Monthly Archives

May 2021

Tech Giants in Legal Dustup Over Diversity

By | News & Knowledge | No Comments

For years Symmetra has been advancing the proposition that diversity and inclusion benefits businesses with regard to employee engagement; enhancing the generation of ideas; innovation and ultimately profitability. This stance, supported by data and research relating to returns on investment, share price movements and metrics on innovative capability has become widely accepted.

Now with a looming legal battle between IBM and Microsoft comes the surest sign that global corporations are recognising that not only is diversity an essential requirement for business progress in the modern era, but that diversity strategies are themselves becoming a valuable asset. The aim is not only to recruit, retain and leverage diverse talent but to devise the most efficient and effective ways of doing it. Thus diversity strategies have become increasingly sophisticated and now, it seems, are being treated as a kind of trade secret which justifies legal protection.

IBM is suing Microsoft in order to prevent IBM’s erstwhile Chief Diversity Officer, Lindsay-Rae McIntyre from taking up employment in that role with Microsoft. IBM alleges that McIntyre worked there for two and a half years and oversaw teams that developed artificial-intelligence based tools and methodologies to track career development, recommend growth opportunities and potential paths for promotion and to monitor diversity metrics. The argument for IBM is that the information and skills that McIntyre acquired are so sensitive and valuable that she should not be allowed to transfer them to a direct competitor of IBM.

It is clear that diversity strategies have moved up several notches in the hierarchy of corporate priorities. The lesson for companies in Australia and elsewhere is that it is no longer adequate to tick the box and say you have a diversity policy. Diversity strategies will evolve rapidly with changing cultural norms and will be spurred on by new technologies. Those companies that want to stay at the top of their game will need to monitor and adapt their diversity strategies constantly. Companies will no longer be judged by whether they have a diversity strategy but rather by how good it really is.

Symmetra CEO, Heather Price, is an Expert Panellist for the fourth edition of the Global Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Benchmarks (GDEIB) being launched today

By | News & Knowledge | No Comments

How does an organization know if its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program will be effective in today’s, sometimes contentious, multicultural climate?

How should systemic racism and other issues be addressed in the workplace?

With the support of 112 global experts from around the world, we now know what makes for the success of DEI programs.

Heather Price, Symmetra’s very own CEO, was part of this monumental effort as an Expert Panellist. Bringing her extensive consulting experience working with global organizations on their DEI programs and training executive teams on diversity and inclusion, her contribution and its outcome are a reflection of what Symmetra stands for as a company.

The Centre for Global Inclusion’s 2021 GDEIB edition—the fourth since 2006 (all of which Heather has contributed to as an Expert Panellist)—keeps pace with present-day, real-world matters including the way work is changing because of the pandemic. This includes the accelerated pace of change, advances in technology including AI, and increased focus and attention on equity in light of pervasive racism.

People are no longer satisfied with superficial or inauthentic intentions of change by their leaders,” says co-author Nene Molefi, Managing Director, Mandate Molefi, Johannesburg, South Africa. “They want to see real action.”

The GDEIB describes what is necessary to do DEI work well. Specifically, it needs to be strategic, must be tied to the mission and goals of an organization, led with competence and implemented in a systemic and sustainable way.

Agreed upon by 112 experts and three authors, the GDEIB’s 275 benchmarks encompass fifteen categories with five progression levels: Inactive, Reactive, Proactive, Progressive, and Best Practices.

Co-author Julie O’Mara, Chair of the Board of The Centre for Global Inclusion, Las Vegas, NV, adds, “Bold actions are needed to communicate clearly to all stakeholders how adamant organizations are in addressing discrimination, inequity, and exclusion. The GDEIB approach is definitely not a quick fix. It guides organizations on how to impact systemic change in addressing racism and other concerning DEI issues.”

The GDEIB truly offers a systemic perspective on managing diversity, equity and inclusion,” remarks co-author Alan Richter, PhD, President, QED Consulting, New York, NY. “The GDEIB spells out what good, better, and best work looks like. It readily frames where and how an organization can focus its capabilities to reach best practices.”

The GDEIB and a suite of supporting tools, including slides, activities, and other items, are available free of charge.

The downloadable Global Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World (GDEIB), is available at www.centreforglobalinclusion.org.

