing the same job. So it certainly starts there.

But also, if you look at a number of the roles women pay at work in, they're often in carer roles that society deems to pay less income for, right so that is certainly part of it. And also part of it is the part time taking time out to raise kids taking time out to look after loved ones, that is still borne primarily by the woman. So that certainly has significant impact on the ability to really build strong livelihood but also for retirement.

In terms of specifics from a superannuation side, I would say and some of the things that we say and really advocate for, and if any of you listening today have the ability to have impact on this in your own organization.

Firstly, where we see a real gap begin to emerge in people's superannuation balances is it does tend to be around the child rearing age. And so organizations paying superannuation guarantee through paternity leave is a really critical way of balancing things out. So that is a really key one.

When we do seminars, we also encourage women to talk about superannuation equality in terms of trying to make sure that between if you do have a partner, that equal amounts are going into the superannuation, so that's another thing to think about.

And then another element where we see another huge gap arise both in a livelihood, but also what it means for retirement is often where a marriage may fall apart.

For example, and unfortunately, there are still legal loopholes that do not have a complete look through into superannuation assets.

And so this is another thing that we've advocated for is really closing that legal loophole that there is complete look through into superannuation because often that what that means is that women in a divorce settlement will lose out significantly on the retirement or the superannuation savings. So there's some of the things that we certainly think needs to be done.

But beyond that, I guess I go back to where I began, which is, it does start with how women are paid and the pay equity side. And from that perspective, I think, complete transparency so companies, whether they be public or private, should actually really publish this data as to how what is and is there any pay gap and do that at different levels, that transparency, and reporting is a great place to start? Because certainly if I look at our own organization, we've done a Pay Equity Analysis at every level. And there is no pay gap. And we have absolutely made sure that there isn't, and then we publish that into our reports every year. So that, that there is transparency to that. So I think that's probably a good place to start on the pay equity side.

Carl:  Thanks. Thanks so much, Deanne. And that's very impressive to have removed the equity gap. Congratulations.

And it says this leads me, Stuart, to the kind of question that I'd like to ask you. I mean, in general, it is still a terribly unjust situation that we find ourselves in both in terms of income and wealth, and as well in terms of opportunities. But what actually then either responsibilities of businesses themselves to address this, and suggested one solution in terms of equity. What other things can you add? Would you identify as the main initiatives that businesses can take to address these issues?

Stuart Irvine:  Thanks very much, Carl. And thanks, everybody, let me first acknowledge the traditional owners of the land from which I'm speaking to you from which is the Gadigal people of the Eora nation and give my thanks to acknowledge their leaders past and present in the care that they've given this, this land that we have the lucky opportunity to work and play on with our families.

It's interesting, isn't it with it, this is such a complex knotty issue. And we've heard from all these different people, all the different aspects. And I think when we face it as business, you just got to get really focused on what you can do in your place of responsibility.

And as a CEO of a business, just like Nicky, you have a great deal of opportunity to make a difference in the organization that you run. And I think that if, we can do that in those places, and tell people those stories, we can, you know, in the words of Gandhi “Be the change”.

So the most important thing for me is before we start having great conversations about changing the world to make sure that we've made the change in the organizations that we run. And I believe that business and business people have that duty to make that change.

And I see that in three, I see three, three ways to do that. The first one is to you got to set up the system of the system of equity. And that means you're going to have to really drill down into every system and process within your business.

So Deanne talked very powerfully about gender pay equity. And back in 2016, let me tell you, I believe that Lion had the most fair and just value system that in any company that I've worked for. And of course, where you are paying everybody equally. Of course we were except that when I went line by line roll by roll through the data, guess what? We weren't right when we had a 4% pay gap. And just like Deanne, we had to fix that and it cost us $6 million. We did it straightaway. And we check every six months that it's not there anymore.

