Leanne Faraday-Brash

Slamming Tennis Prize Money and other EEO Matters

2012-02-01T11:44:00.000+11:00

I admit it. I'm ambivalent. In the wake of a history-making men's final of the Australian Open the debate over prize money predictably reared its head again yesterday in the media. The breakdown in the Herald Sun of how much the women's and men's winner won for each minute on court was absurd when you consider that each respectively was paid for outcomes, not face time. As a change consultant and psychologist, I charge my time. I don't ask for bonuses for exceptional outcomes because that success is contingent upon so many variables.

It's not Victoria Azarenka's fault she outplayed a former No. 1 to such a degree she won in two sets and to love in the second. Was I disappointed it finished early? No! I couldn’t stand the noise coming from Shriekarova. But for those who paid a lot to attend the match, you'd have to ask them if they got their money's worth. Isn't it about quality, not quantity, you say?

This is where I'm ambivalent. The International Labour organisation signed a convention in 1951 about equal pay for work of equal value. If there is a legitimate argument for women in tennis receiving less prize money (disgracefully women in Australia earn approx. 86 cents in the dollar to every man for the same job) it should only be because they play the best of three sets, not five. It would not be just or legal to pay women less at work because they can't lift as much as a male factory worker. But for elite athletes, there should not be any question about stamina and the ability to go five sets. How well they fare on the day becomes a factor and adds to the theatre of the game as it did for Nadal and Djotkovic who were both near collapse at various stages of the match.

The fact is the women don't seem to want five sets (and where's the incentive if they get the same $ anyway) and the event promoters and broadcasters don't want it because the reality is women's tennis doesn't rate as well, hence the reason why tickets to the men's final are much more expensive.

I can understand what a vexed issue it is in 2012, how ugly the differential would look on paper. I champion equal rights at work every day. But equal pay for work of equal value is a worthy principle and fundamental to human rights. The requirement to play best of five in a Grand Slam puts men and women on a truly equal footing and gives supreme women athletes the respect they deserve for being able to do the job they're paid to do. I understand the economic connection between ratings, ticket sales and revenue, but ratings should not dictate the prize money (ask Karrie Webb) and if women are already getting the money, let them pull their weight, not for face time as that's unpredictable, but for effort.

When equal prize money was first granted, Serena Williams said it was a victory for women all over the world. I don't think the women in Kazakhstan being paid 65 cents in the male dollar would celebrate Serena's extra half a million, even more so if she spent 48 minutes on court getting it.

2011-12-06T22:31:00.000+11:00

Perhaps not coincidentally, I have been doing a lot of EEO training in the past few weeks. In some cases, clients and I did this work one or two years ago and they wanted an organisation-wide refresher. In other cases, they want to promote awareness in the wake of recent events or in anticipation of end of year functions.
Working with one client group this week a participant made a comment about the "inevitability" of poor behaviour at Christmas parties where clients supply alcohol at an open bar. "After all", this participant argued strenuously, "after 5 hours of free booze, how would you expect someone to behave?! But I wouldn't want to create any scandal or anything... so I think we should just confiscate mobile phones and cameras at the door."

I suppose I should have been relieved he was at least thinking about his 'digital reputation' and the company brand, even if not about his role in enhancing or tarnishing it.

If we accept his premise that the company provides the alcohol, so of course we can abuse it, let's take this to the nth degree.

What would follow is, if the company provides a mixed gender workforce, every straight person working there will (eventually) end up sexually harass someone.

If we work in a multicultural workforce, then surely racial harassment will be par for the course.

If we give our people access to the internet, then the boss we don't like or holds us accountable, will undoubtedly be fair game for social media abuses.

And imagine if we were butchers and the company gives us knives, then we're surely gonna cut someone!

Where does employer responsibility end and self- responsibility kick in? And for the employee who cannot find any self-control and can't ever stop at a few drinks, then both the employee and the company have more to concern themselves with than just a Christmas function.

When the Hunt Becomes the Hunted

2011-11-26T22:22:00.000+11:00

Many people would have heard about the furore created when the former girlfriend of Geelong footballer Josh Hunt 'flamed' him this week in an email that subsequently went around the country. Notwithstanding my passion for the game itself, the ins and outs of footballer relationships don't interest me all that much. However there are parallels for my clients, and hence for us here. In no particular order:

1) Electing to send an email telling others what she thought of her allegedly cheating boyfriend was reactionary, low on emotional intelligence and should have stayed private. She said in the papers she couldn't believe how quickly the email spread yet she reportedly sent it to around fifty people. You don’t have to be a mathematician to work out the distribution permutations and combinations of that are close to viral proportions.

2) The reactive, immature and vitriolic reaction of Josh Hunt's girlfriend regrettably eclipses any potential unethical wrongdoing of his own; in our world the inappropriate response by any person or company to an antecedent event can cloud the message and camouflage any original wrongdoing.

3) Long after the two protagonists involved have got over each other and moved on their digital reputation will linger.

The negative potential of social media to destroy reputations, to perpetuate foolish and embarrassing events and actions must be considered by employees in relation to events like Christmas parties.

It was bound to happen but I heard for the first time this week a client is toying with the idea of asking staff to leave phones and cameras at the door of their Christmas party event to ensure attendees’ privacy is not invaded at their function.

Probably more practical and more adult is to ensure staff understand their obligations in relation to their misconduct policy and that any function will surely be considered an extension of the work environment. Banning something as ubiquitous as a phone is nigh on impossible, particularly as people can argue it will preclude them from taking any emergency calls. Asking staff to have respect for the privacy of others by not using their phones as cameras and asking the people attending to remember they are 'on parade' and bound by policy seem much more sensible paths to follow as they reflect a shared responsibility by all attending.

The Race that Stops (some of) a Nation

2011-10-31T13:41:00.000+11:00

Many of us saw the business survey last week that said Aussies work long hours to the detriment of work-life balance, quality of relationships and health, yet productivity is low. We are a bunch of 'hard- working' (read as 'long working') time wasters. Think of all the meetings we attend that people freely admit produce poor outcomes!

We also blog about deplorable customer service in this country but we'll knock companies prepared to stand up and say "We're paying you to work". Optus has issued strict instructions to NSW staff to watch the Melbourne Cup tomorrow and return to work immediately after. You can call it "un-Australian" but being Australian doesn't have to mean lazy, unresponsive to customers and any excuse will do. Poor productivity costs us billions of dollars a year and in some companies people get paid overtime at a premium for work that could be done during business hours which would keep costs down and profits up.

It's a horse race, not a moon landing and watching the race might surely be enough if we didn't think it was important enough to take the day off and (attempt to) fly down to Melbourne for!