Symmetra CEO, Heather Price, is an Expert Panelist for the fourth edition of the Global Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Benchmarks being launched today

By | Events | No Comments

How does an organization know if its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program will be effective in today’s, sometimes contentious, multicultural climate?

How should systemic racism and other issues be addressed in the workplace?

With the support of 112 global experts from around the world, we now know what makes for the success of DEI programs.

Heather Price, Symmetra’s very own CEO, was part of this monumental effort as an Expert Panellist. Bringing her extensive consulting experience working with global organizations on their DEI programs and training executive teams on diversity and inclusion, her contribution and its outcome are a reflection of what Symmetra stands for as a company.

The Centre for Global Inclusion’s 2021 GDEIB edition—the fourth since 2006 (all of which Heather has contributed to as an Expert Panellist)—keeps pace with present-day, real-world matters including the way work is changing because of the pandemic. This includes the accelerated pace of change, advances in technology including AI, and increased focus and attention on equity in light of pervasive racism.

People are no longer satisfied with superficial or inauthentic intentions of change by their leaders,” says co-author Nene Molefi, Managing Director, Mandate Molefi, Johannesburg, South Africa. “They want to see real action.”

The GDEIB describes what is necessary to do DEI work well. Specifically, it needs to be strategic, must be tied to the mission and goals of an organization, led with competence and implemented in a systemic and sustainable way.

Agreed upon by 112 experts and three authors, the GDEIB’s 275 benchmarks encompass fifteen categories with five progression levels: Inactive, Reactive, Proactive, Progressive, and Best Practices.

Co-author Julie O’Mara, Chair of the Board of The Centre for Global Inclusion, Las Vegas, NV, adds, “Bold actions are needed to communicate clearly to all stakeholders how adamant organizations are in addressing discrimination, inequity, and exclusion. The GDEIB approach is definitely not a quick fix. It guides organizations on how to impact systemic change in addressing racism and other concerning DEI issues.

“The GDEIB truly offers a systemic perspective on managing diversity, equity and inclusion,” remarks co-author Alan Richter, PhD, President, QED Consulting, New York, NY. “The GDEIB spells out what good, better, and best work looks like. It readily frames where and how an organization can focus its capabilities to reach best practices.”

The GDEIB and a suite of supporting tools, including slides, activities, and other items, are available free of charge.

The downloadable Global Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World (GDEIB), is available at www.centreforglobalinclusion.org

Sexual Violence in our Midst: Where to go from here.

By | News & Knowledge | No Comments

It is both astonishing and revealing that simultaneously women here in Australia as well as in the UK (and men who support them) have, over the past week needed to raise their voices in anger against the pervasive and continuing scourge of sexual violence and rape.

Repeatedly, long-buried stories have emerged portraying the willingness of men to take advantage of power imbalances to assault and humiliate women.  Sadly, the perpetrators have routinely escaped with impunity while women bore their pain in silence.

It is beyond question that by far the preponderance of sexual assaults and instances of harassment remain unreported and this fact in itself is an indication that something is seriously amiss with our system. Since most victims lack confidence that if they report an assault, they will be accorded fair and sympathetic treatment by authorities or employers they make the election to wrestle with the trauma themselves.

However , societies can no longer accept with equanimity that female victims are coerced into submission and silence while male perpetrators simply move on. Horror stories that have filled our media and social network pages in recent weeks encapsulate many of the fears , apprehensions  and doubts  that women in our society are forced to carry with them daily. The realisation that many male leaders in our society collaborate in the objectification of women and are indifferent to the long-term consequences of sexual violence should serve as a springboard for introspection, review and reform across Australian institutions, both public and private.

Certainly ,the accumulating evidence of  intolerable sexual behaviour across  our society has struck a resounding chord amongst right-thinking Australians. However ,the natural and understandable outpouring of fury and the desire to seek redress against wrongdoers should  not overshadow the necessity for a constructive and rational way forward . Sexual violence is a perennial scourge which  must be addressed for what it is- a fundamental impediment standing  in the way of true gender equality.  Addressing this issue  and others in a positive and rational manner will require a comprehensive and radical rethink and the sustained commitment and mobilisation of government as well as  of multiple organisations in both the public and private sectors.

Firstly, the criminal law  needs a substantial overhaul so that there is greater clarity around the notion of “consent “. Also , police and court procedures in cases of sexual assault must be modernised so that complainants receive rapid and sustained support and protection-both emotional and legal.

