Is there still a glass ceiling for Australian women?
Suzi Dafnis, chair, Australian Businesswomen’s Network
“I support women in taking the steps to ensure that they break through barriers, doing whatever it takes.”
“I’ve been self-employed since the age of 26. I started my own business partly because I didn’t want anyone else setting the ceiling on my role, my salary, or anything about my working life.
While I was an employee I don’t recall being impacted by a glass ceiling but I do acknowledge that there is still much inequality in the workplace, especially in larger organisations. It starts straight out of uni for many and I don’t get why, even today, a young woman and man can leave uni with the same (lack of) experience and qualifications yet be hired at different starting salaries.
I was recently invited to participate in a discussion on the re-writing of the Review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. There’s still work to be done. I support women in taking the steps to ensure that they break through barriers, doing whatever it takes—even leaving an otherwise good role—to be successful in whatever they choose to do.”
Robbee Minicola, CEO Hybrid TV
“If it’s harder for you, so what? It means when you get to the top the success is so much more valuable.”
“For a woman to really soar as an executive in Australia, she must be different; different to other men and women and in terms of possessing a level of tenacity, vision and leadership that makes people turn their heads, listen and believe. There will always be glass ceilings—for men and women—and the ones that succeed are usually those who don’t mind a few cuts on their knuckles!
If you’re ‘one of the boys’ then stay that way. If you’re not, then don’t adapt. I attribute my success to not conforming instead of the other way around. No matter what you act like, your performance is how you get where you are. So focus on results and even if you have three heads and four legs, you will get to the top!
As a single mother with two children I am in a constant state of guilt. When I’m with my kids I worry about the business and vice versa. When you love what you do and what you’re creating at work, it simply doesn’t feel like work, it becomes part of your DNA. Just as I bring work into my home life, I also bring the kids into my work life. My daughter works inside the business part-time and my son reviews our services on TiVo. It is much easier to balance work and home when you work in the entertainment business. Imagine if I was a dentist!
My advice for other women wanting to get to the top is to persevere and never blame someone else for your lack of success. If it’s harder for you, so what? All it means is that when you get there the prize is so much for valuable.”
Joe Kremer, Vice president and MD of Dell Australia and New Zealand
Joe was recognised as one of Australia’s Leading CEOs for the advancement of women by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) this year.
“The IT industry is unquestionably challenged in terms of gender balance, and like other sectors, it is most significant at an executive level.
According to ABS, less than 15 percent of ICT workers are female and, of that 15 percent, less than six percent are managers. My belief is an organisation that under represents women, particularly at a senior level, is at a disadvantage.
In addition to employee benefits and flexibility, the creation of an environment where it is safe to take risks is important. Years of experience has taught me that some women—sometimes the most capable and talented performers—will not push for advancement as aggressively their male counterparts. I personally delight in seeing talented women build confidence and belief in their leadership capabilities.
The mentoring of executive women to foster the development of leadership skills is equally important. Dell founded the Women in IT Executive Mentoring Program, in December 2005. We now have more than 80 mentor/mentee pairs across the Australian private and public sectors. We’re delighted the program is really impacting the careers of an increasing number of senior female executives within the IT profession.”
I’ve seen unconscious gender bias in place on so many occasions that I see this as a much more important issue to tackle than glass ceilings. Why in talent and succession planning meetings do people leaders still discuss a woman’s marital status and whether she has kids (or is likely to have them) as an indication of her flight risk? (yes, it really does happen.) Why are men usually described by their people leaders in these discussions in terms of their competency attributes (the sorts of projects and work he’s undertaken of past), whereas a woman is described to those not familiar with her in terms of her physical attributes (what she looks like). Why do we still assume that leadership roles cannot be performed on flexible terms (when all the technology has long existed for work to be performed and monitored remotely and on flexible terms)? These are all examples of unconscious bias that I’ve seen in play time and time again. They perpetuate the stereotype that leaders are male, that their life revolves around their work and that the old way is the only way. We need to bring examples of bias and stereotypes out into the open and give women the confidence of knowing they’re not alone in experiencing these issues – this will give women the confidence and energy to keep pushing on when they’re faced with such obstacles. http://www.sphinxx.com.au
Daniel Jeffares
to heckler
show details 06:59 (5 minutes ago)
The Glass Ceiling Redefined by Daniel Jeffares
I disagree with the fundamental premise upon which the debate about gender equality in the boardroom rests. Based on my considerable international experience of working at the director level of major organisations domestically and abroad in more than 20 countries, I can say that elevation to the top eschalons of corporate power depends on a great deal more than one’s competence.
With few exceptions, the people who attain status within such organisations have had a deep and continuous mentoring relationship with one or more older executives, who sponsor the younger person’s elevation through the ranks as they follow their mentor’s career path upwards. They typically devote the vast majority of their time and energy to immersing themselves in the complex fabric of the organisation’s DNA and serving the interests of their career sponsor.
Most weeks involve 12 hour days in the office and a handful of evening or weekend commitments to ensure that you only ever see you kids when you drive them to sport during the Saturday morning peak hour where you will spend your day networking with the other parents at your child’s elite private school. Reading to them in bed is a delight to you both but it ends all too soon and you know it could be another three days or more before you see them again though you all inhabit the same house. You’ll be obliged to compromise your ethics when it falls to you to front the media to explain your position on say mining coal seam gas from under our water catchments, representing the interests of your stakeholders ahead of those of your own family and the rest of the community if required.
