Category archives: Leadership

What Can Men Do To Achieve Pay Equity?


I was prompted to write this Blog after speaking with a close friend over the weekend. We were talking about our children and the current pay gap that exists between men and women in work and how this might affect them as they create families of their own.

We talked about the fairness of pay inequity in particular and what our children could expect to experience on this key community issue as they move into work. I do regard the inequity as a community issue. I found myself thinking that the solution does not simply reside with business.  It resides with the whole community.  Where we live, where we work and where we play.

Stronger government policy around greater access to child-care and flexible work arrangements for men and women is needed among other key outcomes.

As 54-year old man with some experience in life, work and diversity & inclusion, I think it is important that men take up this challenge and simply ask the question of their employer – Is there pay equity for our women here? If there is then celebrate that fact, if it is not in place then ask who can make the decision to create equity what date will it be achieved by?

I thought about my time as the person who had carriage of the Diversity strategy for Victoria Police. I thought about the choices policewomen had back then. The choice was hard for them. They either had children and left or did not and stayed. We lost the bulk of our women after 9 years of service. What a cost that was.  Men in control made decisions and changed the landscape. Improved outcomes became available.

However barriers to the participation of women in management roles prevail.

I have observed that things can change when strong men take a leadership position and make decisions.  If we are to achieve greater equity for women and our daughters we need those people in positions of power and control to create change.

Men can be ‘men in action’ rather than ‘observers’ and men can be a voice for change. All we need to do as men is see the value of the change.  Let me tell you a story about being ‘in action’.

I live in a home in NSW whose previous owner has an amazing story around affecting change.   Maybanke Anderson (nee Selfe) was born in London in February 1845.  Her family migrated to Australia as free settlers when she was nine years old. Maybanke was raised in a family with firm views about the role of women in community and the importance of contribution and a fair society.

maybankesssr_lgAt 21 years of age in the September of 1867 she married Edmund Wolstenholme, a timber merchant. Their union brought seven children between 1868 and 1879 but unfortunately four of them died before the age of five, apparently from a heart condition. The later years of their marriage were not happy ones and Edmund after a number of business failures apparently took to ‘the drink’. The marriage broke down.

Maybanke responded to her situation and took in boarders to relieve financial problems. In 1885 Maybanke opened the Maybanke College for Young Ladies. She opened this school in her home and it gained a reputation for modern teaching methods that achieved excellent results. The school prepared young women for the University of Sydney entrance examination. It operated for over 10 years.

Maybanke took a stand for improved education for girls and has been accredited with bringing Montessori education to Australia and with opening the first free Kindergarten in 1895 in Woolloomooloo, NSW. Maybanke was the president of the Kindergarten Union supporting the education of the children of working mothers.

The law at the time of the 1800s meant that Maybanke was unable to divorce Wolstenholme. A situation she fought to change. Maybanke waited for the passage of the Divorce Amendment and Extension Act in 1892 and then applied for a divorce on the grounds of “three years of desertion.” Their divorce was finalised in 1893.

It occurred to Maybanke that ‘the system’ seemed to give men all the rights and women none. She became a public speaker and advocate about equality for women. Double standards that existed appalled her and she felt compelled to action.

Maybanke commenced an active role in the promotion of women and children’s rights. She became active in the women’s suffrage movement and: she was active in raising the age of marriage consent for girls; she believed that the vote was ‘the kernel for all reform’. Change was resisted by men and authority as these historic photos depict. Change was hard:



Maybanke was also the vice president of the Women’s Literary Society. Many of the society’s members would go on to form the Womanhood Suffrage League of New South Wales (WSL) on 6 May 1891.

Maybanke was a prolific writer in the newspapers and published many articles along with books. Her writing commented on issues of: equity for women; children’s rights; raising children; education; women’s rights to vote and education.

In 1893 she was elected to the WSL presidency and founded the Australasian Home Reading Union in the same year. The Union was a program to promote induction by organising small study groups in rural areas.