Secondly, the AHRC report “Respect @ Work “with its many recommendations for legislative reform has been gathering dust on government desks for a year now- once again a manifestation of lassitude and indifference to what is now a real crisis.  But private sector organisations and their leaders need not wait and should not wait for legal change .

Broadly speaking this requires that companies abandon their reactive and defensive posture in dealing with workplace misconduct. Victims should not be required to bear the burden of instituting and pursuing complaints through opaque and bureaucratic corporate systems and labyrinths. Sexual violence and harassment ought to be viewed through the prism of workplace health and safety- where the employer must acknowledge and accept an overriding duty of care and a responsibility to  act pre-emptively. Leaders must be seen to “walk-the talk “- to speak out in the clearest possible terms and to act decisively and transparently when misconduct occurs, regardless of who the perpetrator is. Victims must be supported as investigations are pursued and afterwards as well.

When men and particularly leaders fully understand that a culture of inclusion and respect for women is the hallmark of a civilised society, we will have made some progress in preventing some of the wanton violence that demeans us all.

Sexism or Misogyny? The outrageous conduct of Senator Leyonhjelm

By | News & Knowledge | No Comments

The unseemly spectacle which unfolded recently in the Australian Federal Parliament where Senator David Leyonhjelm, in the midst of a debate about sexual violence against women shouted across the chamber at a young opposition female senator, Sarah Hanson-Young that she should “stop shagging men” (and later gratuitously repeated the same slur on Sky TV) has been characterised as foul-mouthed sexism. But in reality it is more than this and signifies a significantly more troubling manifestation of how certain men are responding when women assert themselves or progress in the workplace or society to levels where they have not previously been.

Casual everyday sexist comments and slights against women are, and have been, common and sometimes endemic in many workplaces. However, the implementation of diversity and inclusion programs to advance women in recent years, which are now widely accepted as boosting overall business performance, has nevertheless begun to evoke a palpable and more aggressive response from male employees in some quarters.

Cornell University, professor of philosophy, Kate Manne draws a distinction between sexism and misogyny. She defines “sexism” as an ideology which supports the traditional patriarchal superiority which men enjoy. And she describes the attitudes of sexist men in the following way “….these arrangements just make sense [to them]. Women are more caring and nurturing …”

On the other hand, “misogyny” according to Manne refers to efforts to enforce this ideology when threats to it are perceived. It is about hostility towards women who violate patriarchal norms and expectations about serving male interests. In other words, it is overt and visible behaviour designed to communicate to women that they have deviated from the traditional gender schema and overstepped their boundaries.

Applying this formula, we can judge the grossly offensive remarks of Senator Leyonhjelm as not merely a boorish insult but rather a visceral and hostile reaction to a woman who holds equal status in the Parliament and is prepared to stand her ground – an aggressive response to a woman by a man who consciously or unconsciously believes that the rightful position of men has been usurped.

This episode brings to mind the celebrated (or notorious) case of the Google engineer, James Damore who was fired for suggesting in a memo that women are biologically less-suited to engineering than men. His dismissal was justified on the basis that he had engaged in unacceptable stereotyping and that allowing him to remain in his position would create a hostile work environment for his co-workers.

Both these cases are instances in different contexts of excessive and untoward push-back by men against the advance of women and other diverse groups at work and in public life. They have come to be recognised under the general mantra of “backlash”.

Backlash can take the form of indifference, cynicism, subtle undermining or outright hostility. It is a reality with which many leaders have been forced to grapple at various stages of their organisations’ diversity journeys. Indeed, last week saw the release of the report “Backlash and Buy-in” by Chief Executive Women and Male Champions of Change focussing on the negative reactions to diversity initiatives in Australia.

The report mentions a number of factors driving the backlash such as “lack of understanding”; “change fatigue” and “fear” (of losing opportunities). These are all realistic and rational contributors but perhaps the one that is missing from the report is the most pernicious of all—a deep- seated rebellion against the idea that all positions must be open to women and other diverse groups and that organisations must strive in their own interests to promote diversity at all levels. After a lifetime of conditioning by society to believe that men are natural agents of authority and natural born leaders whilst women are inherently more communal and nurturing, there is an intuitive and unconscious response by some men to oppose efforts that deviate from this “natural order”.