For those companies putting time and money into Melbourne Cup festivities as a morale booster or team builder, all credit to them but hopefully their people realise this is a choice, not a right and that they otherwise really engage when there is work to do.

Employers and Unions- Neither has exclusivity on ethical behaviour

2011-09-26T18:40:00.000+10:00

The blogosphere is pulsating with commentary about the Health Services Union and whether or not Federal MP Craig Thomson has or hasn't done anything wrong. Workers have told me today how they feel about big business and the growing divide between those who have billions and those who belong to the poor working class or worse, tragically and unnacceptably, live in abject poverty.

Unions have performed an essential role throughout our labour history. They have had to fight for what should never have had to be fought for. However they don't have a moratorium on ethical practice. They don't always keep the so and so's honest. Sometimes it's the delegates and officials who need keeping honest.

I've worked across several sectors for 20 years. I have seen the whole gamut from the employer trying to create flexibility in the workforce to remain afloat, nimble or competitive only to be sabotaged by union reps serving their own self interest. I've seen hate campaigns (i.e. vicious bullying) mounted against managers running legitimate change agendas even where this may put long term worker employment in jeopardy (as often those divisions were eventually sold off or closed down). This is holding a line that fails to take into account the big picture.

I've seen incompetent and/or unscrupulous managers who commoditise their people and put them under impossible strain. I've also seen delegates on the factory floor threaten and marginalise people happy to do a reasonable day's work for a reasonable day's pay.

I understand completely the resentment of workers who see executives getting rich off what is perceived to be worker exploitation. However while far too many Australians may really be doing it tough and be understandably envious, it's not a crime to be wealthy. Union members are entitled to be well represented by people sincere about hearing them and advocating for them; not to pursue their own agenda and not to defend the indefensible.

Corruption isn't exclusive to big business. Members have to fight for morality within their own union community or we will see membership decline further. Employers and unions must ethically discharge their duties and be seen to be.

Different events, same feelings

2011-09-12T22:27:00.000+10:00

On the anniversary of 9/11 there have been lots of experts and lay people talking poignantly about the painful and traumatic memory of past events. It is well known in the profession of psychology how hard it is for those who've suffered acute loss around the time of anniversaries and big occasions.

At a time when I am working with many clients on organisational change initiatives from the modest reviews to the full blown enterprise restructures involving the potential for job losses, I am reminded of the power of the baggage we carry and the vivid memory traces which can propel us or paralyse us.

Whilst I am not equating organisational change to the horror of losing loved ones in terrorist events (indeed such comparisons must be perspective tested), there is an undeniable parallel in people who've experienced something traumatic or stressful and how that plays on their minds when they find themselves in situations much later that evoke similar memories of uncertainty, pain and loss.

How can we help? We can listen and empathise. We can gently help them reality test their 'awfulising' and 'catastrophising' and whether this is or isn't serving them. Importantly we can remind them that as difficult as it must have been for them, they got through it last time and we are confident they will again. In therapy this is known as the transfer of optimism. We may also need to be patient and give them a little time; without tolerating chronic underperformance or justifying unacceptable behaviour.

Child sexploitation, maybe. Media misconduct, that's a definite!

2011-07-31T21:40:00.000+10:00

I've raised four of them but I've not worked with kids except a short stint teaching Life Skills and I'm still recovering. I was disturbed to read about the Northcote Beauty Pageant and the fascination many children had, not just for the pageant, but for their North American six year old "idol", Eden Wood. Her mother cancelled Eden's appearance two days in a row because she "feared for her daughter's safety". If she really feared for her daughter's safety, she would not be robbing her daughter of her childhood by dressing her up burlesque style, dolling her up with rouge and false eye lashes, coaching her to sing those innuendo-ed songs whilst slapping her bottom.

But it's not just her mother enabling little Eden who, when asked, said being here was "fun". Why? Because she "got to see the koalas and the kangaroos". She could have done that without the lip gloss and the sequins unless of course her mother could not have afforded to travel here without being on the sexploitational gravy train. Anyone who's done any work in detection deception would not have seen any evidence of fun in the girl's eyes and face. She looked strained and as if she were saying what she'd been told to say by an exploitative mother.

But context is everything. The Darebin Council willing to host the pageant enabled such abuse of childhood innocence. The Aussie parents who travelled there from interstate or country Victoria encouraging their own children to worship Eden and queue for their 15 seconds of fame and a photo opp. are duplicitous. And so were rival television stations, trying to out-gazump each other with the rights to our commoditised and objectified international guest; persuading her to have a photo with two young children who turned out to be the offspring of a Channel Nine journalist; plants from A Current Affair. This was deceptive and desperate too.

The media will say they were simply covering a story and allowing us to make up our own minds. Some parents have tried to rationalise this by saying children of all generations have played dress-ups. But if attention was what feeds Eden and her mother, then that's what they got. And so the Hollywood gravy train rolls on as the innocence of our children gets run over.

Common Sense not Common and Ethics not Easy

2011-07-18T13:00:00.002+10:00

Don't be deceived. It's not about football and certainly not about a footballer with a gambling problem. It's about conflict of interests, insider trading, judicious decision making, ethical behaviour, organisational culture and consequences. The Heath Shaw betting scandal incident is as relevant to corporate Australia as an annual report. Sport is not immune to employee responsibility and common sense and the AFL has jumped to send that message.
It is not the Aussie fair go or good Employee Relations practice to scapegoat someone to send a message, but it is also important to recognise that any action an organisation does or doesn't take, does send a message. We will all have different opinions on whether or not the AFL threw the book at Heath Shaw for doing what he did, but no one can argue they have taken the (legitimate) opportunity to send a very loud clear message to all for the deeds of one.
The nexus between betting and sport just as alcohol and sport (or tobacco sponsorship of sport still in some parts of the world) is ugly and dangerous. And common sense and ethical decision making are not always common.