In 1894, she began publishing the fortnightly newspaper Woman’s Voice. The paper ran for 18 months, drawing women’s attention to suffrage issues at the national and international level.


The WSL’s attempts to have suffrage implemented by the New South Wales government were not fruitful; however, in 1897, Maybanke decided to petition the 1897 Federal Convention in Adelaide. She reasoned that this would have the women’s vote written into the Federal agenda. Thus, the women from South and Western Australia who already had the vote could not have it taken from them, and if there was suffrage at the federal level, it would flow down to the states.

“In the politics of a democracy there should be no sex. A woman without a vote is an inferior, and thereby liable to be so regarded”.
Maybanke Anderson – The Sun, 6 July 1912.

At this time, Maybanke also became involved in the pro-federation movement. Maybanke resigned from the WSL in 1897. Suffrage was extended to the women of New South Wales in 1902.

In 1899 Maybanke married her second husband, Sir Francis Anderson. Anderson was the first Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney. They travelled and worked together on voluntary projects, including campaigning to have women stand for local government. She was active with the National Council of Women of New South Wales, and worked closely with the University Women’s Society. Maybanke died in St Germain-en-Laye, Paris on the 15 April 1927. The work for women and equality went on.

I think you might agree that Maybanke Anderson was a person in action. She took a stand for change and pursued it.

Disparity in pay still impacts on Australians women. The Australian workforce is observably split fairly evenly along gender lines. Of the approximately 10 million employees in Australia, 50.5 per cent are women and 49.5 per cent are men. However, men still tend to earn a lot more than women – an average of $1,429.80 for male employees, compared with $940.20 for female employees. Imagine the improved financial resources women could bring to relationships and family if this was not the case.

Currently one in 10 full-time workers in Australia earns more than an average of $2,548 per week, and one in 10 earns $800 per week or less. The rest are somewhere in between. The struggle for pay equity for women has not been a short lived as this picture below demonstrates.

Ms equal pay67Photo: Miss Equal Pay in the 1967 May Day procession on Queen Street, Brisbane. (Fryer Library, The University of Queensland: Grahame Garner)

In the years between 1961 and 2011 the proportion of women in the workforce almost doubled from 35 per cent to 59 per cent. However until 1966 married women in Australia were not employed by the Australian Public Service, and single women were forced to “retire” when they married. I remember this was so in the Victoria Police where I enjoyed my first career. Thank goodness things have changed in this regard. But I remember the impact on women.

In a report published by Ernst Young in 2013 (Untapped Opportunity – July 2013):

Once women hit their mid-20s, female participation rates in the Australian labor market decline for the next two decades. Women move from full-time to part-time employment to accommodate the needs of their families, their careers are interrupted.”

 The EY report concludes that if we are to improve participation rates of women and pay equity for women we need as a community to do the following:

  •  Introduce or extend flexible work practices
  • Offer Career Opportunities to Flexible Workers
  • Maintain the Career Paths of Workers on Maternity Leave
  • Seek out Highly Qualified and Educated Women who Failed to Enter the Workforce
  • Change Our Expectations of Leadership Qualifications
  • Increasing the Number of Women Choosing Qualifications that Feed into more Technical, Higher Paid Jobs
  • Make Childcare More Accessible

This may give us the start point we need toward a holistic approach.  In my view we need men to drive the debate and to drive change. We need men to be as passionate and as persistent as Maybanke Anderson.  We need men to ‘drive’ reform at the government and community levels thereby achieving lasting change.

My friend and I agreed that the people capable of effecting change can see that the value of what must be given up is far outweighed by the value of that which will be gained.

And, we need more men to ‘lean in’ and have the will. Inequity affects all of us now and those who will follow.
This is what a feminist looks like.[/caption]

This is what a feminist looks like.




It’s time men ‘Leaned In’ to address gender inequality

I attended the recent Marie Claire success summit in Sydney. I wanted to attend because I feel strongly that women in work in Australia need men to be actively engaged on this issue of gender equality. I felt I needed to be a part of the conversation that is going on. I was one of 2 men who attended the summit that was attended by over 700 women delegates. We enjoyed listening to amazing women speakers who had powerful messages to share.

