The good news is that by becoming aware of the problem, you are not only half way to fixing it but also to creating a solution for your organisation that is effective, low risk, low cost and that may never have been done before.

Have I got your attention?

First, the problem. We have been seeing anecdotal evidence that some of our leading companies are allowing quality female talent to walk out the door.

The people – perhaps you – who are spending so much time, effort and money recruiting outstanding women and then retaining them are seeing their efforts wasted as their organisations plan and execute a restructure and the associated job shedding with no consideration given to what this might do to diversity efforts.

A disconnect between these business functions is seeing female talent enter through one door only to exit through another.

It appears that the opportunity presented by restructures to retain women and improve the proportion of female talent at an executive or leadership level and even to promote women internally is there for the taking.

In an Op Ed in The Age recently public service consultant Lea Corbett asked, Where have all the women gone, Premier?

The article refers to a restructure of the public service executive ranks last month after Denis Napthine became Premier of Victoria. Two new male department heads were added leaving only one female department secretary. What a missed opportunity to promote two suitably qualified women to improve diversity at the top of Victoria’s bureaucracy?

Ms Corbett wrote that only 18 months ago “Victoria led the national field with the highest percentage of women in department head positions – even if with a paltry 36% (or four out of 11),” Now, only one department secretary is female.

It is a great example of what can happen in a relatively short amount of time when there is no connection between the talent pipeline coming in and all other executive workforce planning.

We at Optimiss have heard real stories from the private sector of the loss of female talent and a plea for advice on how to stem the losses.

Restructures offer companies a rare opportunity to achieve positive discrimination in a way that creates less noise and carries fewer risks – all at a lower cost. Here is how.

First, do the math. We know what gets measured, gets done so add up what is being spent on diversity efforts and the cost of having to re-do any work if female numbers dwindle. Carry out a separate costing of the estimated gains to the organisation of gender diversity using all measures available plus any specific achievements of the females in the executive ranks.

Next, outline why using positive discrimination via restructure is low risk and low cost. The women in your organisation and their achievements are well known to the organisation. The women are also already on board and contributing to the success of your organisation so keeping them costs nothing and poses no risk.

Understand the low noise impact offered by positive discrimination via restructure. Unlike quotas or even a deliberate positive discrimination recruitment campaign, ensuring the organisation makes a conscious effort to keep qualified women when choosing between similarly qualified executives for redundancy will boost the numbers of females in the executive ranks almost overnight but in a comparatively subtle way.

Know your champions. Who can you get on board to support your idea? Who else does it benefit? Can you garner support from those designing the people side of restructures plus specific senior line managers keen to keep their female high performers?

Get your CEO on board. Articulating the business case for a positive discrimination initiative such as this is a great way to get the CEO engaged in gender equality discussions more generally and to re-state all the business benefits of the work you do.

If you need assistance in putting your case together, our consulting side of the business stands ready to support you. Just give us a call.

“Initially, employers focused merely on women and their childcare concerns, and devised policies that attempted to meet their needs,” says the report.

“Next, companies embraced more family-responsive environments, realising they were necessary to insure that employees (mostly women) would not be penalised for availing of these policies. The business case has thus always hinged on the relationship between supportive workplaces and effective organizations based on the underlying assumption that businesses exist to make profit and that unless gender equality is linked to profit, decision makers within organisations would not support it.

“ Released this month, The Current State of Corporate Gender Equality “challenges this assumption”.

The report looks at the need to “reframe the business case for gender diversity” and also the importance of getting employees involved in how to make gender diversity happen. There is also a call to move away from “face time” to output driven work and while this is not new, it is always worth repeating.

Changing the business case

The business case for greater gender diversity should be based on a “shared value perspective” to identify how gender diversity is “not just about fairness but it is also about shared benefits for individuals, families, companies and societies,” the report says.

The tangible benefits of greater gender include greater returns on capital investment but the report calls for a greater focus on why this happens. A Credit Suisse report looked at share price performance between companies with at least one woman on the board and those without any women on their boards. There was not much difference between the two types of companies in the good times but with the onset of the bear market from 2008 the share price of those companies with at least one woman on their board “really picked up”. The report calls for more research on the impact of gender diversity through different economic cycles.

The report also calls for a much closer look at the way gender diversity impacts on the intangibles too. One area is the impact on the creativity and innovation of a company. As knowledge workers are increasingly called on to focus on problem solving rather than just BAU, this is of particular significance. “Cognitive diversity” or a diversity of thinking in an organisation can result in “superior decision making”.

