CANBERRA EVALUATON FORUM

IT’S 2016:
TIME FOR DIVERSITY
THURSDAY 17 MARCH 2016

#ipaacef

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division

CHAIR

Stephen Bartos FIPAA

IPAA ACT Council

#ipaacef

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division 2

WELCOME

Emeritus Professor
Meredith Edwards AM FIPAA
Institute of Governance and Policy Analysis,
University of Canberra

#ipaacef

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division 3

 2016: it’s time for diversity
Concepts, Facts and findings
Canberra Evaluation Forum
17 March 2016
Meredith Edwards, IGPA, University of Canberra
 Outline
(1) Clarifying the concepts
(2) Why the concern?
(3) A salutary case study
(4) APS gender and disability findings
(5) Suggestions for change
(6) Concluding considerations
(1) Clarifying the concepts:
Diversity, Inclusion and
Unconscious Bias.
 What is ‘diversity’?

• Complex and multidimensional concept

• About visible and invisible differences among
people which shapes their perspectives
• How broad?
- differences in gender, race, ethnicity, disability
- also age?
• Note also other differences: socio-economic,
personality types, religious beliefs, value systems.
 What is ‘inclusion’?

• ‘Inclusion is about valuing and

accommodating difference’ (May:2014)
- where people consciously adapt
behaviours, responses and practices to
respect differences and include others
 Diversity versus Inclusion

• Diversity – like putting some different players

on your football team
• Inclusiveness – about passing those players
the ball
(Makhlouf 2014)
The giraffe and the zebra
 Noah’s Ark Analogy
The giraffe looks at the zebra and thinks that
kind of animal is funny looking. He doesn’t
look like me – foolishly short neck, silly black
and white stripes and eats what looks like
garbage. Not like me with elegant long neck,
beautiful brown and white spots and eats only
the finest leaves…..
(Deloitte 2011:17)
 Corporate Noah’s Ark
• ‘this is what happens when you create the
corporate version of Noah’s Arc and such
clashes will happen indefinitely until leaders
and companies come up with a plan for
integrating these groups, and benefiting from
the stripes the spots and the horns rather
than waiting for company-wide conformity’
(Deloitte 2011:17)
 Unconscious Bias
• Unconscious versus conscious behaviour
• Where perceptions or hidden beliefs influence
individual behaviour without the individual’s
conscious knowledge
- happens automatically as our brains make
judgements based on experience or culture
- e.g. cloning in recruitment; assumptions about
family responsibilities and job performance
 Parkinson on merit

‘There is a tendency to promote people who

look like me, whoever the ‘me’ is, and…. that
treats the merit principle as sacrosanct; you
can hide a lot of things behind merit’
(quoted UN Women: 2015:6)
(2) Why the Concern?
 (1) Current state of play: APS
• Much lower proportions of minority groups than
general population
- Under 3.5 per cent reported a disability
- Under 2.6 per cent reported indigenous
- Under 14.4 per cent reported NESB
and
• 58 per cent women but 41% SES with much
variation
(APSED 2015)
 (2) Basic fairness
• In the APS:
- employees with a disability nearly twice as
likely to report they felt they had been bullied or
harassed in last 12 months.
- Indigenous and non-english speaking
background employees reported feeling more
this way than other APS employees; women
also compared to males.
(APSC: 2014)
 (3) Not inclusiveness enough
• Evidence of disparity in perceptions of
minority groups and others on barriers to their
progress and unconscious bias
• Not sufficient value placed on inclusive culture
in public service and hence impartiality as well
as representativeness not achieved.
 (4) Business Imperative
• Lack of diversity and inclusion hinders capability,
productivity and performance, especially in leadership
teams
• organisations with greater gender and race diversity
performed better in revenue, customers and market
share
- Why? Can recruit best talent, get stronger customer orientation, increase
employee satisfaction and enhance capability in decision making.
(Deloitte 2011; McKinsey 2015)
(3) A Salutary Case Study
in Diversity Management
: US Environmental Protection Agency
 Case study: plan and actions
• Diversity declared an organisational priority
• Diversity management program devised
• Later diversity initiatives included in five year
strategic plan
• Then perceptions and attitudes of employees and
managers measured to determined receptivity
to diversity
( Soni 2000)
 Case study: what went wrong?

• Diversity management programs had minimal

effect
- lack of understanding of what constituted
diversity and why initiatives needed
- Big difference in perceptions in treatment by
minorities (especially race) and women
versus white males
 Case study: what went wrong? (cont.)