After investing 30 years or more of your youth pursuing this path, you might, if you are simply extremely lucky and your network of close contacts built up over literally thousands of work function interactions yields a sponsor who will put you up for the board, you’ve made it.
I believe it is a career path open to all, should you choose to accept it, and those women currently at the peak of Australian business probably worked harder than most to get there. But let’s not diminish their achievements and debase the status of women in business by nominating a minimum female quota on the public boards.
I’d suggest that half of the people currently excluded from senior executive appointments by the glass ceiling are men. That’s because, rather than discriminating on the basis of gender, the glass ceiling actually discriminates against those who have not devoted themselves exclusively to their careers. That is an option that is open to us all.
Hello Mr Jeffares,
Your reply to this article was intensely discussed by fellow peers of our seminar today and we thought that we should make a reply to your view point. We would sincerely like to thank you for providing us with a stereotypical male view point on the matter. As you managed to quite obviously ‘brag’ of your profound business experiences we can only assume that you are in the 50-70 age range, and have the view that of our grandparents.
We totally agree, that hard work and resilience leads to success for both genders. After spending thousands of dollars on private secondary and tertiary education so that we are enabled to achieve to our highest ability possible to attain a degree as it has been statistically proven that those with degrees achieve substantially higher incomes than those who do not spend their time and effort to achieve this. Therefore, hard work and resilience, as you said pays off in the long run as we have (to quote yourself) ‘devoted’ (ourselves) exclusively to our future careers.
It has become apparent to us however, that as women we would like to throw these thousands of dollars and hard work away to have children. Hence the question should be raised… why go to school at all when we are just meant to look after the fruit of our loins???
In case you haven’t noticed, sarcasm here is intended as we find your stereotype that all women wish to do this absolutely ridiculous.
Another stereotype that you have suggested, is that all men assuming that men are the ‘bread-winners’ are impervious to the extent of time they are able to spend with their children. As it is apparent to all that the making of children involves both sexes, why is it that you have this view and that the woman is expected to take on the entire role for caring of the child?
Society containing people like you who have this particular view point has condemned women to be labeled as the nurturer. Yes, we are very good at that and we have no disrespect for those women who chose that lifestyle, however for those women who wish to succeed in a successful career without being dependant on men, these boundaries that society has created do prevent women from achieving at their greatest level. This is not only an emotional view point on the matter but is proven statistically.
Did you know. That between 2008-09 males earned an average weekly income of $1104 whilst females earned on average substantially less than this of $720. Even after occupational categories have been taken into account, on average, female employees earn less than their male counterparts, regardless of whether they have the same qualifications and experiences as men.
We hope that this has altered your view that all women wish to conform to your stereotype and that gender income inequality is still very real in the Australian workforce.
Have a lovely day,
Jane Smith.
lols jane smith you feminist pig, men are better than women at everything so deal with it… don’t be jealous
I’m with that love doctor guy, girls suck!
Jen,
I only just read your response to my comments regarding the “glass ceiling redefined” so my apologies for the (very) tardy response.
I’ve reread my commentary and respectfully suggest you do the same. Nowhere do I suggest (or imply) the following:
1. That (women) are just meant to look after the fruit of (their) loins
2. That men are the ‘bread-winners’ and are impervious to the extent of time they are able to spend with their children.
3. That the woman is expected to take on the entire role for caring of the child
If this is the critique that emerged as a consequence of your “intense discussion” then your forum has a whole lot bigger problem than gender bias in the workplace – that being extraordinarily poor written comprehension.
Let’s set aside your slanderous misrepresentation of my views for a moment and allow me to restate my position on the subject of the glass ceiling.
It was written to be gender non-specific. My whole point was that the attainment of “success” in the corporate sphere requires the SAME SACRIFICE REGARDESS OF GENDER.
The same culture that punishes women for the division of their attention between family and work PUNISHES MEN. Indeed, I would suggest that the career consequences for a man choosing to devote a few years (or heading home early) to raise their child are far worse than for a woman because there is virtually zero tolerance for such work/life balance if you are a man.
I have chosen to spend the past couple of years devoted to raising my pre-school age daughter after spending the previous couple of years working across 20 odd countries in Europe and Asia. As a consequence, I have almost no chance of rejoining the corporate rat race. This is because elevation to the top spots requires continuous and single-minded obsession. It is not a meritocracy, it is a battle for survival in which only the most obsessed will win.
The same inner circle (mostly men) that excludes the participation of women at the top levels also excludes the vast majority of men. Unless a man went to the same school, plays golf on the weekends with dull and unimaginative colleagues (instead of playing with their kids) and is prepared to sacrifice their home life for progression within the firm, that man can forget about advancement, or even retaining their job – just like you.
This is not to deny the very real problems women have in attaining senior executive roles because of gender. My point was that men suffer at least as much as women if they insist upon dividing their attention between work and home.
You do your cause no justice by failing to listen to an alternative perspective (especially when it is broadly supportive of your own position).
Daniel.