However, the report also warns that many women “have been trained and socialised into corporate environments” thus reducing their ability to “leverage their diverse perspectives”. The solution is to create environments where women are “accepted, valued and can take pride in the different perspective they bring to the table, or the different ways they operate in business and develop their careers and the careers of others – rather than assimilating the male cultural norms.

Get all employees involved

I also fully endorse the report’s call for both male and female employees to “co-design and implement successful gender equality initiatives”. Research shows that the performance of workers increases when they can show “sympathy and interest” in a company initiative.

“Yet today’s employees often remain the surprised recipients of new policies that they find ill-suited or redundant,” the report states. In one study quoted in the report, 60% of respondents said their employer had not sought their input on gender equality initiatives.

Current state of play

Drawing on figures from a McKinsey report, The Current State of Corporate Gender Equality shows that sectors “closer to final consumer demand” have a higher proportion of women on their boards where sectors closer to the bottom of the supply chain have a lower proportion of women on the board.

A comparison of 11 sectors by Credit Suisse found the top three sectors showing the strongest performance in terms of having at least one woman on their board in order were Healthcare followed by Financials and Utilities.

And over the last six years the fastest rates of change on gender diversity have come from Europe. We can change that here in Australia – just say the word.

If you would like a copy of the report, please email us at solutions@optimiss.com

Optimiss commissioned the Australian Bureau of Statistics to carry out the research that found 64% of women aged 25 to 54 and working full time have no children under 18. Further, when examining that same age range we found 79% of women working full-time and 53% working part-time have no children under 12.

We released the research to the media last week resulting in reports in BRW, The Australian, Australian Women Online and Pro Bono Australia amongst others. You can view the media release here.

Optimiss commissioned the research for two reasons:

1.         A number of companies were telling us how the number of women progressing through their organisation was stagnating but they didn’t know why.

2.         At the same time we were also talking to many talented women without children or without young children about their frustrations progressing to a more senior level in their organisation and or sector despite having the skills, experience and education needed to succeed.

While we suspected there was a mismatch between our perceptions of working women and the reality, the number of women without children or young children surprised us too when we first saw the research results.

Optimiss applauds those companies who have put time and effort into creating an environment where women can have both a family and career success and we do not want to see family-friendly work practices take a back seat.

However, what we also want to see is a willingness amongst employers to discuss the tough stuff that will achieve significant improvements in gender equality.

We need companies to ask themselves the hard questions but to do so with open curiosity and not closed defensiveness. Do we reward men and women of equal merit differently in our organisation? Is access to our bonuses and other financial rewards and incentives skewed to our male executives? When we picture the ideal candidate for an internal promotion or an external hire, do we automatically scan our networks for suitable men? Do we believe greater gender diversity will really benefit our organisation? Are we investing in the success of our male executives with mentoring and stretch opportunities but neglecting the women we hire and or promote?

There are companies that have a genuine interest in asking these questions and exploring answers even if these are confronting. Ikea, Deloitte, Medtronic, L’Oréal, Hewlett Packard, BBDO and Accenture to name some. These are companies that have used the Gender Equality Project Tool – a tool that helps companies diagnose their current state of play and then plan a way forward.

The tool was developed by the Swiss-based foundation The Gender Equality Project. The development process was substantial and involved consultations with experts Harvard, Yale, INSEAD, and the OECD Development Centre and other leading institutions.

Firms are measured in five areas:

•           equal pay for equivalent work;

•           recruitment and promotion;

•           training and mentoring;

•           work-life balance; and

•           company culture.

Of course we want everyone to use the tool and work with us, however, what we want most of all is for companies to be open to new practices to improve the gender balance.  It is time to look beyond just “family friendly” to achieve the results we need.

Appearances count when it comes to getting the senior executive roles and salaries. Your professional image tells the world who you are and where you’re going. But your personal brand or image is made up of a complex mix of your look, your message, your credibility and your connections.

People will judge you firstly by what you wear and how you speak, and then by the words you say — and they will do it in the first six seconds of your meeting. In this brief time people will decide whether they like you, trust you or want to work with you.

If you want to improve your personal brand, you need to know:

1. Your top three personal strengths?

2. Your top three talents?

3. Your core area of expertise?

4. Who are you targeting?

5. What do they need to hear?

6. The value and experience you can deliver?

7. What you do better than anyone else?

8. What differentiates you?

and remember the Golden Rules:

• Be consistent
• Understand why you’re doing this
• Walk the talk
• Be authentic
• Determine your look
• Be relevant / have an opinion

Candidates need to take every extra advantage to help them move up to senior executive roles. If you’d like help in improving your overall personal brand, get in touch and we’ll be happy to give you some advice about your CV, the best networks to get involved in, how to use social media and where you can get help updating your look or improving your communication skills.