That was a huge, powerful message not just in pay equity, but also in fairness and equity of all people within the organization and people got the message and we're on our journey to having a 50/50 organization, 40/40/20 of the teams and there were lots of glitches Carl in the system, right? Glitches in the way that we hired people. Glitches in the way that when women maybe took a career break, how was their salary viewed in that career break? Superannuation? All those kinds of things, the whole list. Lots and lots of lots of little settings that needed change.

So the first thing you do is you've got to get to those to get to those settings, and that there are more there than you think. And it took a while to get to them.

One of our values that we've set up, of course, is fairness and equity. And that helps us and it's not just about gender, just in case we go reflect on the conversation with her before. Lion is also doing a Reconciliation Action Plan.

And we also look at the diversity of the organization in many other ways, but gender is the place where we started because I think it's the most obvious place.

And the second thing is, you're going to have to intervene to create change, because just changing those settings won't be enough. And by that, I mean, you're going to have to make some pretty deliberate hiring decisions. You're going have to make sure that there are senior role models for those communities, and you're going to have to accelerate the development of your female leaders, and that would take female mentoring, but male mentoring as well, because you have to be across both of those, and we're pushing that through, and then you have to measure and track.

And I've got to say that the interventions that we make in some parts of the business are different from the interventions we make in others. Because there are some even a manufacturing business like ours, there are some more stubborn pockets of lack of diversity than others. And you have to weed those out. So you are going to have to be pretty deliberate and intervene to create change.

The most stubborn area, I think, and the reason why I do enjoy talking to the people here and the people that are the audience that is listening is the third area is I think there is a big job to do to redefine leadership and educate people on that.

One of the comments that really gets me is when, and I think it got to all of us, but it bears repeating is where Donald Trump was talking about Hillary Clinton and said, look, “she just she can't be president, she just doesn't look presidential”.

And it's this whole role modelling of what made this male view of leadership versus I think, a more well articulated complex view of what a great leader looks like.

And I don't think that the United States and Donald Trump and those, those countries that we talked about before Elizabeth, are on their own. And when we Tony Abbott has his own comments about male leadership versus female leadership.

And we need to educate people that there is a different, more complex style of leadership that's required. And if ever there was a case, it was last year, for that. And I know, with a 50/50 team that I run, the depth and complexity of leadership that's required to lead those diverse teams and the insight that comes from all those different people and the leaders, leadership that can be provided in a much more complicated and much harder way of doing things.

I think we still need to describe exactly how that works. I know I've had to change the way I are lead, I'm still a long way off what I would like to be but I think there was a big re-education in what great leadership look like looks like. And for that we need different role models and a different discussion on the education of leadership. And that's part of the journey we are also on.

But I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak about that. But you know, I'm fundamental believer in making a change in the businesses that you run so that there's good case studies for rest of everyone to learn from. Thank you.

Carl:  Thanks so much Stuart. That was very helpful, particularly looking from a business point of view, and also highlighting some terrible examples of male leadership, which added destructiveness of them is patiently obvious.

Nicky, I'm going turn to you now. Now, within organizations themselves, there's a lot of talk about the business case for diversity, and organizations and business issues about diversity because if they do so, it's going to be much better for them commercially, or financially or share price, whatever the case may be.

But it's also a question and the one that's very much been discussed today is a question of justice. Is it fair? Is it right and this question of which is the primary motive here? Do you think, you know business should be driven by contributing to equality purely based on a justice model? Or do you think there's also a need to form a profit model? So people or profits? What do you think?

Nicky Sparshott: I'll absolutely take that question. I'd like to also acknowledge the traditional owners of the land that were on the land of the Eora people, and pay respect to elders past, present and emerging. This has been and always will be Aboriginal land.

Look on that question, specifically, I think the answer is that both are required. But let's start with equality.

That is a basic human right, that any individual should be able to make progress, irrespective of their gender, when they were born, what socio economic background they were born into, there should be that opportunity for everybody to be able to move forward and not be penalized by others who have set some sort of glass ceiling on their behalf consciously or unconsciously.

