Over the last couple of weeks, I have been involved in a number of conversations about promotions where the concept of hiring more female talent was described as ‘a risk’. The word risk is interesting to me, as it is very rarely applied to the hiring or promotion of men and fundamentally implies that we do not have confidence in the female talent being considered for roles.
When challenged, each of the leaders I was speaking to was not conscious of the fact that they had been referring to hiring female candidates as ‘taking a risk’, but did acknowledge that they felt a level of discomfort hiring anyone who was outside the tried and tested worker model…
This sentiment, of women being seen as ‘risks’ was written up in the Wall Street Journal, which suggested that despite knowing the benefits associated with hiring and promoting women, there is an intrinsic lack of confidence in women by executives responsible for talent management.
Today, Autopia and UN Women NC Australia have released the second paper in their ‘Re-Think’ series. Re-thinking Return explores exactly what is to be gained by increased gender diversity and inclusion, and what costs are associated with continued inaction.
In releasing this paper, we are seeking to ignite a new conversation in Australia about the rate of progress being made towards gender equality and call on business leaders to review whether their commitments are bold enough.
Re-thinking Return follows the first in the series Re-thinking Merit which made the case for organisations to rethink their merit processes and understand that significant bias and subjectivity was not resulting in the best performing teams being designed.
Imagine if we reframed the risks we were most afraid of. Rather than the risk being the hiring or promotion of a candidate who dared to be different from the accepted norm in an organisation, what if we encouraged our people to see the greatest risk to our business as not having diversity?
In 2005, Deloitte sent a team to pitch to a prospective client. They were well-prepared and knew the client’s needs intimately. They failed to win the work though, with the client reflecting that the all-male team who delivered the pitch were simply not likely to reflect the best talent or understand the company’s clients. There are many more stories in recent years of where client work has been lost because companies have failed to demonstrate their understanding of diversity and inclusion. Diversity has become both an indicator of brand and part of an organisation’s reputational capital. To this end, not having diversity should be seen as a serious risk to business.
Continuing on the theme of re-framing risk, businesses should be concerned about the business relationships they miss out on developing, where teams are not diverse. It is widely accepted that the effect of ‘homophily’ where customers and clients are likely to develop relationships with people who are like them, means that where companies lack diversity, they are likely to miss out on business opportunities and networks.
We need to recognise that diversity is the gateway to developing new business relationships, not a ‘risk’. Fundamentally, we need to stop seeing the hiring and promotion of women as a ‘risk’ and start addressing the real risk, which is that without more women and diversity, our organisations will fail to thrive in the long run.