WEBVTT - Gender Inequality in Leadership is Solvable 0:00:15.076 --> 0:00:21.756 Pushkin. I'm Mave Higgins, and this is solvable Interviews with 0:00:21.836 --> 0:00:25.676 the world's most innovative thinkers working to solve the world's 0:00:25.676 --> 0:00:30.116 biggest problems. My solvable is that by twenty thirty we 0:00:30.196 --> 0:00:33.076 can make sure every girl gets a great education and 0:00:33.156 --> 0:00:35.316 she gets a chance to be a leader. What makes 0:00:35.356 --> 0:00:38.316 me want to solve this problem is my life experience. 0:00:38.516 --> 0:00:41.956 I know how transformative education is, and having had the 0:00:42.036 --> 0:00:44.956 privilege of being a leader, I want to see more 0:00:45.076 --> 0:00:49.716 women get access to leadership positions. That is Julia Gillard, 0:00:49.996 --> 0:00:52.676 the first and so far the only woman to be 0:00:52.756 --> 0:00:56.716 Prime Minister of Australia. She left Offers in two thirteen. 0:00:57.596 --> 0:01:01.036 As you'll hear, leaving Offers was tough for her. Getting 0:01:01.036 --> 0:01:03.636 there in the first place was even tougher, though, and 0:01:03.756 --> 0:01:07.916 this isn't surprising. Around the world and throughout different industries 0:01:07.956 --> 0:01:12.836 and rules, women leaders are actually on the decline. Forbes 0:01:12.956 --> 0:01:16.276 reported that women held under a quarter of senior roles 0:01:16.276 --> 0:01:19.716 across the world in twenty eighteen, and women represent just 0:01:19.916 --> 0:01:26.076 five percent of Fourtune five hundred CEOs. But we're jumping ahead. Globally, 0:01:26.396 --> 0:01:29.236 girls are more likely than boys to be excluded from 0:01:29.236 --> 0:01:32.836 primary school and women make up more than two thirds 0:01:32.836 --> 0:01:36.916 of the world's nearly eight hundred million illiterate people. But 0:01:37.196 --> 0:01:39.156 say you're one of the lucky ones, you go to school, 0:01:39.196 --> 0:01:42.276 you go to college, you excel in your field, it's 0:01:42.316 --> 0:01:46.316 still unlikely that you'll actually become a leader. Just in 0:01:46.356 --> 0:01:50.076 the United States alone, that figures are pretty bad. Take medicine, 0:01:50.076 --> 0:01:54.316 where women represent forty percent of all physicians and surgeons, 0:01:54.316 --> 0:01:58.436 but fewer than one in five are permanent medical school deans. 0:01:59.316 --> 0:02:02.836 Or look at academia, women have actually earned the majority 0:02:02.876 --> 0:02:06.756 of doctorates for eight consecutive years, but they are only 0:02:06.796 --> 0:02:10.476 thirty two percent of full time professors. And looking again 0:02:10.676 --> 0:02:12.796 at the world of business. Here in the US, the 0:02:12.876 --> 0:02:17.836 Government Accountability Office recently published a report on improving gender 0:02:17.876 --> 0:02:21.836 diversity on boards. It says the importance of diversity must 0:02:21.836 --> 0:02:26.516 be emphasized and a diverse set of underrepresented candidates required. 0:02:27.156 --> 0:02:30.196 It also says boards should have age or term limits, 0:02:30.196 --> 0:02:33.076 and other countries have done that and more and they've 0:02:33.076 --> 0:02:37.196 seen results, and that includes Australia. Today we have this 0:02:37.276 --> 0:02:41.516 really great exchange between Malcolm Gladwell and Julia Gillard. Gillard 0:02:41.636 --> 0:02:44.796 started her career as a lawyer in Melbourne coming to 0:02:45.196 --> 0:02:48.036 politics in nineteen ninety eight when she was elected to 0:02:48.076 --> 0:02:52.716 the Australian House of Representatives, before becoming their first woman 0:02:52.756 --> 0:02:55.636 Prime minister in two and ten. She was the first 0:02:55.756 --> 0:02:58.836 woman Deputy Prime Minister and the first woman leader of 0:02:58.876 --> 0:03:02.756 a major party. Following her term as Prime Minister, she's 0:03:02.796 --> 0:03:07.556 accepted fellowships and visiting professorships at universities around the world, 0:03:07.916 --> 0:03:11.596 and she currently chairs the Global Institute for Women's Leadership 0:03:12.156 --> 0:03:15.716 over at King's College in London. They have omitsion to 0:03:15.956 --> 0:03:20.796 better understands why women continue to be underrepresented in positions 0:03:20.876 --> 0:03:24.316 of leadership. So let's hear what you've got to say. 0:03:25.876 --> 0:03:29.356 You served as Prime Minister of Australia and you had 0:03:29.396 --> 0:03:31.836 the question that faces anyone coming out of high office, 0:03:31.876 --> 0:03:34.396 which is what do I do next? And tell me 0:03:34.436 --> 0:03:36.476 how you came