And from a business point of view, we want to be building sustainable businesses that take care of the broadest group of stakeholders in that process.

So whether that be our team members, whether it be the communities that we're in our customers are supplier basis that I'm doing, right, and being a force for good across the impact that you have on the planet, on communities and on business that I think all businesses should be striving for. And the reality is, I think there's very few people that would say, we shouldn't have equality in our organizations.

But the fact that this question, as you noted, at the beginning, has been asked time and time again, talks to this massive, say do gap, I say one thing, but when the rubber hits the road, I do something else.

And so when I think about equality in business, we almost need to deconstruct it a little bit. So what does it mean? I mean, the first thing is to, you need to be able to offer an equal opportunity for both women and men to thrive in an organization. So somewhat level playing field. And we have to acknowledge that there are some structural barriers that make that difficult. And it could be access to childcare, for example, for a woman coming back into the workforce, but then more so these cultural barriers, these sort of conscious times and unconscious biases that stop that from happening. Equal pay, we've talked about at length, that still isn't where it needs to be consistently in this market, and certainly not around the world.

But then it's also about equal treatment. So let's say you've got a job, you've been given equal pay, it's that equal treatment when you're in an organization. And sometimes that can change.

I'll give you an example. I had a situation where I had a very senior leader say to me at one point in my career, Nicky, you're at a tipping point, you need to decide whether it's your career, or your husband's career, that's going to take precedent, so that we can develop a career development plan on that basis.

And I thought, what a ridiculous thing to ask, you would never ask a male colleague, a similar question. And the reality is my husband, and I've chosen to have dual careers, and we help each other in both environments. So that equal treatment on the career journey, I think, is really important.

And then the last one is equal access to training to promotion opportunities to networks. So we need that equality beyond just the pay, but really right through a man or a woman's career journey, organization.

At the end of the day, when we do that, well, does it? Is there a business case? Does it yield profits, definitely you get the right representation of the people that you serve, you know, when you have the bulk of buyers, being women in an FMCG company, you want to make sure they're well represented in the organization.

But you need to double click, so you can have 50/50 representation of women, but I'm always really interested in is that 50/50 representation at the board level? Is it at the senior management level isn't in the factories, is it in functions beyond HR and marketing and sitting in finance and supply chain, some of the more STEM based disciplines in an organization so that double clicking becomes super important.

And that's where I think quotas are interesting. And they're important in that you measure what you treasure, but let's measure the right things.

So we get not just absolute understanding of the quality, but we get quality of equality in an organization and really sort of understand that more.

And probably just the last message that I would make and it goes back to the fundamental question that you asked around equality versus do you do it for people? Do you do it for profit?

And I think the reality is right now, whether you're a man, or whether you're a woman, the single biggest leadership quality that I think is needed today. And we certainly soared over the course of 2020, when the pandemic hit and continues to impact businesses, communities, governments, is a duality of leadership.

The fact that we need to ask is that people or profit should not be questions that we're asking anymore, it should be the ability to sit comfortably with the “And And”. It's about profit, and about people. It's about productivity and about well being. It's about sustainability and positive impact on the environment and affordability. It's about masculine energy, and feminine energy. It's about the value that expertise and wisdom can bring to an organization coupled with a beginner's mindset. And I think once we have that duality, in everything we do, then the ability to move from that say to that do gap when it comes to quality is more likely to be there.

Carl: Well, thanks so much, Nicky. And then also, I mean, interesting reflects a theme has gone through this, that's about breaking down kind of strict distinctions between what we might think of as masculine and feminine and all the other kind of distinctions that go along with that.

And now I'm going to turn out we've had some questions from the audience, we probably won't be able to get to all of them, but we certainly will address several of them.

There's one interesting question here, let's say it was an anonymous. attendee who's asked a question we haven't addressed. And this person says, “Hi, what advice can you give young women who wish to succeed and elevate to more senior leadership roles that might not necessarily be welcomed? So what happens if you're not in one of the more progressive organizations that we've heard about today, as a young woman, and you want to get ahead? Can anyone else have any advice?”

