Executive Style

A blokey culture that costs the country billions in wasted resources

William Pesek
October 8, 2011
A

Aussie mateship ... probably not great for the economy.

Paul Hogan's reptile-wrestling tough guy from the 1986 movie Crocodile Dundee typified Australia's reputation for "mateship", a creed of male friendship that often excludes women. A quarter of a century on, it's costing the country billions.

Don't take my word for it - take the Prime Minister's. ''I've always thought the Australian culture is blokey," Julia Gillard said last month. "It's not acceptable to me in the modern age that we can look at boards of major corporations and not see one woman."

Nor should it be to the men ruling over those corporate suites. If basic fairness won't convince them, hit them with something harder to ignore: money. Women earn about 17 per cent less than men. Narrowing this gap by just 1 percentage point could boost gross domestic product by $4.4 billion, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia reports.

Australia's economic boom is about the coal and iron ore it ships to China. Oddly, the nation's executives aren't mining the hidden resource of women. Unconscious or not, bias costs the $1.3 trillion economy as much as 13 per cent in lost annual production, Goldman Sachs estimates. Sexism is bad economics, and if it's squandering growth in advanced, Western-thinking economies like Australia, you can just imagine how it's affecting some Asian countries.

Take Japan. If its female employment rate matched the male rate - one of the highest anywhere at about 80 per cent - GDP would get a boost of as much as 15 per cent, Kathy Matsui, a Tokyo strategist at Goldman Sachs, estimated last year. South Korea has trouble with women, too. In 2010, it ranked a dismal 104th in a World Economic Forum report on the gap between men and women. It trailed the United Arab Emirates, Suriname and Azerbaijan. That's quite a blemish on an otherwise successful economy (Japan ranked 94th).

South-east Asia's record is mixed, given the diversity of cultures and living standards. Yet it also leaves room for improvement. The same goes for south Asia, which like south-east Asia has had its fair share of female leaders without commensurate gains in participation in corporate boardrooms or legislatures.

The Asian economies that tend to do best in equality analyses are the Philippines and Sri Lanka. Such rankings track progress on economic opportunity, education, politics, health and survival. It's not that life is always great for women in the Philippines and Sri Lanka. To get ahead, all too many work abroad apart from families and send remittances back home. If that's our definition of empowerment, we need to rethink it.

This sex gap undermines the quality of life of one-half of nations' populations and poses risks to long-term growth and well-being of societies. For an economy to fully use only half its labour force is to tie a limb behind its back.

In this age of globalisation and fast-rising competition, it's a wonder leaders don't address this senseless imbalance.

Developing economies in Asia and the Pacific-island region are losing up to $47 billion annually because of women's limited access to employment opportunities, and an additional $16 billion to $30 billion because of gender gaps in education, according to the Asian Development Bank.

That also goes for the most developed of nations, like Australia. It has only one female chief executive among its 30 biggest companies. At 8.4 per cent, Australia's female board representation lags behind major English-speaking nations. The irony is that Australia is often an equality trailblazer. It fielded its first female political candidate in 1897, decades before most Western nations granted universal suffrage. It is enacting new passport rules allowing citizens to list their official gender as male, female or indeterminate, without having to undergo surgery as proof of a sex change.

Australia is also ending a 110-year ban on women serving in front-line combat roles.

Yet Gillard finds herself the subject of indignities that escape male politicians. The extent to which she's finding respect hard to come by was apparent in a recent episode of the ABC's At Home With Julia television comedy. It depicted Gillard lying naked under the nation's flag after having sex in her office with her boyfriend, Tim Mathieson, and being interrupted by a colleague knocking at the door. Protesters annoyed with Gillard's policies, including a carbon tax, have shown up bearing placards reading ''Ditch the Witch''.

Australia is a great country, and it's not exactly a bastion of sexism, "Crocodile Dundee" stereotypes aside. Yet statistics showing Australia's female board representation is almost half that of South Africa's boggle the mind.

Discrimination exists, and if Australia doesn't attack its blokey ways, investors may have reason to go walkabout.

Bloomberg

twitter   Follow ExecutiveStyle on Twitter

61 comments so far

  • This unnecessary attack on 'mateship' is a clumsy and offensive way to get attention for an important and legitimate concern about lingering sexism in Australia. 'Mateship' as an agreed national value generally refers to qualities of selflessness, fairness and loyalty - all antithetical to excluding people based on gender. 'Misogyny' is the m-word the author was looking for.

    Commenter
    Anonymous
    Location
    Canberra
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 1:52PM
  • gender discrimination exists while the degree of discrimination is greater for the people from non-english speaking background. Every year, the government brings in a large amount of skilled immigrates, while the discrimination keeps them out of jobs or working for less skilled jobs. if we don't want to use their skills, why spends money to bring them in? just to boost our population or make home ownership more difficult?