Frankly, I was surprised so few men attended. Gender equality is not simply a women’s issue. It is a whole of community issue. The business case is now done and dusted, gender equality is a good thing and we must collectively and resolutely resolve this issue. Just as Sheryl Sandberg through her book called for women to ‘lean in’ and to participate, so it is for men.

Through my work I hear men say “I just don’t see inequality”, “it is not really an issue in 2014”. However, just because gender inequality is not ‘seen’, does not mean it does not exist. It does.

Men in denial or worse, men who are disinterested or disengaged are in fact adding to the problem instead of being involved in the solution. Risk to Business continues to investigate matters of discrimination, sexual harassment and workplace bullying throughout Australia. Our own research in  clearly indicates it is still going on in Australia. On occasion we are perplexed about how those behaviours can still occur in the 21st century.

Gender Inequality – Fast Facts:

• There is an 18.2% pay gap between genders across the board in Australia;
• Of the 226 seats in the Federal Parliament, 69 are held by women, and women comprise 29.0 per cent of all parliamentarians in Australia. Only have one woman holding a top job in the cabinet. Women hold half the voting power in Australia;
• 36 of the ASX200 still have no female representation on Boards and the latest document states the percentage of women on ASX 200 boards is 18.6% (31 August 2014) according to the AICD;
• The average superannuation account balance for women was $40,475, compared to $71,645 for men. Men have round 63% of total superannuation account balances, compared to 37% for women. Most women live longer and will likely retire without sufficient funds to sustain them;
• Like Australia, women in the US continue to outpace men in educational achievement, but women’s participation has stalled in progress at the top of any industry. In the US women hold around 14% of Fortune 500 executive-officer positions and about 17% of board seats, numbers that have barely improved over the last decade.

Women do not need us men to ‘fix’ them, or to fix the ‘problem’, but to work alongside them and with them to overcome the clear inequalities that exist in Australia.

I heard Elizabeth Broderick speak powerfully of her concerns around gender inequality, and how important the male champions of change program is to change. A few days later Elizabeth Broderick received an award and recognition as the most influential woman in 2014. Her Male Champions of Change program, which puts powerful men at the forefront of updating attitudes about the capability and place of women at top levels of business, is being replicated in other states, and in various industries. These male champions are ‘leaning in’. More action is needed.

So, I pose the question. What can you do as a man, a husband, a business owner, operator, manager, a leader, and a father, do to lean in? Think about it and get involved in debate and action. What will your legacy be on this important issue? If you need help on a starting point, contact me.

Finding bad apples

bad apple

Bad apples exist throughout society and business is no different – these people need to be found before they make the other apples bad. Before the rot sets in – as they say. I have spent much of my life finding the bad apples. I have observed that Business and employees need protection and that compliance alone is not adequate.

CCndexLast week I was fortunate to be the keynote speaker at the 2014 Comcare National Conference in Melbourne. I shared with more than 650 delegates about where my passion for keeping workplaces safe. I went on to tell of my deep sense of purpose and my thoughts about preventing inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. The central point of my presentation was that staying in a place of compliance is not a safe place for organisations to be and that ‘hope is not a strategy’.

I challenged the audience to consider:

If you focus, take a systems approach and you are tenacious, you get to play a bigger game.

For most organisations the response to prevention of workplace behaviour risk is defined by the ‘risk appetite‘ of the executives, directors and leaders within and of course, budget. The obligation on directors & organisations to provide a safe workplace is very clear. Regulators and tribunals know this and encourage compliance to a standard. A standard developed which is a minimum standard. This standard is often patently inadequate given the resources available to larger organisations.

We are seeing increased compliance and regulation placed on organisations around safety because compliance alone isn’t preventing or reducing workplace behavour risk adequately. It isn’t fueling the adequate pace of reduction in injury and cost reduction.