Noreen: There's plenty of places where you can work where you will be appreciated, you don't have to work at one of those places.

Liz: Exactly about to say that Noreen.

Stuart: Come and work for me.

Liz: You're right. I mean, great female talent, great team. Talent generally is in big demand. So great female talent, even once I saw, I'm 100%, with Noreen.

I mean, you know, I do a number of these cultural reviews, I look at national institutions or big organizations. And I go out and talk to women and men about culture.

And sometimes I just think, Oh my gosh, you know, I just love to say, just get the hell out of here! I can introduce you to a whole lot of organizations, which would really value but it is a little bit late when you remain in a culture like that long term, you start to believe that you aren't worth anything that your talent is not, you know, that you should be devalued. And I, you know, it's easy for us, I suppose Noreen, and I and Nikki and others to say leave, sometimes because of your financial obligations and everything else. That's not, you don't consider in that moment that that's an option for you.

At that point in time I would reach out to other women would be one of my suggestions, because of women's solidarity and sharing of experiences, is always useful, particularly in other organizations.

Noreen: But I even think if you consider yourself not highly skilled, or the skills aren't valuable, there are always other places to work. And this particular market at the moment is one where diversity is valued even, you know, in the most low paid of jobs at some places and you can look around and you can think about it.

Kevin:  Don’t ignore that there's a bunch of men who would also like to help women in those circumstances. When you leave the big end of town and go to the small end of town, it's not as rosy a picture as we have all portrayed here today. There is a lot of chauvinism, the view that equality is an interesting idea, but we're in the business for profit, and you're going to ruin the business unless we focus entirely on that. So when a young woman faces that situation, I think someone with some grey hairs can give them some advice on how to manage that I'd basically be with Noreen, I would, I would quit.

Deanne: And if I just add one extra element, and when I saw that come through, I thought I've, been there and so many of us have been there, right? And, I've been in an organization where, and even at this point, I was quite senior. And I thought, you know what I'm going to give this a crack at really changing the culture, and having a positive impact. And day after day, I just felt exhausted. And what I realized is I just didn't fit the values and the culture, I needed something, an organization that was deeply human that was really purpose driven. That's who I am. And there's my values, and it eroded my soul if I'm really honest, but I did feel trapped. And it was a little bit of like, well, I don't know if I'll get another job.

And then, one of the best bits of advice I got was, just remember, particularly if you're interested in senior roles, there's three things you need to think about.

One is credibility. So do your job really well. The second is executive presence, and really building that confidence and presence. And then the third, which I had done woefully up to that point is the importance of connections, network and sponsorship.

And from that day on, I actually went about looking at my role and my job of connecting far more in the organization in the industry, so that I would not getting myself in that point again, and reaching out to different people, and not being worried you'll often have that voice on your shoulder that says, Oh, they won’t to have coffee with me, or they won't want to meet with me, but most people are flattered, and love helping people out. And so just having that, that confidence not to listen to that inner voice. And to really reach out. If you are at that moment that I learned the hard way.

Carl: Thanks Deanne, I'm going to turn to another audience question now. And this is again, reflecting on something that we haven't discussed, yet something that's obviously very pertinent in society.

If you think of the debates around Australia Day Awards from a few days ago. But the question, I'll read it, do you think that this conversation needs to include and represent gender fluidity, and people who do not wish to identify by the agenda, and we can add to that, obviously, people who, who would identify as transgender, any thoughts on the fact that you know, on the one hand, we're talking with sitting through this conversation that, that we need to kind of dismantle distinctions between masculinity, and femininity. But there are big questions on dismantling the difference biologically, in a sense, as well as identity between men and women. Any thought?

Noreen: Oh, if I can jump in, it's Noreen. I, I in all the years now that I've been talking to people about their workplace problems, and there's, it's a lot of years now, I have never known anyone is discriminated against as trans women.