Slutwalk does not equal slack

2011-06-14T16:51:00.001+10:00

If only big corporates could master the clarity of message that the Sydney 'slut walkers' were able to achieve yesterday. Whether the women themselves were dressed demurely, provocatively or not dressed much at all, their message was the same. Hemlines are not guidelines and the difference between sex and rape is consent; which should not be at all difficult to fathom.
Dare I say it but these are the straight forward issues, or should be because no style of dress is an invitation for unwelcome sexual attention much less an invitation for assault.
For me the trickier issue to navigate is holding true to the principles of consent, individuality and fashion as a form of self expression whilst demanding legitimately that men and women at work dress and act "professionally". In other words, no woman should be exploited or objectified because of how she dresses but a company should reserve the right to ask her to dress in keeping with a professional workplace; not because failure to do so is licence for a "grope and hope" but because no one else should be embarrassed or uncomfortable to work in her presence. Asking people to abide by a number of appropriate cultural workplace norms is no different from asking them to abide by other rules, policies and conditions of their employment. A deep concern that this diminishes or restricts them unnaceptably probably means they should go the route of the independent consultant and be a law unto themselves (and any clients who may hire them).
My consistent observation is that women who are perceived to exploit their femininity and sexuality to get ahead are likely to be resented by other women at work who want to be valued for their intellect and skills. Just as it's too convenient (and immoral) to look at a woman's style of dress and interpret that as an automatic invitation for sex, it is too convenient to write off women's opposition to oversexual dress and behaviour as nothing more than petty jealousy.
Without the evocative drama of the word, 'slut walkers' may never have got the attention their cause deserves. This should not be confused with the legitimate right of organisations to set a tone and tenor for their staff that serves them well in respect of brand and reputation, client image and respectability.

Something Magical about Majak

2011-06-06T21:13:00.000+10:00

When the AFL started getting serious in the late 90's about racial vilification, I was more than a tad cynical. I was sure the powers that be were authentic in wanting to create a more hospitable culture for aboriginal players (the prominent minority at the time) but I believed the zeal was probably borne out of the desire to choose from a bigger talent pool of potential players; particularly as some of the pioneering indigenous players like Michael Long and Nicky Winmar were so exciting to watch and contributed so much. Slowly but surely people touched by these players through their mutual love of sport began to understand how racism strikes at the core of a person and dishonours them.

I am sure players themselves have grown a great deal playing alongside those of so many cultural and racial backgrounds. There is nothing like the collective striving for a prized goal that creates cohesion and dulls the differences between team members.

There was another momentary glitch a few years ago when commentators began talking up their reverse bigotry; constantly referring to many indigenous players as 'gifted' and freakishly talented. Then we saw an article in the print media reminding us all that these aboriginal players work so hard at their craft and would not remain professional footballers if they didn't. To say it all comes so easily is to diminish the work done by them and those who mentor them to be virtuosos of the game. Again, we were given cause for pause.

And so to the present day and a young man of Sudanese origin, Majak Daw, a role model to his people and a man proud to call Australia his second home, is vilified by a few ignorant people at a football match. And we have witnessed almost universal condemnation and so should we because while people who harbour such views may not all be quieted, they need to know their outward manifestations of such bigoted views in a public place will not be tolerated by others. It is from the outcry by ordinary spectators that the children of those who would mock and taunt out of ignorance and jealousy may begin to understand that heading down the same path will get them nowhere and will cause them to be isolated. Let the bigots watch TV and scream abuse from the comfort and sanctity of their couches at home for we won't change them all but we don't want them at our stadia and on the sidelines at our local footy matches.

Media commentators have far too much influence but how refreshing it is when they use it to send the right messages.

I wrote a number of years ago about the Des Hedland/Adam Selwood sexual harassment case. I said that the football field is the players' workplace and they deserve "quiet" enjoyment of it. Sadly we have a way to go regarding respect on gender grounds but we are kicking goals in relation to racial vilification.

We get the behaviour we are prepared to put up with. We get the culture we deserve. I am no longer cynical. I believe we stand taller now than we did before Majak.

Fair Work fine for texting a termination sends a clear message

2011-06-01T22:36:00.000+10:00

Fair Work Australia Commissioner Cambridge has ruled that a boutique owner who texted a "Don't Come Monday" message to a two-year employee behaved in a "pretty appalling" way and that her termination via SMS was deemed unfair. The boutique owner was fined almost $10,000 in back pay. The Fair Work Australia ruling found that there had not been any valid reason (relating to conduct, capacity or operational requirements of the business) to justify the dismissal. The Commissioner found the owner had likely become irate and vindictive after the sacked employee, Sedina Sokolovic, took it upon herself two days before her sacking to change shifts with another worker during which $5000 worth of goods were stolen from the shop on the other employee's watch.

No one insinuated Sedina or the other worker were involved in the theft and the Commissioner concluded there had been no feedback to Sedina alleging inadequate conduct or performance until the owner learnt the goods had been stolen, sacked her and then had to justify the dismissal.

As much as the case elucidates the importance of a valid reason and a fair process in determining the future of an employee's work relationship, the case is an illustration in poor emotional intelligence and specifically emotional control. The owner seemed to want to retaliate for the fact that goods had been stolen and paid out on Miss Sokolovic with no adequate justification. Of relevance to the Commissioner was the fact that there was no link in the text message to serious misconduct and none was provided at the hearing. By firing Ms Sokolovic by text, her employer denied her the chance to respond or explain; a key plank in procedural fairness.

2011-05-14T12:22:00.000+10:00

Sexual harassment has been very prominent in the media this past year notwithstanding increased public, media and corporate focus on bullying. From time to time I am struck by the narrow stereotypes some people hold about sexual harassment presuming it to be about men 'hitting on' women at work. Both genders regrettably harass both genders.

The Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Tribunal has found that an existing culture of sexual banter and failure by the alleged victim, an 18 year old chef when he began there, to strongly assert himself, was inadequate justification of persistent unwelcome attention by the restaurant manager. The male apprentice chef was awarded $8000 in damages for male on male sexual harassment.

Legislation in this domain and landmark cases is quite consistent. All employees must be able to experience "quiet enjoyment of their workplace" with no unwelcome attention that offends, intimidates or humiliates whether sexual or related to an unlawful prejudice (eg their age, gender, disability).

So called custom and practice is no protection against sexual harassment. Indeed the perpetrator in this case was the restaurant manager so what are the chances this person would have established and maintained a healthy culture? The other important reminder of this case is that if one considers the unwelcome attention may cause the recipient of the attention to feel intimidated, expecting them to stand up to the perpetrator and request or demand they stop, may be unrealistic and unjust. Not being able to do so does not negate the wrongdoing. The apprentice chef in this case endured 8 months of obscene verbal comments and unwelcome physical contact. He eventually resigned but fell into depression, heavy drinking and self harm. The case further highlights the frightening vulnerability of a victim in any environment where the perpetrator is actually the boss.
Continuing to publicise the determinations of such cases is one of the best deterrents for would-be offenders who wish to protect the reputations of their businesses and a good way to promote employee rights to stick up for themselves. At times, I have given feedback to restaurant managers where I see them being courteous to a fault to customers and then bark orders at staff heading for the kitchen. They need to know that a) people notice and b) it could cost them.

