Anyone who knows me, knows that I was going to walk into a debate with the above title absolutely certain about which way I was going to vote! And given that the two speakers, Yolanda Beattie, and Ming Long have both spent much of their careers highly involved in the drive for gender equity I did wonder how either one could argue for this motion!
CAANZ’s annual charity fundraising High Tea #cahightea on Friday was the setting for this debate and it provided an excellent afternoon’s conversation, and I want to share an overview of their arguments.
Yolanda: Why targets DON’T work
Well, I was wrong in thinking neither could argue for this motion! Yolanda did a terrific job, with the focus of her argument being the mediocrity we see around the setting, monitoring and measuring of targets.
A target alone is an insufficiently nuanced tool, which can be manipulated by leaders looking to meet KPIs determining their bonuses, and can also create an “us and them” mentality. This results in us losing sight of the desired outcome, which is actually to achieve diversity of thought and experience in a team.
The misplaced focus on targets doesn’t place any emphasis on building a culture where women feel valued. Even if a target is met and the percentage of women increases this may not improve outcomes as greater diversity often leads to increased conflict if it is not appropriately managed.
Yolanda also made the very reasonable point that over the last 5 years targets have not worked as we have simply not moved any closer to gender parity, despite the number of organisations which have introduced them.
Yolanda’s rallying call was for a focus on mindful leadership and cultural change to build inclusiveness, rather than the clumsy tool of targets.
Ming: Why targets DO work
Acknowledging that she and Yolanda are actually in “furious agreement”, Ming argued that good targets DO work and that any argument supporting the status quo is one for mediocrity.
For a long time we have tried to “fix” women to fit into a patriarchal system and now it’s time for systemic change. Ming pointed out that merit is a myth, which is very much in the eyes of the beholder, so we cannot rely on that as a means to promote women.
After all, why is it that if we implement targets we assume the women offered roles are mediocre? Why are those women then expected to prove their value? After all, haven’t we all seen enough mediocre men in leadership positions? And why if a man is promoted is merit assumed? Unless of course you believe the definition of MERIT is actually:
Males
Elevated
Regardless of
Intellect or
Talent
Targets are a threat to the power of middle-class white men, however achieving better gender equity will actually give them permission to live healthier, more fulfilling lives, once we scrap the limitations of stereo-typed roles. So everyone will benefit, and change has been so glacial that we need targets.
And the winner?
I was surprised by how close the vote was (in a room which was majority female as this event was previously badged as a CA Women’s event), which demonstrates just how well Yolanda argued what was in my opinion the more difficult position. Ultimately the excellent moderator Jan Fran (of SBS’s The Feed) called in favour of Ming’s assertion that targets DO work.
So what’s next?
In the post-debate discussion both women agreed that we need a paradigm shift at senior leadership level, with a much greater focus on values, connecting those to purpose and building inclusive cultures where we can celebrate a wide range of strengths and enable all types of people to thrive.
Mandated quotas are definitely on the table now, particularly at Board level, in order to shift the dial in a significant way more quickly in the way that Norway has.
And what about “leaning in”?
Yolanda said women still need to learn to play the game, whilst we are changing the game. Ming reflected on her own need as an introvert to learn to speak up publicly because you have to adapt to the status quo until you are in leadership and can change the status quo.
This is however why we need men to involved in this discussion, because currently they are so entrenched in the powerful positions in organisations, and they can help open the doors.
Key to getting men involved?
As leaders we should start asking men why they are not taking their paternity leave and start challenging the stigma attached to men who choose to be the primary carer (or even equal carer). And if they could change one thing right now it would be to mandate a period of paternity leave in the first twelve months of a child’s life, which I love as an idea.
For me this is a key part of shifting the concept of flexibility to not being just for mums but for all those people who care for others or want to give back in other ways to their community.
So no, I didn’t change my mind on my opinion that we should be using targets and quotas, although I absolutely agree that this must be within the context of mindful, whole-hearted leadership, which inspires cultural change. However both Yolanda and Ming gave terrific thought-provoking presentations, which were a catalyst for inspiring conversation and they are both inspiring women who are really determined to make change happen.
Thank you to CAANZ for a wonderful afternoon.
I am passionate about supporting leaders and emerging leaders to develop their capacity for mindful, whole-hearted leadership both through one-on-one coaching and development programs. For more information please contact me at [email protected]
RSS Feed