And I think we have a responsibility as feminists to include trans women in our discussions around workplaces around what happens I think as people who are taking a progressive position, when it comes to the culture of workplaces, we've got a responsibility to include trans men in diversity discussions. And I think that as you’ve raise the topic now, it seems to me that this is the identity issue of our time, for transsexual people, and, and our responsibilities as diversity practitioners is to include them.

Nicky: If I could also maybe just make a comment on this, because we've spent a lot of time today talking about gender, for obvious reasons. But I do think that the being representative of society in our organizations is at the heart of what this topic is about.

It's about recognizing that, aside from equality, humans need equality, diversity and inclusion to come together, you can have an incredibly diverse workforce that is not inclusive, you can have a very inclusive organization that is not diverse in its representation. And always think the worst thing that can happen is when you have people sitting around a table virtual table, looking and looking different, but actually sounding the same, and just all confirming each other's point of view, as opposed to where the real value lies which is in harnessing that dynamic tension that comes from diversity of perspective. And that diversity of perspective can only come we have a truly representative sample of the melting pot that is society, and I think that needs to be done very deliberately. So whether it's gender, sexual orientation, multiculturalism, disability, the list goes on how do we capture that, because when we have diversity, equity and inclusion together, then I can create a culture of belonging.

And when people feel like they belong somewhere, and they feel safe, then that's when you can unlock creativity, innovation, problem solving, lateral thinking that people need to feel like they are part of a tribe where they have the freedom to show up in their authentic way. And I think we're far from that.

Stuart:  What I noticed, without being deliberate about this was when we set out on a journey of equality and fairness in general, which is what we were talking about an inclusion, that a lot of the conversation, we started with gender, but it got into ethnicity, and then sexual orientation as well. And we supported gay marriage and things like that.

But actually just having that fundamental setting of equality as represented by fixing gender pay gaps and targets, actually, and that the whole feeling of psychological safety to talk about it allowed all of those groups to flourish.

But we haven't been deliberate about poking at one group or another yet do sort of mean, if you set a setting, it just allowed those conversations to start happening. So the probably is more that we could do to for every single group.

But the fundamental setting of inclusivity, which I think is what Nicky is talking about and the psychological safety tab, those conversations allow that to happen. And we've got some very flourishing, self organized groups now within Lion, who've organized themselves into communities because there's that feeling around it. So I think that's the fundamental thing that you got to get started as it's a great starting point that.

Carl: Thanks so much. The final question, I'm going to ask the audience because we're running out of time, in fact, we're going to go slightly over time.

And this question is more about just about the structure of work I really loud.

“What kind of changes can we make to the structure of work to embrace flexibility that is more accommodating to many women who have greater carer responsibilities, flexible arrangements, such as the four day week, for example? How can we promote companies making these changes?”

I think we know that Unilever has been very great work on this. And I might add here, obviously, the experience of COVID gave the country the experience of universal paid childcare, which made a significant difference to too many people. But some more generally, then what can be done about the structure of work to make it accommodating to, to these different needs?

Kevin: Can I jump in Carl to say that I think the big issue we're facing at the moment is childcare and early childhood education. It's completely unsatisfactory at it. The education side for four and five year olds should be universal and free. And the childcare arrangements at the moment are very rigid. They don't suit women in leadership. Women in leadership are going to need nannies, and are not tax deductible, which seems to me completely unfair.

Liz: Can I just add also, Carl, I mean, it's such a great question, because it's almost like God handed us work. Here you are, this is work. Don't mess with it. Well, work is not something handed down from on high work is a human construct. We created it, we need to shift it.

And that's what I'm loving about one of the positive things that's coming out of COVID is leaders are adopting and organizations are adopting a much more experimental mindset. They're throwing up some and throwing out some of the old assumptions they had about work.

Firstly, they're starting to understand that work is not where we go. It's what we do. It has infinite number of modalities, but at its core is what we do, which is why purpose driven organizations I think, are doing better during this current pandemic than others.