    Commenter
    iwonder
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 2:15PM
  • The gender pay gap is a myth. In my 8 years as a working professional, I've yet to witness any sort of pay discrimination due to gender.

    Even in grand-slam tennis where, from a 'volume of work completed' perspective, the women only play best of 3 sets, the women get equal prize money. (I personally don't think the women can last best 3 of 5 sets over a 2 week period, but that's just my opinion). Theoretically, the women *should* be paid less due to the lower volume of completed sets. However, the women are on an equal footing in the pay stakes due to the sponsorship deals as the women's game also draws a large, and deserving, audience.

    (Sorry about the long-winded tennis rant. Just had an argument with a colleague a few minutes ago about this).

    Commenter
    lm
    Location
    Sydney CBD
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 2:09PM
  • And how many of the men here saying "there's no problem" have stay-at-home wives (I call them "the underemployed", because of their failure to contribute to the economy despite being adults) who look after everything outside work for them? Why do you expect them to not work, and be house slave for you? You are buggering the economy by encouraging this dependent behaviour, and your wives are acting like children or servants in being so dependent. When you dump them for being boring, they will be broke and resentful. No doubt you resent the working women around you, who show that it IS possible to work & be a decent parent.

    Commenter
    Tired of BS...
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 2:28PM
  • What else would you expect from Gillard? She isn't the PM because of her ability (that is ever so obvious) rather than that it suited the party room hacks at the time. Elevating women to positions of power simply to address the gender imbalance is fraught with danger and Australia is paying the price now. Labor incompetents and incompetence has never been so obvious. Refusing to accept that they have made a mistake only compounds the problem.
    Would Tired of BS (comments 7 and 8) want us to believe that she has been through uni and been overlooked for management positions? If they way her comments have been constructed it is little wonder she is still on the bottom rung looking up. Senior people in any business should be able to construct sentences with meaning, not just string together a few words and hope it gets the message across.
    Promoting women simply because the government says there has to be X number of females on the board or in management positions of any firm does nothing to strengthen the position of that business, it simply means the best person is not always promoted to the position. Denying ones own inadequacies and trying to blame their lack of promotion on their gender is a problem a lot of females face.

    Commenter
    Gra
    Location
    Country and proud of it
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 2:51PM
  • I agree that placing women in a position simply to meet quotas is stupid- for management roles (where the best person really can make or break the business), this is particularly important.
    However (@ Andrew), Tired of BS was referring to the opposite situation- whereby people are kept back for no reason other than the fact that they are women.
    She also referred to scenarios where women worked longer hours- so much for the stories of 'uncommitted' female staff!
    I'm a full time worker (and always have been). If- one day- I choose to have kids, I'm happy to reassess the situation, but until then, I should get paid the same for the same amount of work put in.

    Commenter
    casism
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 3:50PM
  • Tired of BS... | Sydney - October 11, 2011, 2:32PM : "Can YOU explain why female graduates earn less straight out of uni, in the same roles?"

    Yes. Employers are willing to invest less when less retrun on investment is presumed.

    I think women should earn less. They work less in their lifetime, therefore being worth less. That's the reality. You're not the only one tired of BS.

    Commenter
    Adrian
    Location
    Adelaide
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 3:40PM
  • @Im, "In my 8 years as a working professional, I've yet to witness any sort of pay discrimination due to gender"

    And when were you in a position to witness it? I've been a professional much longer than 8 years and I've yet to get access to everyone's pay packets.

    @Gra, I had no trouble whatever understanding what Tired of BS was saying. I submit that you're having a problem with the message, not its delivery.

    Commenter
    photondancer
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 3:31PM
  • To correct my last comment the word is Misandry... I hope my new invented word doesnt make it to the Oxford Dictionary.

    But there should be more male and female friendships... without the sexual awkwardness. All it takes is discipline.

    Commenter
    Simon
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 4:12PM
  • I don't understand

    - Prime Minister = Female
    - Governor General = Female
    - Qld Premier = Female
    - Last NSW Premier = Female
    - Aust. Richest Person = Female
    - Big Four Bank CEO = 1 Female
    - Federal Ministers = Getting close to 50/50 I believe

    So where's the inequality. If a woman wants to succeed she can in this country. The hard work has been done over the past 40 years for feminism. Welcome to the male world of dog eat dog if you can't cut then don't blame gender for not making it. Men have been dealing with this for years.

    Commenter
    Getoverit
    Location
    Melb
    Date and time
    October 11, 2011, 4:31PM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

More Related Coverage

Working 9-to-5 not that easy for older women

Older women are often phased out of employment before they're ready, or financially able, according to a new report