One of the failures of feminism has been our inability to change the culture of most workplaces. At all levels but especially at the top, the holders of power still believe the following myths:

• Longer hours are more productive than shorter ones
• If you can’t do long hours, you are not serious about your job
• Being there is proof of competence.

The survival of this culture is the basis for Carolyn Hewson’s comments on the need for nannies to allow women to rise  to the top of the corporate ladder. This seems to me to defeat the feminist idea of change. Replacing the older form of corporate wife support by paid servants to ensure women can also do top jobs is not what we wanted. Feminism wanted to redesign working hours so all could participate meaningfully. Instead, the time demands of workplaces on male and female workers have dramatically increased over the past few decades, with Australia having very long hours. This change is despite increasing the numbers of women in the paid workforce and even in senior ranks.

The continued lack of women on boards and in the most senior ranks of the private sector shows that the macho cultures of the upper echelons excludes anyone with a  serious life outside the workplace. Women without children, with stay-at-home partners or with surrogate carers, are over-represented among those who make it to the top.

Even when women make it up there, they tend to have to deny their possible feminism by not changing the cultures. They conform to what is there. Some try to mentor other women to fit into the square holes that were designed for men with family support. The few men who want time with their children mostly find themselves out of the picture as well. Yet there is no evidence that this model of longer hours and presentism is really productive or that those who rise to the top have the best available talents and experiences. It limits the field of potential candidates to those who are available for long hours and who have limited personal responsibilities.

It is therefore not surprising that the quality of management is not as good as it could be, with constant examples of problem senior managers and board failures. Some of the critiques of the lack of women on boards, such as the Citi group’s analysis of the ASX standards states:

“As new principles and recommendations on diversity came into effect on January 1, 2011, this is likely to lead to increasing focus on the approach companies take to address various diversity issues, including women’s representation on company boards.  Board diversity may enhance effectiveness, by providing a wider range of  perspectives and knowledge.”

The introduction of a new book on boards, states the figures and the problem:

“Board appointments must always be made on merit, with the best suited person being selected. Nevertheless, it is concerning that in Australia women comprise: 50.2% of the population, nearly 50% of the workforce, 56% of all higher education students, 55% of all university graduates and yet only comprise 4% of line managers, 8% of senior executives and 12.5% of directors of Australia’s top 200 companies. This has raised questions as to whether companies and boards are in practice recruiting for these roles based solely on skills, experience and performance, without a gender bias.”

Few question whether the current management models may be flawed and if we need changes to the assumptions behind the time and attendance demands in workplaces. Despite possibilities for part-time and flexible work at lower levels, it rarely emerges at the top. It is therefore not surprising that Carolyn Hewson suggests that women who want to succeed must ape the behavioural patters of men who have little or no life outside the office.

The problem with the Hewson model is a) it doesn’t question the workplace cultures and b) it suggests that some women succeed at the top by exploiting others in low-paid jobs. Comments posted on site of the article pointed out the slave-like conditions of many overseas nannies and the higher but often inadequate pay locally.

One complained about male roles:

“Men have to work because there is no support for them to look after children and stay home. Go to any kindergarten or primary school and see how many men are around. If Ms Hewson and people like her were really serious about getting women to stay at work (and hence get to board level), then rather than blaming men or a lack of nanny culture then they would spend more of their time and resource on supporting men to be able to with their children. How many members of the boards of the companies that Ms Hewson is on, have taken time off to spend with their children?”

Despite his angry tone, the writer is saying something important. We need to change the cultures of workplaces so we can all be good parents, relations, friends, citizens and good workers. Then those at the top could really be selected on merit, rather than on limited experience and availability.

Behind Closed Doors sessions provide members with a safe environment to speak openly and honestly about their challenges, strategies and issues.

Members support each other to be more effective in their executive and business roles and provide the tools to expand and grow to the benefit of their organisation.  Attending every session requires a commitment from members and their employers (if applicable). But the benefits are more than worth it. This is time invested outside of the business thinking about the business on a strategic level and can deliver insights and “light bulb” moments as well as offering assistance with operational and life issues, professional development, business and connecting/networking opportunities, and support to attain board positions.

An introductory lunch session will be held at Deloitte in Sydney on 12 July. It is a great opportunity to meet the Founder and Managing Director, Donny Walford and Facilitator, Fiona Shand.  If you’re interested in finding out more about the program or if you’d like to receive an invitation to this event, please get in touch.