But if you want to shift work, and we are seeing some great shifts, and I know Nicky’s doing amazing things there at Unilever, but it's not just about shifting work. We have to shift all the systems that underpin work.

Kevin just pointed to childcare. I couldn't agree more. I mean, if you're a police officer, or you're, you know someone who works out of hours, how are you going to access the existing childcare system in this nation, you're just not it's set up for people who are working five days a week nine to five. So that needs to shift.

The transport system needs to shift in the past, you had to buy a weekly transport, you know, ticket or whatever. So if you only work two days a week, you're still compelled to pay five days. I mean, those basic systems that also need to shift with the way that works shifting.

So I think at the heart of what we do, has to be flexibility of I would say from, you know, particularly working with the global union movement, we have to ensure that those who are at you know that every worker is entitled to decent work with proper terms and conditions as well.

So that would be my few comments about what needs to shift. But I hand to Nicky.

Nicky: Well, to pick up on your point, Liz as well, it is in our hands. That's right, there was a time when there was a six day working week, then it was seven days, six day five day when the experimentation piece I think is really important. It's absolutely coming at this with a beginner's mindset, because in many ways, all of us bring a lot of experience to the table, it can be our biggest strength, it can also be the biggest blind spot because there's a certain way that we've either grown up or believed that leadership or businesses should run. And we almost need to deconstruct for ourselves what the new future of work looks like.

Some of the really practical things that we're trying and you know, I say trying because some of it will work and some of it won't. But we've introduced the four day week in New Zealand, we will be paying our team members there 100% of their pay to work 80% of the time, as long as they deliver 100% of the productivity and the impact that we've agreed on.

And that means it's forcing team members to reimagine how they can remove those non-value added processes and things that get in the way of allowing them to unleash full potential in a four day week versus a five day week. But then we're also giving people the freedom to decide how they want to use that some of our team members want to be able to take their kids to school, and therefore want five mornings a week off, others would like a day off. Others want the flexibility of picking and choosing based on what comes up over the course of the week, because their partners might do shift work.

So I think we also need to treat adults like adults, and give them the space and the freedom to conduct their lives in much more flexible ways. We also introduced this thing called Passed The Baton.

And that was acknowledging that sometimes the primary carer is not a Mum, sometimes it is a Dad, sometimes it is somebody else. So giving 16 weeks of paid carers leave when a baby's born to give the flexibility for a Dad to spend that time with his newborn. But at the same time, it gives his partner the Mum the opportunity to come back to work earlier, if that's also what she wants to do so.

And then we're also looking at things like really just deconstructing roles. At the moment, we create roles in our business based on a five day a week logic. But actually, they might be better off served if we had a two jobs, one that's three days a week based on certain deliverables, and one that's two days a week based on certain deliverables. And when we do that, well, we open ourselves up to a talent pool of amazing people that otherwise would not be able to participate in our organization if we were very rigid about the employment contract that we have.

So I think a healthy dose of creativity is needed and a bucket load of courage. Because sometimes we don't know what we don't know. And sometimes it won't work, but they'll always be great lessons learned that we can take forward into the next experiment.

Carl: Thanks so much, Nicky.

I'm going to bring this discussion to a close now.

Really thank you, for all of you panellists for taking the time out of your busy schedules to join us today and to contribute to this important discussion. I know I've certainly learned a lot. And I certainly hope as well, this has been of value to the people who've tuned in.

To the audience, thank you very much.

On behalf of UTS Business School, thank you for joining us today.

As I said before this, this webinar will be available as recorded version subsequently. So we hope to get more coverage through that as well.

But I think as a very closing comment, I'm actually going to steal some of Liz's words, because I think it's the appropriate way to think of this.

We created it. We need to shift it.

And I think on behalf of all of us. I think that's a good message.

This discussion is hopefully made a small contribution to that shift but certainly changes that absolutely required if we are going to realize the promise of adjust the economy for everybody in Australia and in the world.

Thank you very much

## end of webinar ##

No transcript supplied