• diversity practices can lead to backlash and

concern about ‘reverse discrimination’( e.g.
by white males)
• problems of ‘fit’ with the informal
organisation for women and minorities with
responsibility for ‘fitting in’ placed on these
groups.
 First step: cultural audit
• Importance of awareness and existing attitudes
– see how unconscious bias manifests itself
- measure baseline ‘diversity climate’
• A ‘cultural audit’ can accelerate understanding
and acceptance of individual, organisational
and cultural biases:
- assessment of ‘diversity climate’ can highlight bias
embedded in systems, structures and practices
(4) APS Gender and Disability
findings
 Gender and Disability surveys: APS
•Aim
- explore main cultural and systemic factors perceived to affect
career progress of senior women and PWD in APS
•How
- Literature surveys
- quantitative and focus group data and analysis
- 6 departments on gender
- 8 on disability
- varied departmental characteristics
 Senior men: main barriers
• ‘commitment to family responsibilities’ most
important perceived female barrier
• more than half of the men did not identify
any other major barrier.
• Over 40% EL men perceive there are no
barriers to women – at odds with other groups
 Senior women: main barriers
• family responsibilities important but lack of
self confidence as important for the majority
• Women in SES male dominated departments
felt excluded from networks
• They also felt progress impacted by personal
style differences and male stereo-typing
- critical mass matters
 Cultures illustrated
• Exclusive:
‘This place is rife with unconscious bias. Its very
homogenous, with few diverse people, few indigenous
people. It is a conservative, male-centric Anglo-Saxon
dominated workforce (SES man)
• Inclusive:
‘In my second week here, I went to a senior management
group meeting… I was stunned with how friendly and
relaxed but efficient the meeting was. It ended in 50
minutes and everyone was listening (SES man)
 PWD study: mentioned barriers
• Cultural
- unconscious bias in language,
behaviours and preconceptions of capabilities
- raised expectations, but
- inhospitable culture including in HR
: often due to lack of knowledge and
awareness
: also some lack of committed leadership
 PWD: mentioned barriers (cont.)
• Organisational
- disability definition can disempower as can
focus on target numbers.
- unclear management roles and responsibilities
- absence of senior role models
- limited HR experience, compliance oriented
- impact of resource constraints
- gap between policies and implementation
 PWD: mentioned barriers (cont.)
• Individual
- lack of empowerment leading to low
confidence
- work not matching capability
- slow reasonable adjustment practices
- inability to access flexible work arrangements
- uninformed performance reviews
 (5) Suggestions for change
(based on Department of Defence 2011)
 Leadership and support
(1) Committed, inclusive leadership with e.g.
holding managers to account in performance
agreement; setting targets; showcasing
successful diversity leaders
(2) Support and development with e.g.
unconscious bias, diversity awareness,
mentoring/sponsorship programs; diversity
networks with champions; HR teams with
relevant skills.
 Managing talent and work
flexibility
(3) Talent management and succession planning
with e.g. challenging roles or empowering in
line with capabilities; effective performance
feedback; target recruitment.
(4) Workplace flexibilities with e.g. better
practice guides with peer review across
agencies; website on success stories; focus
on bridging the policy/practice gap.
 Recruiting and governance
(5) Attraction, recruitment and selection with e.g.
plain-english recruitment guides; eliminate
bias in job descriptions; selection panels with
external representatives
(6) Governance and infrastructure with e.g. APSC
dissemination of annual data on progress;
oversighting executive committees with
external membership; monitor and evaluation
with learning embedded in culture.
(6) Concluding considerations
 Concluding considerations to gain cultural
inclusiveness
• Reframe discussion toward valuing diversity of
thought and diversity as a resource/capability
• Anticipate backlash and reverse discrimination
–build awareness of performance benefits
from inclusive culture first (Soni 2000: 400,403)
• Counter belief that the concept of merit-
based assessment already exists.
 Concluding considerations (cont.)
• Important role of champions about need to
share power and acting to ensure accountability
• Integrate diversity initiatives as components of
integrated HRM systems as well as business
strategy (e.g. Geoscience)
• With inclusiveness and trust, brings ‘disclosure’
• Get to the heart as well as to the brain!
 References
• Alcazar, F.M et al (2013) ‘Workforce diversity in
strategic human resource management models’, in
Cross Cultural Management, v.20, no.1.
• APSC (2014) State of the Service Report, 2013-2014.
• APSC (2015) State of the Service Report 2014-2015.
• Deloitte (2011) Only Skin Deep? Re-examining the
business case for diversity, September.
• Department of Defence (2011) Review of Employment
pathways for the APS: Women in the department of
defence, Australian Government.
• Makhlouf Gabriel (2014) ‘The Diversity Advantage’,
speech to the Trans-Tasman Business Circle, June 4.
• May, Deborah (2014) ‘Cultural audit as a means of
uncovering unconscious bias and other barriers to
diversity within organisation’, Government Directions,
May.
• McKinsey (2010) Women Matter 2010; Women at the
top of corporations: Making it Happen, McKinsey and
Company.
• McKinsey (2015) Diversity Matters, February.
• Parkinson, Martin (2012) ‘Treasury progressing Women
Initiative: fostering cultural change over the long term’,
Address to CEDA (QLD) August 16.
• Soni, Vidu (2000) ‘A Twenty-First Century Reception for
Diversity in the Public Sector: A case study, Public
Administration Review, September/October, v.60.no.5.
• UN Women (2015) Re-thinking merit: why the
meritocracy is failing Australian businesses, UN
National Committee, Australia.
WELCOME

Professor Deborah Blackman

School of Business
University of New South Wales
Canberra

#ipaacef

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division 44

 Canberra Evaluation Forum on
Diversity
School of Business

Aiming for Inclusion in

all things
 Overview
• What do we want?
• Why Inclusion not just Diversity
• How might we make changes to achieve
Inclusion in ways that can be evaluated?
What do we want to be different?