No goal, no golf and no glory

2011-04-11T21:50:00.001+10:00

Well, it nearly didn't happen. If we hadn't gone away for the weekend with self confessed golf tragics who got up at 5am to watch the US Masters I wouldn't have 'got it'. While I have often joked about my love of elite sport as the 'best athlete never to play the game', I didn't know a game of golf; playing for a jacket you'd have to give back afterwards, could be so enthralling. Of course my observations were more professional than personal as I contemplated the emotional intelligence of the two young Aussies players who almost pulled off outstanding victories. It was breathtaking to witness Adam Scott and Jason Day possess such emotional intelligence or mental toughness to take on the world's best (including Tiger in a spectacular return to form on Day Four). Perhaps it is a combination of temperament, upbringing, self belief borne of much talent, great mentorship, or even the love and security brought by their respective partners. One thing they did not have was a whole lot of experience to draw on in those moments of truth. On Day Three Jason Day told a journalist he "was just there to have fun".

How much can we achieve when we combine 1) choosing our attitude, with 2) doing our ten thousand hours (a la Malcolm Gladwell) to get really good and 3) living in the moment rather than stress about the next hole on the course or berate ourselves internally because we missed the last putt. There is no doubt those guys think they can win and self belief counts for a lot. They are so young and time is on their side. They have decades to become virtuosos and reap the rewards.

A lot of my clients lately have been at a crossroads and pondering both the past and the future. We can't choose what's happened. But we can choose what we do next.

Choose your attitude. Get great at what you do. Savour the moment and see your life blossom. Bring on your Masters Tournament!

Ethics vs. Morality - Not the Same Thing But They Both Matter

2011-02-19T19:29:00.000+11:00

Well, it seems to me the lunatics have officially taken over the asylum! A young woman, possibly unwell, admitted to wanting to bring the St Kilda Football Club undone by improperly obtaining photos that should never have been taken by a fellow player and kept in the first place. The high profile player manager paid to protect the reputation and interests of his players and specifically Nick Riewoldt is embroiled in further scandal only weeks after a settlement was finally reached and everyone was meant to pick up the pieces of their lives and move forward. Today, Ricky Nixon now admits to "inappropriate dealings" with this young woman. Regardless of the extent of those dealings, and we will all be left to speculate, he has surely placed in jeopardy his player contracts with Riewoldt and others, his professional and personal credibility, his livelihood and for all we know, his marriage.

Everyone has their own developed sense of morality and sometimes it is seriously questionable. That is why a company cannot depend on any individual who may be afflicted with a disease we’ll call profound error of judgment, to know to do the right thing (and every time).

That is why organisations have to keep ethics top of mind and lay out clearly and regularly what is expected of its employees as ethical conduct. If we rely on the individual to act based on their interpretation of right and wrong, we can seriously compromise brand, relationships, trust and commercial success.

There were so many 'moments of truth' to be faced in this sorry saga for many people. What if a person's moral compass is not facing due north? Personal ethics are personal and can save us or bury us. But ethical conduct demands the asking of good conscience questions regularly. How might this be perceived? Who could get hurt by my actions? Should I bounce this off someone else I trust and respect and see what they say? And finally, how would it look if this ends up on the front page of the Herald Sun on Monday. Any or all of those questions are a pretty darn good place to start.

Backbiting and bundled out (unlawfully!)

2011-02-08T19:42:00.000+11:00

The media was in a frenzy today about a young childcare worker who was dismissed last year for breaching the organisational policy on 'backbiting'. Fair Work Australia found she had been unfairly dismissed and today awarded her just under $10K in damages.

You can't outlaw human nature but you can make it clear to people that they potentially threaten their employment through toxic, divisive and malicious acts of badness. You can also run an organisation that lives good values, try to recruit people who want to play nice, treat staff fairly and equitably, lead them well, make good decisions and give them less to malign you over.

The word "gossip" sounds tame but when gossip and rumour mongering morphs into undermining, ridicule and exclusion, you haven't got political correctness gone mad. You have full-on bullying. Ask kids in the playground if they recognise it when they see it or have it done to them.

Whilst it may appear at first glance that people can be very unprofessional and seemingly get away with it, bear in mind that Fair Work Australia is required to do a thorough examination of process by adjudging whether or not the employer a) had a valid reason for dismissal and b) if they went about it the right way.

If the young claimant was asked to work to a vague policy, was not accorded natural justice and the 'punishment was considered disproportionate to the crime', then she was treated unduly harshly, unjustly or unreasonably and her dismissal was therefore unfair.

However wouldn’t it be nice if we could focus our energy on building great culture and rewarding positive behaviours than trying to scare people into submission with a gun to their heads?

Even though we lost, we won.

2011-02-01T19:31:00.000+11:00

I have to admit that seeing Australia go down to Japan this week in the dying minutes of the final of the Asian Cup was gut wrenching. As a romantic, a fiercely patriotic Aussie and a football fan - I'm the best athlete never to play the game - I was convinced we would pull off the win, and I wanted it badly for the players who've done so much for our game but who will undoubtedly retire soon. I wanted the win for Lucas Neill, for Tim Cahill, for Mark Schwarzer and of course, for Harry (our national wizard).

However it was not to be. What was therefore the most heart-warming thing to come out of the match were... the surnames. In my recollection, most of the top footballers who've played for Australia had parents who came from the UK and the Eastern Bloc. At this competition, the names on the back of the soccer jerseys were as diverse in racial or national origin as I can ever remember and underscore something I believe in and see working regularly. Diversity works and when that diverse group of people (with names like Valeri, McKay, Ognenovski, Jedinak and Wilkshire) come together with a shared purpose, great leadership, a robust strategy, some serious discipline and some self belief, they can achieve almost anything.

The current era of players have served us well. We qualified for two consecutive World Cups which for our little nation was impressive. The future augers well if the performance of Matt McKay is anything to go by, but more than the sport and the national pride is the national reminder of the power of inclusion and diversity in driving performance and furthering acceptance.

Perception is 9/10ths of the law

2010-10-29T07:59:00.000+11:00

Fundamentally I think we want to believe in government and that its highest officers govern with integrity and transparency. And yes, at times we can be disappointed. The recent furore involving the Directorate of Public Prosecutions is a timely reminder about the demanding importance of doing and appearing to do the right thing, in every instance.