The report recommends education, better communication about objectives and more engagement with those who are resisting as ways of countering the backlash. We at Symmetra, however believe that the key is to fundamentally reframe how diversity initiatives are perceived. Placing the emphasis on gender as the axis around which diversity programs revolve and fixing the objective that putting greater numbers of women into more roles is not an inclusive approach in and of itself.

It is preferable not to treat diversity and inclusion initiatives as a zero-sum game. If the focus instead, is on expanding diversity of thought and diversity of experiences throughout the organisation to optimise business growth, performance and innovation, there is a much greater chance of buy-in from the workforce, and those in existing positions of power and privilege, as a whole. In Symmetra’s experience across the globe in a host of multinationals this approach which is inclusive of all, which ensures that everyone is the direct beneficiary of the inclusion agenda, not only makes the idea of diversity and inclusion seem more rational, but energises those who otherwise might feel threatened or downright excluded from any of the benefits to be derived from these initiatives. We have seen this broad based approach cultivate a powerful appetite by leaders of both genders to put their full weight behind the D & I agenda and paradoxically with gender no longer the primary focus, the gender agenda is turbo – boosted as a consequence.

Religious Freedom must not impinge on LGBTIQ rights

By | News & Knowledge | No Comments

There has been much speculation and confusion about the contents and the implications of the Ruddock report into religious freedom, portions of which seemed to have been leaked to the media over the past couple of days.

It is premature to criticise it until the full report is released to the public and once it is released we will need to see what the response of the government is.

However, certain basic principles can be set out at this stage.

There can be no objection to federal legislation which protects freedom of religion and the right to engage in religious observance, provided that this does not limit the rights of others. This freedom must apply equally to people who hold no religious beliefs

In modern Australia there exists a broad consensus as to certain legal principles which are fundamental to civil society, to international undertakings to which Australia has committed itself and an ethos which enables us to live together while accepting many group differences. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that many religions maintain views or cling to precepts which are not consonant with values now explicitly or implicitly accepted in all western societies, including Australia.

We do not, for example accept capital or corporal punishment, although some religions regard these as rudimentary methods of dealing with criminal and religious infractions. We also do not accept that women are inherently inferior to males although some religions still maintain that this is part of their doctrine.

By the same token, it is morally repugnant to enshrine in legislation the right of schools to refuse enrolment or even to expel children who are or who are perceived to be of a particular sexual orientation. This insult is multiplied because these schools are funded by taxpayer money including taxes paid by members of the LGBTIQ community.

We at Symmetra, trust that no legislation will be passed which will take us backwards by denying basic equality to a significant portion of our population.

Race and Ethnicity in student enrolment: a new twist to the Affirmative Action Conundrum

By | News & Knowledge | No Comments

The journey to achieving more diverse and inclusive organisations can often meet unforeseen barriers.

On Monday last week a trial began in Boston which could have far-reaching implications for colleges in the United States (and possibly beyond) which are confronted with a host of objections to the way in which most of them seek to enhance the diversity of the student demographic profile. The case is expected to end in the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves a complaint about what is perceived to be affirmative action but the aggrieved group is not, as is usual the white majority, but a minority group having Asian ethnicity.

Harvard University is being sued by a group called Students for Fair Admissions Inc led by an activist called Edward Blum which alleges that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in its admissions policies. The plaintiffs’ case is based on the assertion that’s Harvard is applying a quota which results in the number of Asian Americans who are admitted being limited. The Plaintiff’s argument rests on the premise that academic scores are the only “objective” way to assess the suitability of candidates and that if the makeup of the student body is not reflective of how each racial or ethnic group has performed then the result is inevitably discriminatory.

Harvard, in response, asserts that grades and scores are not the only factors which are taken into account when deciding on admissions: academic excellence is one of many criteria which bear on how the student body should be composed. But it also has regard to a range of other considerations including race and a holistic assessment of the personal characteristics and achievements of each applicant.

The position of Harvard has been supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a large number of experts and other colleges and institutions which believe that the suit is an assault on the principle that universities have a legitimate goal in promoting diversity and inclusion.

We at Symmetra believe that failing to have regard to the benefits which diversity of thinking and heterogenous backgrounds can bring to educational institutions and other organisations is mistaken because it deprives students of the richness of a whole variety of views and experiences which exist when diverse individuals interact.