Cats ndexAdopting a minimum standard is like a sporting side taking the field in a ‘do or die’ final and the players only doing their minimum, instead of playing full on. Imagine the coaches and supporters viewing such an approach from their team. I have no doubt that changes would be made quickly to improve performance.

To me the approach for us is no different but the stakes are much higher. We are not simply playing for a trophy and accolades. We are playing for greater engagement, productivity and the improved health and well being of Australian workers and their families. Not just for now but for future generations.

Here is the irony – I know we have done a great job for our clients when they no longer need us…

Could you play a bigger game to keep your team safe?

Protect or Perpetrate


Bully or bystander. Is it the same thing?

In Lt General Morrison address at the June 2014 global summit to end sexual violence in conflict – made a bold and powerful statement – polarising debate – engaging people behind his call for an end to sexual violence and greater equality for women in military roles in times of conflict.

Every day at Risk to Business we work in businesses who find themselves ‘surprised’ by the behaviour of some of their employees. I am very glad that Morrison has spoken out – and it is relevant for all work places.

He showed insights and strong leadership to make his statement , particularly in face of recent allegations about inappropriate behaviour in the Australian Defence Force. Morrison has said “enough.Here is the report.

Morrison states that  “They (soldiers) either protect or perpetrate”.  In other words there is no middle ground. If you see bullying and do nothing about it then you too are a perpetrator. Ignoring someone in pain – turning a blind eye – not helping is condoning the behaviour of the perpetrator and makes the witness one too/

His comment is very relevant to my earlier blog about ‘Bullies & Bystanders

Morrison also said: “There are no bystanders — the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.” And I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Do you agree? – Let me know your thoughts

Screen Shot 2014-06-30 at 3.45.24 pm

Effective Leadership Requires Hard Questions


If leaders are to be effective in reducing risk the answers to these questions will serve to focus them:

1. What would our organisation look like if we had a workplace culture that truly embraced the concepts of inclusion and equality of opportunity and where people felt truly safe and engaged?

2. How will I know when our workplace culture is a success?

3. Where are the gaps between where we are and where we need to be?

4. What behavioural risk can’t I see?

5. What part of our current culture do I actually own – what values do I reinforce through my own behaviour?

6. What do I need to give up to champion our preferred workplace culture?

7. Who can help us on the journey, to be the best we can be?

8. When people disagree with me do I respond in line with our values?

9. What gaps are there between the organisation’s stated values and the behaviours I observe?

10. How does my leadership positively influence others?

Risk to Business – What we believe

Dallas Mavericks at Golden State Warriors, Game 6

We believe people can have a great day at work.

We believe people do their best work when they are safe from inappropriate workplace behaviours.

We believe great leaders can be supported in keeping people safe.

We believe that great organisations can be created, where workplace bullies are somewhere else, and where sexual harassment is ‘so last century’.

We believe in workplaces that are fun, engaging, and where people feel valued and listened to.

We believe in being brave and curious.

We believe our customers can experience happy.

We believe that our customers can experience lasting, engaging relationships that are productive and fun.

We’re a business full of energy and of passionate dedicated people who are committed to people having safe, productive workplaces.

  • We provide a safe and supportive service, which support harmonious workplaces where people can do their best work.
  • We investigate, train, review, remediate and make workplace behaviour risk visible to leaders.
  • We reduce, and respond to business and personal risk.

T: 03 8677 0884 E:

Trust, not money, coaxes the best from employees

Show of hands

An article by former departmental secretary Allan Hawke published in the Canberra Times 6th May 2014, referred to our research and provided a voice for our advice to clients. Money matters, but not enough to outweigh workplace culture issues.

The Public Sector Informant: May issue

My next sequence of articles will cover issues such as balanced scorecards, diversity, personal productivity and staff engagement. But, before turning to those, I want to touch briefly on performance pay, what individuals want in the workplace, an associated people leadership model, and a ”plan on a page” design to help meet those ends.

Those interested in a detailed treatment of the performance pay oxymoron can access a separate paper on that topic I wrote in 2012.[1] That led to a Community and Public Sector Union blog inviting performance pay fans to argue the case in favour – no advocate was prepared to do so!