1. A national campaign promoting public awareness and engagement with gender equity, highlighting its importance for economic prosperity and social well-being

2. Organisations to set targets to achieve 40 per cent of each gender in management and executive leadership positions. Performance against these targets to be measured and reported annually to key stakeholders

3. Boards to achieve 40 per cent gender targets by 2015, via a ’3 in 3’ process, with one woman added to the board each year as required

4. Organisations to undertake annual gender pay audits and eliminate pay differentials based on gender

5. Organisations to establish ‘scorecards’ at leadership levels that promote flexibility practices

6. The Federal Government to provide 100 per cent tax deductibility for child care expenses for working parents

7. The Federal Government to provide funding for dedicated gender education programs in schools and businesses to promote the values the Women Empowerment Principles

8. Organisations to sign up to the Women’s Empowerment principles CEO Statement of Support and provide a report to their stakeholders on progress each year.

What do you think of these recommendations? Let us know?

The Financial Services Institute of Australia (FINSIA) has released draft principles against which companies can report on and measure gender diversity. The new metrics will address the lack of meaningful publicly reported data on gender composition and the gender gap within the financial services sector, particularly at senior executive level. They will also address the current difficulty of comparing reported metrics across firms. The draft principles cover companies reporting in detail on the proportion of senior executive positions held by women, as well as reporting on their recruitment practices, career progression and development practices, pay equity, flexible work arrangements and parental leave, and on their ability to demonstrate a workplace culture supportive of gender diversity.

Importantly these metrics will enable FINSIA to track the rate of progress on gender diversity in the sector year-on-year, which, in turn, will enable organisations to measure their performance against industry benchmarks. Check out the full report and metrics or see our summary below:

Principle 1 – Companies should report on the proportion of senior executive Positions held by women at the following levels:

> % of women on main board

> % of women on subsidiary boards

> % of women at CEO level

> % of women at CEO-1 level (% women in line roles)

> % of women at CEO-2 level (% women in line roles)

> % of women at CEO-3 level (% women in line roles)

Principle 2 – Companies should report on their recruitment practices

Disclosure regarding the number of women involved in the recruitment process would provide a clear indication of those companies who have a genuine desire to address the gender divide at senior executive level. For example disclosure with regard to the following:

> % women on interview panels

> % women applicants for all positions

> % women applicants considered for CEO to CEO-2 positions

> % women applicants included in shortlist

> % women graduates entering workplace

Principle 3 – Companies should report on their career progression and development practices

Greater transparency and commitment around career progression and development would reveal any bias at senior executive level toward men.

Reporting on the budget allocation for professional development for men and women as well as the uptake of professional development programs for both sexes, would prevent any preferential treatment towards men.

Tracking and reporting the average number of years between promotions for both males and females would also highlight any bias.

Principle 4 – Companies should report on pay equity

Reporting on the percentage of total remuneration package increases (including bonuses) year-to-year between male and female employees would reveal pay inequity at all levels.

Given that the rate of promotions (and their value) and career trajectory is difficult to compare, total remuneration increases can be used as a proxy, capturing both promotions as well as performance measurements in current roles.

The disclosure of the average salary range and bonus data for each staff and function level from graduate level through to CEO level would assist in addressing the pay gap.

Principle 5 – Companies should report on flexible work arrangements and parental leave

While many organisations claim to have flexible work arrangements, employees at senior executive level are often faced with greater time restraints such that the demands of their role prevents them from accessing the flexible work practices on offer. Through reporting the uptake of these policies (for example: parental leave) and return-to-work statistics, we can begin to see whether this has had a notable impact on career trajectories and career prospects (ie: fewer opportunities and less pay). This could be measured through reporting on the average percentage remuneration package increase after taking leave as compared to before taking leave.

Reporting on the following would set apart those companies who have simply adopted policies to tick boxes rather than with accessibility in mind:

> % staff on flexible work arrangements (male v female)

> % staff on flexible work arrangements (male v female) at CEO to CEO-2 level

> % staff who have returned and (remained) in permanent employment more than one year after taking parental leave

> % of staff promoted before, during or after taking maternity/paternity leave.

Principle 6 – Companies should report on ability to demonstrate a workplace culture supportive of gender diversity

Perhaps the greatest prejudices women encounter throughout their career cycle (and the hardest to address), are the residual cultural beliefs and behaviours in the workplace. Equally, it is difficult to measure real change in organisational culture, yet it undoubtedly has a huge impact on the success of any initiatives in making genuine change.