I do not profess to know any of the specific circumstances surrounding the very regrettable situation that faced the DPP, Jeremy Rapke and his staff. And of course, if I were professionally involved in any way in mediating this dispute, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment. So for what its worth this case invokes a number of tantalising yet potentially unfair and unfounded conspiracy theories vis a vis merit based selection, the application of EEO principles, workplace culture and the challenges thrown up by good old human nature. Some of those would be:

Scenario One

The woman at the centre of the storm, Diana Karamikov is a seriously talented solicitor and is being recognised for that alone. Old fuddy duddies intent on preserving the best traditions of seniority (or plain old jealousy) are throwing a vitriolic tantrum and getting rewarded with lots of attention for it. In this scenario protesting staffers would appear petty and age-ist. Only yesterday I met a talented lawyer who told me she was promoted to senior litigator and partner in a national firm in her late 20′s.

Scenario Two

Parties have behaved inappropriately and are getting their just desserts if power and authority have been abused potentially resulting in dinted reputations, and diminished morale and confidence in governmental leadership by staffers and the public.

Scenario Three

Independent of any possible poor judgment or otherwise, parties have seized on the opportunity to discredit the Director, the Office of Public Prosecutions which would arguably have a number of enemies and/or the government in the weeks before a state election. The fact that a senior staffer resigned over it some weeks ago doesn’t automatically invalidate the justness of an appointment and refute the possibility of Scenario One. Conversely the possibility of any friendship between the “appointer” and the “appointee” does not automatically render the appointment a perversion of natural justice for other candidates. We do know all 7 candidate recommendations were independently scrutinised by a panel convened by the Attorney General Rob Hulls and all passed muster.

In Conclusion

Government must continue to be accountable for all its decisions but the ability of individuals and the media at large to monster those responsible for such decisions and cast such aspersions on character so easily and so readily in the absence of any real evidence presented thus far would rattle even the most resilient.

It is a relief to hear there has been a reported rapprochement between two of the senior players to this regrettable saga late last week because we have long since known that a working relationship is the minimum condition of success in any high performing team and the work done by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions is vital to the wellbeing of our citizens and the preservation of our democracy.

never too young to be wise

2010-08-25T23:20:00.000+10:00

I have had the extraordinary pleasure and privilege of presenting over the past three years to an amazing cohort of engineering students at Monash University in communication skills and change management. I have reminded them at times that our mindsets are closer than they might first imagine as I am a Gen X trapped in a baby boomer body!

The final year students concluded their last module with me (and the program) this evening. Several of the themes I felt so passionate about reinforcing through the program were the fine yet important line between self belief and arrogance, the importance of balancing the imperatives of relationships with outcomes and the irony of possessing serious intelligence coupled with the silliness of thinking we might ever have all the answers to all the challenges that life throws up at us.

One delightful student came up at the end, thanked me for my contribution to the program and admitted he found since he had left school he had struggled quite a lot with criticism. When we explored that a bit further he said directly but not conceitedly that he had not ever really had much experience of failure. Considering the vast majority of students invited onto that program had ENTER scores of 98 and above, it would not have been hard to imagine he was both very bright and knew the meaning of hard work. He left resolving to be more open to feedback and to vow to try not to take the criticism he knew would inevitably come his way, quite so personally and quite so often.

To me there is nothing more admirable than a passionate openness to learning and growth, particularly when it is so clear that the passion we are witnessing comes from a healthy place of wanting to be the best we can be, not the best in the group. How much energy can we all release if we focus our energies on being ourselves - only better rather than trying to look better than the person standing next to us? Not only does that frame sit beautifully with positive psychology but it is a substantial manifestation of a generosity of spirit that could make the world my engineering student will lead in, a better one.

Prime Time Masterchef and Prime (Time) Ministers

2010-08-04T01:07:00.000+10:00

Yes, I confess to watching both the Masterchef Finale and the Gillard/Abbott debate Sunday night a week ago. If I hadn't I would have gone to bed feeling like a complete ignoramus with nothing to discuss with colleagues and clients the next day. Masterchef is truly an undeniable phenomenon and it has inspired one of my four children to share the load in the kitchen. Eventually she will realise that a small heavy based pan of perfectly caramelised pecans probably won't feed a family of six plus her boyfriend and older brother's girlfriend.

I only have two misgivings about Masterchef. One is the poor modelling of healthy eating exhibited by Matt's growing number of chins throughout the series and two, that every other woman at our table at a function last night said they now felt socially anxious when inviting guests for dinner parties lest they not measure up culinarily.

I have decided one of the great ironies of life is that by the time we have really learnt to accept ourselves with all our jiggly bits, we really will be old, wrinkly and jiggly.

By the time we truly appreciate the extraordinary human beings we have raised when we're constantly told the Y's are selfish, demanding and fragile, they will have long since moved out.

And by the time I live up to the lofty standards created by the Masterchef magicians, I will have become thoroughly sick of cooking!

Let's give ourselves permission to be us ... only better!

What do we make of two women in a week?

2010-07-06T09:09:00.000+10:00

When he was still host, Eddie McGuire would walk on set at the beginning of Thursday night’s Footy Show, rub his hands together and pronounce that it had been a “big week in Football”. By all accounts, Nick Riewoldt’s hamstring is ahead of schedule but in other breaking news two Australian women, one junior marketer and the other a political juggernaut took their bosses to court and caucus respectively and won. In the space of six days the blogosphere was pulsating with the news that the Chief Executive of David Jones elected to resign for conduct unbecoming against a young woman who worked for the retail chain. By his own admission, he had done wrong and stood down. Other women logged in and blogged in with sad, even depressing tales of poor treatment, sexually permeated work environments, rampant discrimination on unlawful prejudices like family responsibilities, pregnancy and potential pregnancy, being hit upon and preyed upon in supposedly contemporary professional workplaces. And they talked of being victimised, performance managed, even dismissed for complaining about it.

For years some of us working in the Equal Opportunity space have bemoaned the shameful percentage of women on Australian Boards, the inhospitable work cultures that often meant, in my experience, that even if women were appointed to lofty positions in companies and became ex-officio members of the Boys Club, many of those women in time resigned and went elsewhere; always feeling as if they were on the outer. They got concussed butting heads with the glass ceiling, knocked back opportunities where the pressure of future expectations kept them planted on the “sticky floor” or did their bit for population growth, had babies - even if a growing number trying to consolidate their careers first ended up seeking medical assistance to do it - and then promptly collided with the “maternal wall”.

Today an unmarried woman, childless by choice from a working class background with a vocal quality than can only be deemed a compelling liability, became our new Prime Minister. Irrespective of my political persuasions, I have walked around today with a lump in my throat, trying to label and store my feelings as if they were Tupperware containers of meat sauce to be tucked away in the freezer for a really heavy work week and asking myself if I would ever forget what I was doing on the day they shot Kevin Rudd and installed - Julia.