In my view, there is no place for performance pay in an apolitical, merit-based bureaucracy devoted to accountability and serving the government of the day. The Australian Public Service would be a better place if it reverted to a practice of having the same pay range for each classification level across the service.

Convention has it that the private sector must focus on shareholder value and profitability – otherwise, firms go out of business. Yet current reality bears no relation to that theory (see, for example, Greg Smith’s resignation letter from Goldman Sachs and the nonsensical remuneration market for chief executives).

Enormous bonuses encourage excessive risk-taking[2] and everyone involved in chief executives’ remuneration has a vested interest in preserving the system. For example, head hunters are usually paid a percentage of the first year’s package, so they have a strong incentive to bid that up.

Performance pay acolytes (usually in an unstated way or subconscious manner) believe a reservoir of withheld effort must be coaxed or coerced out of people. This is the underlying premise for incentive pay programs and managers’ efforts to motivate and control their workforce.[3] Such schemes promote subordinate sycophancy, cronyism and brown nosing. Proponents seem entirely oblivious that they are seeking mutually exclusive outcomes: that you can reward heroic individuals disproportionately while still expecting teamwork.

In The new ecology of leadership, David Hurst distinguishes between the negative effects of ”stretch goals” for assessing performance and their positive effect when used for learning and development purposes. The former leads to ”dysfunctional and unethical behaviour, and poor performance because feedback is seen as reflecting on personal ability and thus threatening”.

Consider these examples:

A mortgage broker fudged figures to get rich through upfront and trailing lines of commission in a West Australian sub-prime outrage.
An executive at the Canberra Hospital doctored data to make the hospital’s outcomes look better, influencing COAG health reform incentive payments.
A bank chief executive on about $27,400 a day argued that people on unemployment benefits of $34 a day get too much.
Twenty-six United States companies paid their chief executives more in 2012 than they paid the federal government in tax.

When bonuses are on offer, people focus their efforts on gaming the system. I suspect ”performance pay” was at the root of the Australian Wheat Board and Reserve Bank/Note Printing Australia/Securency scandals. The curious combination of Australian Swimming allowing Nick D’Arcy to holiday in Europe and introducing a different remuneration regime in 2012 skewed to Olympic gold medals, with predictable results, is a lesson in its own right.

Money matters – of course – but it doesn’t matter enough to outweigh workplace culture issues. A total remuneration package approach, which offers individual choice in the way the package is constructed, is helpful. However, if the workplace culture is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being anti-people, then no money will fix the associated recruitment and retention problems. In a similar vein, people join organisations and leave bad bosses.

The more sustainable solution revolves around people giving you a fair day’s work if they receive what they consider to be a fair day’s pay. If they don’t feel they are fairly paid, they become dissatisfied. Their expectations here are principally affected by what they see other people who do similar work receiving: the ”market wage”. If that precondition is met, then people look for other things.

As will be obvious from my past articles, I argue that executives whose people achieve better performance (in terms of productivity, cost, job satisfaction, turnover, absenteeism, etc) lead differently compared with their counterparts who oversee poorer performance. Those with the better record focus their attention on the people side to build effective work groups.

Executives need their staff to perceive them as someone who believes a high level of performance is crucial. Enthusiasm about the importance of the work combined with a conviction that what they are doing adds value to the purpose contributes to high performance. If you expect the best of your people, you will often get it.

Being unselfish, cooperative, sympathetic, democratic and genuinely interested in individuals helps the cause.

Good bosses:

  • set the standard for performance;
  • give meaningful direction;
  • prioritise communication;
  • create the climate for achievement; and
  • persist until each task is well and truly done.