• Values

• Behaviours

• Organizational Outcomes
Why Inclusion
• It’s the right thing to do
“It’s 2016” Trudeau

• Need different mental models for change

“Stop appointing white, aging economists”
McGregor
 Why Inclusion not Diversity?

• What is in a name?
• Diversity is an outcome where a diverse range
of individuals are represented.
• Inclusion is a process
• A person cannot be diversity but they can be
inclusive
 Why Inclusion not Diversity?

Inclusion: a sense of belonging; feeling respected; valued for who

you are; feeling a level of supportive energy and commitment from
others so than you can do your best work.
The process of inclusion engages each individual and makes people
feeling valued essential to the success of the organization.
Individuals function at full capacity, feel more valued, and included
in the organization’s mission. This culture shift creates high
performing organizations where motivation and morale soar.
Miller and Katz (2002) 
Diversity is the mix

Inclusion is creating the mix and getting them

to work effectively

Inclusion is a shift in organization culture.

Measurement and Effectiveness
Evaluating to achieve Inclusion?
Organizations do
not have agency
 Evaluating to achieve Inclusion?

• What do we need to evaluate?

• The outcomes of practices that can make a
difference
• Recruitment rather than Selection: Yes think
about bias but why was the pool not there to
start with?
 Evaluating to achieve Inclusion?

• Selection: Thinking about Performance

based on opportunity not just direct
comparison
• How was the short list actually developed?
How was the conversation in the room
managed?
 Evaluating to achieve Inclusion?

• Who is making decisions

• Who has access to critical information
• Job security
• Individual well-being
• Workgroup (social) integration
 Where next?
• Evaluating whether certain processes lead
to a range of outcomes
• Identify what will be working better if
there is both inclusion and diversity
• Chang the conversation
• Stop weighing the pig 
Thank You
References
Miller, Frederick A. and Katz, Judith H. 2002. The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real
Power of Diversity. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
WELCOME

Sarah Goulding
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

#ipaacef

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division 61

Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment:
Monitoring effectiveness in DFAT’s international development
Overview

• Context
• Strategy
• Development and effectiveness
International Context

• Global gross domestic product could rise by as much as 2 percent, or 1.5

trillion, if women and men entrepreneurs could participate equally in the
economy
• Women could increase their incomes by up to 76% if the employment
participation gap and wage gap between women and men were closed
• Women who are better educated have fewer, healthier and better-
educated children, which reduces dependency burdens and increases
savings
• Female farmers provided with equal access to resources could reduce
under-nutrition for an estimated 100 to 150 million people
• Violence against women undermines a community’s social fabric and
prevents women from achieving social and economic equality
• The participation of women in peace negotiations means it is more likely
a resolution will be reached and it will be maintained
Priority: Enhancing women’s voice in decision making,
leadership and peacebuilding
Priority: Promoting women’s economic empowerment
Priority: Ending violence against women and girls
Four commitments

1. Integrate gender equality and

women’s empowerment into
Australia’s foreign policy
2. Integrate gender equality and
women’s empowerment into aid for
trade investments and economic
diplomacy
3. Invest in gender equality through
Australia’s development program
4. Commit to promoting gender equality
in our corporate and human resource
policies and practices
Invest in gender equality through Australia’s development
program
Monitoring and evaluation

1. Accountability
2. Progress
3. Learning
Aid performance architecture

Aid policy
• Gender equality established as an aid investment priority
Making Performance Count
• Gender equality one of ten strategic performance targets
More than 80 percent of investments, regardless of their objectives, will
effectively address gender issues in their implementation.
• Performance of Australian Aid
• Annual Aid Performance Reports
• Aid Quality Checks
• Aggregate Development Results
• OECD DAC gender marker “gender spend”
Effectiveness

1. Data
2. Monitoring
 Effectiveness

Change is required from individual

through family, community and
national levels. It needs to happen
within formal systems as well as
within the informal rules and
practices which make up women’s
and men’s lives.
 QUESTION AND ANSWER

#ipaacef

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division

UPCOMING IPAA EVENT HIGHLIGHTS

We have some great events over the next month:

• Quit the Red Tape Habit – panel of speakers

Tuesday 22nd March

• Learning From Failure – Professor Peter Shergold

Monday 11th April

• Canberra Evaluation Forum – David Kalisch, ABS

Thursday 21st April

More information available at www.act.ipaa.org.au

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division 77

INNOVATION AWARDS

The inaugural Public Sector Innovation

Awards opened recently, in partnership
with the Public Sector Innovation Network:

• Awards open – 1 March

• Nominations due – 16 April

• Awards announced – 27 July

Information and nominations are

available online at www.act.ipaa.org.au

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division 78

 CANBERRA EVALUATION FORUM

THANK YOU
FOR ATTENDING

THURSDAY 17 MARCH 2016

#ipaacef

Institute of Public Administration Australia ACT Division