I felt this way on the day Obama won his election and it was not about his politics. There was something momentous about the reality of it. The winds of change were rustling among the trees and you could feel the faint breeze and smell the jasmine hinting at the promise of a new season.

The common denominator in the resignation of a seemingly high performing CEO for sexual misconduct and the appointment of a woman to the highest office of our land is that they are potent symbols of empowerment, if not entitlement. The two events signify permission for all Australians, including women, to dare to dream; Kristy Fraser-Kirk of a safe hospitable workplace environment where one day she can have “quiet enjoyment” of her workplace; and for Julia Gillard, with a little help from her friends, to win the most powerful position in the land and on merit.

If I have a concern about either of these two momentous occurrences it is that people will start to think that the battle for equality has clearly been won; that we can pick up our evangelistic bats and balls and go home. I hear some of you say but even high performing CEO’s get sacked now if they sexually harass someone. I hear you add that we now have a female PM for goodness sake! What other evidence do we need of the fact that the past is irretrievably behind us? The examples of one are exactly that. Until we stop marvelling at what has happened, it is not yet commonplace. We are not yet gender blind or habituated to a workplace culture that allows all people to reach their potential without fear of predatory behaviour or subjugation.

It should not be remarkable that a Chief Executive resigned his position for his abuse of power and it should not be remarkable that a highly intelligent, hard working, loyal and impressive person by all accounts possessing of warmth and integrity should be recognised for it. But context is king. We have no precedent for either of those two watershed moments in our collective Australian conscience.

Yes, Eddie, it’s been a big week in football, but short of the Doggies getting up and winning the Grand Final for Julia or the Saints getting up and winning one for me, there won’t be anything bigger than this week for me in a long long time.

Coffee, conflict and coaching - any place any time!

2010-05-11T15:03:00.006+10:00

There I was minding my own business in the Etihad Stadium coffee queue. Don't know if Monday night football will ever be institutionalised but over 42,000 people decided to give it a try. The queue was quite long but my mum is worth it so there I waited towards the latter stages of half time (defeat almost a certainty by then which was something I was not at all used to). The young barista behind the counter was not coping with the demand - that much was obvious. What appeared to make it worse was the huffing, puffing, eye rolling and tsk'ing going on from several queue members. I guess they figured as I did that once they had paid for their coffee (equivalent to a sizeable down payment on an apartment) they might as well stay and get the thing!

I'll be honest and say that while I was not eye rolling and tsk'ing, I was wondering why they put a seemingly inexperienced barista in front of one small espresso machine with a 20 minute half time window of aromatic opportunity for up to 42,000 coffees.

Just when the gentleman next to me seemed ready to erupt, the next in line for coffee customer - a warm, gracious, emotionally intelligent woman, entered into conversation with our novice barista, showed empathy for the hapless woman's busy night, commiserated with her about the slowness of the machine to steam, took her coffee with thanks, sipped it and informed all within earshot (including barista who was near meltdown by then) that her drink was delicious. The barista beamed and palpably relaxed. Her supervisor gave her a reassuring look and smiled gratefully at the customer and on departure, the gorgeous customer stared intently at Mr Eye Roll as if to say: "Weren't you young and inexperienced once upon a time - have a heart!"

They say, charity begins at home (something I remind my kids of often when it comes to chores!).
Peace building begins with us. Right here, right now.

Trainwrecks and Bingles - but Resilient Clarke Bats On

2010-03-21T11:39:00.003+11:00

There is nothing I need or wish to do to contribute to the media circus surrounding the (former) relationship of Michael Clarke and Lara Bingle except to say that Michael Clarke is a fascinating case study in resilience or if you prefer the more colloquial, "mental toughness". From what we can gather, he came to a conclusion that he needed to be somewhere other than where he was (New Zealand to play for Australia), came home to Oz, executed his decision to end his relationship, surrounded himself with family and friends, had some dark moments at a pub (pictures happily snapped by other pub patrons), went back to New Zealand, spent some time in the nets retraining with the red cricket ball - he had played for some weeks with a white ball in the Twenty20 games after all - and then hit a record breaking knock of 168!

If you study his press conference, and allowing for the rehearsed pieces of script which re-occurred over and over again to fill the space and block the obvious questions he did not really want to answer at any length ("It's just great to be back here in NZ and I am really looking forward to Friday”), he cited the support from his captain Ricky Ponting and his head coach Tim Nielsen as integral to his ability to leave for a time and then be able to return and cope. He allowed himself to feel weakness and sadness at some point while he was home and then appeared to pick himself up, dust himself off, refocus on his “job", anticipate some further challenges (e.g. sledging from his NZ competitors), but laugh on occasion and demonstrate he had some insight into how the whole saga may have looked to everyone else.

He accepted philosophically the inevitable fascination others can have for the lives of professional athletes on and off the field and noted that everyone has their jobs to do including the media. Thus he was able to be creative in the frame he put around the hammering he received publically and I certainly got the sense he would cope with any sledging that came his way as he reminded us all he had copped it many times before; thus importantly affirming for himself his ability to survive that. His innings and the partnership with Marcus North which put Australia in a strong position, are blatant evidence of an outstanding ability to push through adversity by being more than mentally tough. He demonstrated he was being self aware and strategic.

1. Resilient people, first and foremost, are self aware. They know what they feel and why.
2. They handle crucial and difficult conversations (e.g. relationships bust ups)
3. They have tools and strategies to get them back on track.
4. They are big enough to admit they need help and support and know what kind of help they require and where to get it.
5. They are also able to maintain their sense of humour, as evidenced with Clarke
6. They have self belief that is not easily shaken
7. They are creative in the way they construe events that could bring other people down i.e. they maintain an internal voice that is constructive and serves to enhance their performance.

However much Michael and Lara may have become the butt of other people’s ridicule in past weeks, I believe Michael Clarke has emerged as an impressive ambassador for resilience and a most worthy future captain of Australia given the inevitable pressure that accompanies such a high profile role in our sports-obsessed nation.

Look in the mirror - what do we see?

2010-03-03T19:16:00.001+11:00

I attended a professional development function last week and found myself surrounded by fellow management consultants, training professionals, coaches and psychologists. There was an almost audible groan in the room as we were informed that each of us would have up to one minute to introduce ourselves to the others in the room. My quick mental calculation confirmed I would not make it home to my family for dinner.

Such was the concern about the possibility of tedium, even by the organisers, that they divided the introductions into two rounds (punctuated by other introductions from members of their staff). I must admit I did find it fascinating to watch and listen to the choices made by each of us on how to introduce ourselves; for even up to one minute revealed (even betrayed) something of our self perception; the salient self disclosures we wanted to share intermixed with what we thought our audience may want or need to hear.