Alistair Mant was struck by the similarity of this to recent research based on reverse-engineering leadership as experienced by real people in real life, which boils it down to the ART of leadership, or, as he put it, TRA:

Think: my boss is smart (smarter than me; strategic; understands and communicates context).
Relate: my boss is quasi-parental (really understands and cares for me and my career)
Act: my boss is powerful/decisive.[4]

This is all about helping people be better; promoting knowledge, empowerment, focus and ownership; improving through involvement instead of imposition; capturing hearts and minds in accordance with this table (click on the image to view a larger version):

It’s still common for people to only find out what their bosses think of them at a forced, annual performance-assessment chat or when they see what has been said about them in a referee’s report for a promotion. The ”plan on a page” below is a better approach, particularly where employees and supervisors take the time to meet face-to-face on a monthly basis to discuss progress, focus on learning and development, and explore what the employee may do to work towards their aspirations.

(Each section below should be signed and dated by the employee and their supervisor. All four sections should fit on one page.)

Part A: Key performance indicators.
Part B: Learning and development needs and actions.
Part C: Performance review notes.
Part D: Learning and development activities undertaken and their effectiveness.

Australians regard ”feedback” as a pejorative term, linking it with bad news and a way of disguising one’s true intent, which is to criticise and apportion blame. Recognition/acknowledgement that facilitates the ”volunteer” mode needs to be sincere and low key. Effusive praise embarrasses Australians as being ”over the top”.[5] Appropriate recognition is the breakfast of champions.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that ”performance management feedback” is triggering an increase in stress-related Comcare claims and associated allegations of bullying and harassment. It may well be the endemic carrot-and-stick approach that’s behind this emerging pandemic. In workplaces where this is happening, however, it is not serving as a sign to those in charge that they need to review management practices, particularly the pervasive command-and-control fetish that still preoccupies so many managers.

Analysis of a 2011 study of workplace behaviour[6] contradicts academic and practitioner notions of bullying, finding that it:

  • happens mostly between peers;
  • exists at all levels of an organisation;
  • is mostly oral;
  • occurs as part of normal, day-to-day operations; and
  • is sometimes perpetrated strategically during meetings when superiors are present.

Renewal is not the same as change! When the findings of the study cited above about poor behavior, victimisation and discrimination are taken in conjunction with those about bullying, a macro-perspective emerges, which is something like this:

  • The organisation’s business model defines the games that are to be played.
  • The organisation’s systems and processes, including its culture, provide the rules for the games.
  • Insecure people and those who flout the common good bend the rules the most.
  • When the games are played out as tournaments, people pick on those who are different and who challenge the pecking order, in a way that is dictated by the organisation’s change or renewal cycle.

Because people are likely to be at their most secure when there is a meaningful common purpose (i.e. renewal), this model predicts that the lowest incidence of poor behaviours will be in organisations that constantly renew themselves, as opposed to those that are constantly changing or are in the other quadrants shown below:[7]

Dr Allan Hawke is a former departmental secretary and diplomat, a former Australian National University chancellor, and a chairman and director of several organisations.


1. John Wanna, Sam Vincent and Andrew Podger (editors), With the benefit of hindsight, chapter 3 (by Allan Hawke): ”Performance management and the performance pay paradox”, ANU Press, 2012.

2. An adjunct professor at the University of Technology, Sydney’s Centre for Capital Market Dysfunctionality, Jack Gray, wants someone to fund a prize for the economist who can come up with a genuine market for chief executives’ salaries.

3. Alfie Kohn, Punished by rewards, Houghton Mifflin, 1993 & 1999.

4. See also Google’s Project Oxygen research.

5. See John Evans’s work cited in the December 2013 Informant.

6. Those seeking more details of these soon-to-be-published findings can email Stuart King at Risk to Business John Evans.

7. King and Evans, op. cit.


Have a fabulous end-of-year party but keep things above the line.

As the year draws to a close a timely reminder re. end-of-of year functions. Experience shows us that casual attitudes can lead to casual behaviour and this can include behaviour that is under the line. So have fun, but make sure that your behaviour isn’t captured as being inappropriate and putting yourself, your colleagues and your employer at risk.
In many cases, work related functions or activities ARE considered part of the workplace and workplace behaviour standards apply.