Indeed this very point has been made by a number of Asian Americans themselves. Jeannie Park, president of the Harvard Asian American Alliance commented:

“We have always said that we believe in the consideration of race in admissions as a means of supporting diversity and creating equal opportunity…. Diversity creates the best educational environment for everybody, including Asian Americans”

Another Asian American writing in Time magazine about this case noted:

“By equating colour-blindness with equality, Blum and his supporters wrongly assume that everyone begins on an equal footing. That is hardly the case….

Colour-blindness also masks racial inequities in standardised tests which are not a neutral or accurate measure of merit or predictor of success….”

The issues here raise questions which are relevant beyond the USA and certainly for us in Australia as to how selection for a whole range of institutions should be approached .The case brings into stark relief the different notions of “merit” and how preconceptions and biases of what constitutes merit can have a negative impact on enrolment in educational institutions as well as recruitment in business. When we recognise that diversity is a positive factor for organisations we may start to look at candidates in a new light and ask what benefit can this person’s experiences and perspectives bring to our organisation.

Leading with inner agility

By | Symmetra | No Comments

By: Sam Bourton, Johanne Lavoie & Tiffany Vogel
(McKinsey Quarterly, March 2018)
Read the full article here: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/leading-with-inner-agility

The question addressed in this article is how leaders should apply their judgement and decision-making responsibilities in a time of accelerating change and sometimes fundamental disruption of the industries in which they operate. In its essence, Symmetra recommends this read because this article, using somewhat different terminology, is making a strong case for encouraging and building upon diversity of thought; entrenching a culture where psychological safety predominates so that ideas of all kinds can circulate and fostering a spirit of inclusion, so that everyone in the organisation feels that they are truly part of a common enterprise

The authors contend that in many cases the response by leaders is rigid, instinctive and unconsidered. This flows from a conscious or unconscious need to feel and be seen to be, in control. By contrast, what is needed is greater mental agility and a “comfortable creative relationship with uncertainty”.

Five personal practices will assist leaders to nurture skills of inner agility:

  1. Pause to move faster – stop; take a breather and create space to approach the issue with a fresh mind
  2. Embrace your ignorance – good ideas can come from unexpected sources. Accepting and acknowledging one’s ignorance can be a critical first step in careful listening and understanding how issues are viewed from other people’s perspectives.
  3. Radically reframe the questions – change the nature of the questions that one is asking oneself. Challenge oneself and ask: what is wrong with my assumption? What have I missed? Identify those who are most directly opposed to your position and seek their views.
  4. Set direction, not destination – join your team in a journey towards a general direction. Do not lay down the destination as a fixed, immutable goal.
  5. Test your solutions; and yourself – test every step of a proposed solution often. It ensures an ability to be able to respond quickly to technological shifts or changing market conditions. Micro-failures reduce the chance of macro-failures.

These 5 steps create the pathway to an agile mind – the ability to respond creatively, to a fast-changing environment by embracing uncertainty rather than falling back on old and no-longer appropriate methods.

Is your organisation past the need to build a business case for D & I?

By | News & Knowledge | No Comments

In many organisations when Symmetra is engaged to move the needle on the D & I agenda, we find it is taken for granted that the business case for diversity and inclusion is well established and serves as an elementary guiding principle for their business leaders. The focus we are told is “let’s get on with the doing.”

However, Symmetra’s experience on gathering data with over 2,500 participating leaders in organisations across the globe, at varying stages of maturity on their D & I journey, show that these assumptions are really misplaced. Of the 8 competencies measured on Symmetra’s Inclusive Leadership Index – valuing diversity is rock bottom. And without demonstrating a compelling appetite to drive the D & I agenda (because a leader does not truly value it as a strategic business imperative) there is little traction gained. The reality is that whilst many leaders have learnt to mouth the politically correct support for D & I, the Inclusive Leadership Index shows that their everyday behaviour in the workplace does not reflect this.

These results and many other insights we have garnered are sobering. Symmetra invites you to come and learn more at our Symmetra Connect free breakfast session:

Inclusion: The measurement that matters most – SYDNEY – Wednesday 6 June Inclusion: The measurement that matters most – MELBOURNE – Friday 22 June

The implications of the data collected by Symmetra are a reminder that embedding inclusion is a continuing process. Having a nominally diverse leadership and workforce will count for little if leaders do not practise inclusive behaviour. And if you don’t measure and benchmark inclusive behaviour, as well as diverse representation, you will have little opportunity to effect sustainable change in behaviour and in organisational culture.