If each of us had to give an elevator pitch, how would we define ourselves? Would people hear self belief, warmth, brinksmanship, empathy, hubris, self-deprecation, insecurity (perhaps reflected in trying ever so hard) or humility? Would we talk about our passions or our achievements; the people in our lives or the things we have accumulated. And most interestingly, would our self perception match the perception others have of us assuming they have had enough time to really see us in action.

Marcum and Smith in their book "egonomics" (Simon and Shuster 2008) identify some early warning signs of misplaced ego that include being comparative, being defensive, showcasing brilliance and seeking acceptance. In contrast they said the healthy embodiment of ego is evidenced in humility, curiosity and veracity, that is, the habitual pursuit of and adherence to, truth. The openness of humility, the curiosity that drives exploration of ideas and veraciously chasing truth helps us have courageous conversations and be able to close the gap between what we think is going on and what really is!

Macquarie Dave - bad timing or bad behaving?

2010-02-14T11:47:00.003+11:00

Except that we happened to see it and Macquarie was humiliated by it, Dave hurt no-one. So what is really so terrible you ask? Dave was in clear breach of company policy. It was not work related, it was clearly of a sexual nature, it had the capacity to offend, humiliate and intimidate. What were some of the arguments used to defend him apart from him being miserably "unlucky"? (Really? Successively opening and closing three separate photos?)

Yes, some women dress inappropriately for work and managers should not be so gutless about counselling them on professionalism. I'm certainly not asking for a double standard. Yes, open plan offices are cheap and not private so might we not moderate our behaviour according to the environment in which we work? Yes, companies do allow some personal internet use but why does that automatically have to be without limit? And sacking Dave or otherwise does not preclude any action against whomever sent him the Miranda Kerr photos (unless it was a friend and the responsibility lies only with Dave for having opened the file and not the friend who sent it from home).

We are Aussies, we have a sense of humour and the vision of what happened was kind of funny until you think about it. Life can be cruel so we desperately don't want to think the world as we know it, is over. But for all those who enlisted in the Save Dave petition, spare a thought for his camera hosting employer who pays his wages, think of the women in his office who wonder if he ogles them too, think of his wife if he has one and think of those children in detention centres whom none of Dave's new mates petitioned for. On a scale of 1-10, Dave is not a paedophile or a rapist but can we not defend the indefensible!

Monday-itis - all year long

2010-02-01T18:51:00.000+11:00

In speaking with clients, friends and acquaintances toward the end of the holiday season, it became apparent just how many of them articulated feelings of misgiving about returning to work after the break. What was so interesting about this was that each of them has always appeared 100% committed to their work and clients and would never ordinarily strike me as being challenged to get their heads "back in the game".

I think this says something about the pace of life these days, the enormous demands on people at work, the guilt that can accompany parents and partners who struggle with the juggle. But just as much is the longing people feel to achieve some sense of "flow".

How much harder might it be for staff who aren't engaged, are under appreciated, who work in an environment that is either emotionally unsupportive at best or toxic at worst. While the economy is looking up, some unhappy employees will elect to wait out the time for access to their super, hoping someone will offer them a package in yet another restructure or go through the motions of the “bare minimum” hoping they'll escape workplace detection.

Everyone deserves to feel worthwhile, to make a meaningful contribution, to be appreciated for what they bring. Yet I often provoke clients who bemoan their situation by reminding them that to stay where they are, doing what they do, if it is unfulfilling, is itself, a choice. I derive enormous professional satisfaction from provoking and encouraging clients to take control of their situation and exercise alternate choices.

If your enthusiasm for the challenges and opportunities of 2010 is “sub-optimal”, what are you prepared to do about it? Let’s seize the day, evaluate our choices and make 2010 an intentional experience; typified by clarity of outcomes to be achieved, disciplined pursuit of the strategies to get there, the emotional intelligence to cope with some inevitable disappointments and the resolute determination to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and go again.

Having taken time out last night to sit with family and watch the final of the Australian Open Men’s Final, I was struck by the true meaning of resilience and the key to sustained excellence. In some parts of the match, Andy Murray played with a defensive mindset and hoped Federer would make mistakes to let him in. Federer understands his destiny lies in his own hands and victory will only ever come off his racquet.

A new year, a fresh start and greater business optimism. How are you going to win your first grand slam in 2010?

Don't Worry be Happy

2009-11-17T07:10:00.002+11:00

Well I have decreed to myself that I don't do jetlag. I've decided its mind over matter and I do mind any possibility of time zone fatigue limiting my ability to work effectively with us because the work we do together matters.

The trip to the US was great at many levels. I enjoyed the gig with such amazingly intelligent and enthusiastic people at Thomson Reuters. I revelled in the opportunity to see an extraordinary play on Broadway, Next To Normal which won its female lead Alice Ridley a Tony Award in 2009 (can you imagine a musical with the central theme being mental illness - extraordinary!) and I marvelled first hand at the glorious optimism of New Yorkers and their hopes for economic recovery. We might have imagined the only thing likely to have cheered up any New Yorker during this difficult economic period was the thought that Londoners did it even worse than they did. Yet there they are looking forward to the recovery they know must eventually come.

As always I was interested in what's hot and what's not. The corporate contacts I spoke with were planning for the future, continuing to invest heavily in leadership and specifically change leadership capability, spending big dollars on coaching and mentoring (with executives and other levels) and some innovative work around resilience which is the most prized commodity being talked around right now.

Some enlightened organisations are no longer waging the so-called competitive "war on talent" (i.e. ruthless pursuit of the most talented) but rather strategically building reputations as nurturers of talent to attract and retain as long as possible before other firms derive the benefit when the stars go somewhere else to shine. The difference in strategy from a marketing point of view is that bidding wars for the best reflect a so-called ‘push’ strategy. Developing a reputation such that the best and the brightest beat a path to your door is a subtle but important distinction and reflects a ‘pull’ strategy. A ‘pull’ strategy means we are less likely to "blow the salary cap" in being forced to pay exorbitant market rates for top people and can reduce costs in recruiting. In either case, depth of talent can create ‘social proof’ (see Robert Cialdini’s work on influence) for others contemplating joining the organisation.

How proactive or reactive is your organisation right now in responding to economic pressures? Have you built enough goodwill such that when things improve, your people will want to stay or will key staff fly the coop as soon as they feel they have an effective choice?

2009-10-29T21:56:00.000+11:00

I have always felt it is a privilege to facilitate conversations with adults by cultivating a safe open learning space. While I studied long and hard to be a psychologist, I am also proud to be an educator/trainer.