An annual staff perception survey on gender diversity and the effectiveness of initiatives could provide insight into the level of progress on this. For example: the percentage improvement in cultural measures supporting achievement of gender diversity goals or the percentage improvement in the alignment of the ‘gap’ perspectives of men and women.

Many agencies have unwritten codes about how they select candidates. We heard a story recently of a very well known and prestigious recruiting firm representative (one that markets itself as a leader for gender diversity) informing a senior business women that they couldn’t help her because their unofficial scoring system went on a) your looks, b) who you are married to and c) where you went to school.  Apparently this candidate “didn’t tick any of the boxes”.

Many recruitment agents are working to strict targets of how many positions they need to fill each week.  The easiest and quickest way to fill a vacancy is to put forward a candidate that has had the exact same experience in the same industry (never mind people who are wanting to move sideways or change industries) and who looks exactly the same as the other people in the company (and if that means white, middle-aged and male, then so be it).

If you’re currently looking for your next career move, think carefully about the agencies you choose to work with.  Will they actually help you to progress your career, or are they just trying to plug people into vacancies as quickly as possible?  If you are currently thinking about a new role, here are some tips for you to help you on your way:

1. Ask your friends for recommendations on which recruiter to speak to but make sure that they are in the same industry or specialisation as you. Recruiters all specialise in a particular area of either industry, management level or both i.e. we specialise in the financial services industry and place senior management roles (e.g. minimum $150K salary packages), you wouldn’t come to us to find an Executive Assistant role or a job in telecommunications. Make sure you are talking to the right recruiter for the job that you want.

2. Make sure you are clear about what you want to do next and ask the recruiter to confirm that they will put a file note with key words on your file that include information about the role you want to do as well as your current skills and experience. Recruiters search their database when a job comes up so will generally find the words that are already on your CV and then call you and ask you if you want to do the same job…. elsewhere (usually for the same money!).  I’m sure it’s happened to you. If you have a file note with keywords for the role that you want, which might not be on your CV, your name will come up in any searches.

3. Find a balance with being a nuisance and remaining front of mind with the recruiter. Do follow up with them to remain front of mind, recruiters meet hundreds of people all the time. However don’t overdo this, phoning and emailing with demanding requests as to why they haven’t found you a job yet will just annoy them and put you down the bottom of the list. All recruiters are busy but they are very keen to make a placement. If they haven’t called you and your CV and file notes include all the relevant information for the role you want, well then, they just haven’t got a job opportunity for you.

4. Do go to a few different recruiters, it will improve your chances. But be honest with them all and tell them exactly who you have gone to see and what roles you have been put forward for. Your role is to coordinate where your CV goes. Never let a recruiter send your CV to a company if your CV has already gone there with another recruiter in the last 12 months. Explain the situation to the recruiter and seek their advice. It is terrible form to have your CV arrive with the same firm from two different recruiters and one of the recruiters won’t be happy as you’ll have wasted their time.

5. Keep your CV simple and straightforward and give it to them in word format not PDF. Make their job easier, they have to sift through thousands of CVs. If yours is more than three pages long, edit it and be ruthless. Long lists of attributes that you think you have (“I am a credible and dynamic  leader”) are a waste of paper, keep to the facts.  If you’d like some more detailed tips on how to put together a good CV, feel free to get in touch.

6. And lastly, make friends with your recruiter, find a good one and nurture your relationship with them. Most people will grow their careers with a particular recruiter and will be placed into two or more roles by them as they continue up their career ladder. It’s important to stay in touch and keep the relationship current.

Yolanda Vega, Founder & CEO, AWCCI

We were very excited to hear of the recent launch of the Australian Women Chamber of Commerce & Industry (AWCCI) – the first national chamber of commerce to represent Australian businesswomen in Australia’s history.

We know women are a strong economic force – there are more than 700,000 women owned businesses in Australia – however there are no women on the board of the Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry (ACCI) – the largest Australian business association, there are no female CEOs or chairs on any of the national state chambers and there are no women on the Australia Business Council board.

Yolanda Vega, who has established the new AWCCI says “Our goal, as an apolitical, not-for-profit organisation, is to promote commerce and trade” and to “unify the collective strength” of businesswomen in Australia.  AWCCI will also instigate research and advocate for political and social changes to support businesswomen.

The work of AWCCI will be guided by an Advisory Committee that includes Dr Wendy Attwater, Professor Marian Baird, Ita Buttrose AO OBE, Judi Hausmann, Deborah Hutton, Wendy McCarthy AO, Wendy Simpson and Dr Katherine Woodthorpe.

We’ll be getting behind this exciting new organisation. If you’d like to find out more or to sign up as a member – go to www.awcci.org.au