to decide what you wanted to do 0:03:36.556 --> 0:03:40.556 next and what was sort of the what led you 0:03:40.636 --> 0:03:43.596 on the particular course that you're on now. It's a 0:03:43.596 --> 0:03:45.876 fair old punch when you come out of a big 0:03:45.916 --> 0:03:48.756 position like that. You don't realize how tired you are 0:03:48.876 --> 0:03:51.636 until you stop. So I did give myself a little 0:03:51.636 --> 0:03:54.396 bit of time to do some grieving about what was 0:03:54.476 --> 0:03:58.036 lost in some physical recovery. But in that period I 0:03:58.116 --> 0:04:01.356 tried to think through what is it about this that 0:04:01.436 --> 0:04:03.356 I want to take with me and what is it 0:04:03.396 --> 0:04:06.436 I want to discard? And when I worked my way 0:04:06.436 --> 0:04:09.796 through that, it was clear that the ongoing passion I'd 0:04:09.836 --> 0:04:12.916 had was around education, so I wanted to take that 0:04:13.036 --> 0:04:17.396 with me. And then, having had a really transformative set 0:04:17.396 --> 0:04:20.956 of experiences around being a female leader, I wanted to 0:04:20.996 --> 0:04:23.636 do something to make a difference for other women and 0:04:23.676 --> 0:04:26.316 their prospects for coming through for leadership. It's what do 0:04:26.356 --> 0:04:30.836 you use the word grieving? But so you didn't think 0:04:30.876 --> 0:04:33.436 of it. I mean, as I would have said, you 0:04:33.476 --> 0:04:36.836 would have come out of it with a sense of triumph. 0:04:36.956 --> 0:04:40.636 Oh no, you don't. There aren't too many elegant ways 0:04:40.716 --> 0:04:46.036 out of politics. Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating rang 0:04:46.156 --> 0:04:49.916 me the day after I lost office and by way 0:04:49.956 --> 0:04:52.916 of consolation, said to me, we all get taken out 0:04:52.916 --> 0:04:56.436 in a box. Love. Thanks for that, Paul. But the 0:04:56.476 --> 0:05:00.076 truth of politics is either your party knocks you over 0:05:00.356 --> 0:05:04.076 or the electors knock you over. Not many people actually 0:05:04.156 --> 0:05:07.116 pick the moment that they're going to gracefully exit politics, 0:05:07.516 --> 0:05:10.796 And so you know it's in such a public high 0:05:10.836 --> 0:05:13.916 wire act and then such a public defeat that I 0:05:13.956 --> 0:05:18.196 think grieving is the right word. Yeah, but you didn't 0:05:18.196 --> 0:05:20.396 take how much consolation did you take in the fact 0:05:20.436 --> 0:05:23.436 that you had broken through for women? You were the 0:05:23.436 --> 0:05:26.676 first female prime minister of Australia. Oh, I'm very proud 0:05:26.716 --> 0:05:29.836 of that, and I don't want to overdramatize this some 0:05:30.276 --> 0:05:33.916 grieving period. I don't feel like that now, But I 0:05:34.196 --> 0:05:39.676 did let myself have a number of weeks where I 0:05:39.716 --> 0:05:43.636 didn't do very much. I just recuperated, and I did 0:05:43.716 --> 0:05:47.476 allow the emotions of the loss to be with me. 0:05:47.876 --> 0:05:50.156 And then you can put it aside. But if you've 0:05:50.196 --> 0:05:52.796 never let it course through you, then I think it 0:05:52.916 --> 0:05:56.196 probably manifests several years down the track, probably in a 0:05:56.476 --> 0:06:00.676 mutated and unpleasant kind of way. But since that period, 0:06:00.836 --> 0:06:04.316 I've been very focused on the new challenges, and when 0:06:04.316 --> 0:06:06.916 I look back on the past, it's with a sense 0:06:06.956 --> 0:06:11.836 of pride, with less learned, with things to share. I'm 0:06:11.916 --> 0:06:14.396 very glad I did it, and I'm a great advocate 0:06:14.476 --> 0:06:17.516 for people doing it. I don't think there's any better 0:06:17.516 --> 0:06:20.836 opportunity than politics to put your values into action and 0:06:20.876 --> 0:06:23.916 to make the most change when you said that you 0:06:23.996 --> 0:06:28.356 came out of this experience with a desire to further 0:06:28.396 --> 0:06:32.396 opportunities for women in positions of leadership. When you think 0:06:32.436 --> 0:06:35.996 back in your time in office, how many female peers 0:06:36.036 --> 0:06:41.396 did you have in your political circle? Fortunately, quite a few. 0:06:41.676 --> 0:06:44.796 We were on a journey of change as a political party. 