A participant on an interpersonal skills program this week approached me at the end of the course and thanked me for helping him see he had an anger management problem. He asked for some strategies to help him on his way to conquering that "problem." I was somewhat puzzled initially as we had never directly talked about such an issue and would never have done so in the company of twenty other participants. However he went on to explain the work we had done on Emotional Intelligence struck a deep resonant chord in him. He admitted his wife had said he would "hate the program" when she found out his boss had sent him on it as she thought it would be far too "touchy feely" for him.

Isn't it wonderful and oh so humbling to be reminded of the fact that we cannot presume to know how someone else will react or respond in a given situation and how wonderful to be in the room with people when their insights trigger some real behaviour change for the good.

Have you had such moments? Have you been there when someone had a profound insight they were prepared to act upon? Were they able to follow through?

Tough Corporate Lessons in a Tough Sport!

2009-10-11T05:27:00.000+11:00

The locals are celebrating this week in the wake of Melbourne Storms’ victory over its New South Wales rival. Most would agree that to appear in four consecutive grand finals and win two as the Storm has now done is an indication of sustained excellence in anyone’s language. It’s worth asking how an organisation sustains exceptional performance in a demanding context. Theirs was a ‘Greenfield’ culture 11 years ago when they began and everything they created was built from the ground up. This was not the case for the team administered by their CEO Brian Waldron before he came to the Storm. Three years ago he was running the St Kilda Football Club; a club marred in the past by controversy, with a reputation as a disco culture in the 80’s and early 90’s and quite lucky according to its former coach, Grant Thomas, to exist after more than a century of dismal finals results. Not every organisation has the luxury of building their culture from scratch. If we take both St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs as examples, one valuable and reassuring lesson for us is that even organisations with long standing underperforming (even torrid) legacy cultures can change.

How do we drive a winning culture?

Organisations must have a clear vision. Their people need to ‘get it’. For footy clubs this might be paraphrased as “winning premierships on a sustained basis” and perhaps also “making our players into better people by the time they leave our Club”. Whilst these visions may also be accompanied by tribal passion, big dollars, high player profile, their formula is compelling as a blueprint for any successful organisation.
Organisations must remember to inspire their people about why the business exists and successfully attach a social or moral cause to strategic goals. People have to connect emotionally with why they do what they do. That is, they need to be ‘moved by it’. Too often leaders dwell on what has to happen i.e. business results and forget to keep spruiking the “why” it matters.
We are seeing more evidence that high performing and professional sporting teams ruthlessly guard good culture and continue to demonstrate they will not tolerate below the line behaviour. Whatever the organisation’s code, their people need to ‘live by it’. It appears that Carlton has made good on its promise to trade Brendan Fevola. Every organisation has their rainmaker, their number one sales person, their talented high profile stars but what price if the organisation continues to tolerate or tacitly condone sexual harassment, bullying, expense rorts or any other form of counterproductive workplace behaviour. What message does it send to clients, suppliers and “players”, when the ends justify any means?

What do vastly different but successful enterprises have in common?

Yes, a football club in any code enjoys important differences to other enterprises. Government agencies and public companies are not trying to ‘win flags’ nor can they easily ‘delist’ players but they are most certainly trying to kick goals, need a diverse team to do that and teamwork, discipline and focus to get there. They also need to manage their brand, attract sponsorship dollars and talent. They need to create the optimal environment for success; enabling critical success factors and removing impediments to that success. Being clear, intentional and consistent about the vision and the expected behaviours to go with it are hallmarks of enlightened organisations serious about sustained success and “premier” reputation.

Now to Lead When the Honeymoon's Over

2009-10-02T04:23:00.000+10:00

Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States amid much emotion hope and optimism. If one compares his famous acceptance speech on Election Day with the speech he made on Inauguration Day, the contrast is striking and relevant to all of us who lead change. His “Yes We Can” campaign stirred, inspired and seduced his people and for the record I believe he is authentic in his desire to bring about change in his country and greater peace to the world. However, it was only once he was truly in the chair he spoke of the critical need for people to pull together, to temper their enthusiasm with realism, to contemplate the enormity of the task before them all and remind them it would indeed take much time. Obama knows the importance of Expectations Management.

Some who are inclined to greater cynicism would say he trivialised the challenge until he had won the race. However he had to deploy one of the most fundamental of strategies in early ‘therapy’ for people whose esteem and efficacy was low - the “transfer of optimism” (see Gerard Egan, the father of counselling therapy).

Obama faced staunch public opposition in Congress this week; accused of lying. He responded rather than reacted, a trait of a leader high in Emotional Intelligence yet the opposition was very public and very real. A leader has to be willing to do the hard stuff, despite the discomfort they create and the resistance they may face.
In a world where young people demand low ‘power distance’ between themselves and their bosses and where engagement is prized, how challenging to strike the balance between being a leader and a friend; how critical to manage expectations and not put ourselves continually in a position of having to defend and apologise or backtrack. These are some of the skills of strategic influence and they must be enacted authentically to have any chance of sustained success.

Demanding justice or playing the system?

2009-09-17T03:51:00.000+10:00

A young muslim woman in the UK has just been awarded $6000 for being told she had to wear a figure hugging dress to wait in an English bar over summer when the men were not asked to change their uniforms for summer and were able to dress modestly in dark clothes. It was determined the insistence that the women comply with the bar’s “dress code” was “gender specific” and “hostile”. However the article also made mention of a photo taken of the smiling claimant in a “revealing white top” on social networking website Facebook. The clear implication was that the case may have smacked of double standards and opportunism. What are your thoughts? Did the bar violate her dignity and create a “humiliating” environment? Does she have the right to object about the uniform yet choose in her own time to dress according to her own choice?

People with a Profile - Do we expect too much?

2009-08-05T05:31:00.000+10:00

Rashida Dati is the first senior government official appointed in France of North African descent. Dati has attracted considerable attention having just returned to work as French Justice Minister only 5 days after giving birth to her child and being openly single. Feminists in France have slammed her as a poor role model whom they have allege has sold out on other working women and put further pressure on them all to be “supermums, not wimps.”

Should her decision be one of personal choice? If she has the ways and means to be able to return to work after childbirth (which afterall is not a disease or illness), should she? Does she automatically raise the bar for other women and create an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation in employers of other women after childbirth? Is her situation different to the average woman’s who may not have the financial wherewithall to arrange quality child care after the birth of her child/ren? Furthermore, is it reasonable to assume that she returned to work so soon, as asserted by the Planned Parenthood Association because of the pressure to “defend her standing in France’s male-dominated politics” rather than intrinsic dedication to her work?