0:06:44.836 --> 0:06:47.036 We'd had a lot of women come in around the 0:06:47.076 --> 0:06:50.716 time I came into parliament in the mid nineteen nineties, 0:06:50.956 --> 0:06:54.276 and so some of my most senior ministerial colleagues were women, 0:06:55.116 --> 0:06:58.196 Jenny Macklin and Nicola Roxon and Tanya pleber Sek, and 0:06:58.236 --> 0:07:01.916 the list goes on, Penny Wong. So I did feel 0:07:02.116 --> 0:07:05.716 well supported and surrounded by women. Are still a minority 0:07:06.236 --> 0:07:09.356 in our political party, in the ministry and certainly in 0:07:09.396 --> 0:07:13.276 the Parliament, but a sense of sisterhood there. Yeah, what 0:07:13.436 --> 0:07:16.596 percentage when you were primaries to what percentage of parliament was? 0:07:16.956 --> 0:07:21.236 Were women round? About twenty five percent in the House 0:07:21.276 --> 0:07:24.036 of Representatives and about a third in the Senate. And 0:07:24.116 --> 0:07:28.156 that number had already increased dramatically over the course of 0:07:28.556 --> 0:07:30.916 going back at ten or fifteen years previously, what would 0:07:30.916 --> 0:07:34.596 it have been? Oh, yes, that had increased dramatically. If 0:07:34.636 --> 0:07:38.836 you went back to the early nineteen nineties, the figure 0:07:38.876 --> 0:07:42.756 would have been around fourteen percent for the Parliament. So yes, 0:07:42.796 --> 0:07:45.796 there'd been a big change, and particularly a big change 0:07:45.836 --> 0:07:49.636 in the Labor Party because we'd adopted an affirmative action rules, 0:07:49.716 --> 0:07:52.556 so a certain percentage of seats had to go to women, 0:07:52.756 --> 0:07:55.556 and that percentage had grown over time to forty percent. 0:07:55.756 --> 0:07:58.916 So a very dramatic change in Labor. Yeah. Yeah, I 0:07:58.916 --> 0:08:02.756 want to come back to the role of these those 0:08:02.836 --> 0:08:07.116 kinds of rules in terms of bringing about changes opposed 0:08:07.116 --> 0:08:10.996 to attitudes. I think it's really important one, but I 0:08:11.036 --> 0:08:14.036 wanted to before I get there. I'm curious about a 0:08:14.036 --> 0:08:16.716 couple of things. One is that this question of numbers. 0:08:17.196 --> 0:08:20.276 So if you said it was twenty five percent when 0:08:20.276 --> 0:08:22.716 you were there, how high does it have to be 0:08:22.716 --> 0:08:27.036 before the issue starts to go away. I'm not sure 0:08:27.076 --> 0:08:29.636 that you can put a mathematical number on that, but 0:08:29.716 --> 0:08:34.316 there's plenty of research that says, you know, one woman 0:08:34.556 --> 0:08:36.956 can't make the difference, but once you get up to 0:08:37.076 --> 0:08:40.276 figures like a third, then you do start to see changes, 0:08:40.556 --> 0:08:43.636 And intuitively that seems to me to be around about 0:08:43.796 --> 0:08:46.876 right that to have an impact on cultural mores and 0:08:46.996 --> 0:08:50.676 the way that institutions work, you need at least a third. Yeah, 0:08:50.796 --> 0:08:54.036 do you think that had there been a third or see, 0:08:54.076 --> 0:08:57.436 let's see, forty percent of the Parliament have been female 0:08:57.436 --> 0:08:59.396 at the time you were Prime Minister, that would have 0:08:59.436 --> 0:09:04.876 tempered some of the misogyny virtue feast, not necessarily, unfortunately. 0:09:04.916 --> 0:09:07.116 I'd love to be able to say yes to that question. 0:09:07.356 --> 0:09:11.396 But it wasn't just within the Parliament that there was 0:09:11.436 --> 0:09:14.756 an issue about gender and gendered insults. That was you know, 0:09:14.836 --> 0:09:18.516 profoundly in the media, in social media, and so I 0:09:18.556 --> 0:09:21.756 think it would have flowed anyway. And then because the 0:09:21.836 --> 0:09:25.356 political contest is a fierce one, and I think it 0:09:25.356 --> 0:09:28.316 should be. I mean, you're contending about values and big 0:09:28.356 --> 0:09:32.316 picture issues, so people should be strongly engaged in that 0:09:32.356 --> 0:09:35.636 clash of ideas. But because that clash is so strong, 0:09:36.676 --> 0:09:39.796 it's you know, it would really be naive to say, well, 0:09:39.996 --> 0:09:43.636 women never participate in using that gendered imagery. That's not 0:09:43.716 --> 0:09:47.076 my experience. Yeah, but it doesn't change the claimate for 0:09:47.196 --> 0:09:50.236 someone in gigaging in that kind of rhetoric. Is it 0:09:50.276 --> 0:09:52.116 different when they look around it and they see lots 0:09:52.116 --> 0:09:54.996 of female faces and when they look around, do they 0:09:54.996 --> 0:09:58.796 have last permission to speak that way when they're in 0:09:58.916 --> 0:10:03.876 a more female environment. I think ultimately, the more women 0:10:03.916 --> 0:10:07.116 there are, the less permission there is to speak that way. 0:10:07.476 --> 0:10:13.956 And second, the more or public pressure and advocacy about 0:10:13.996 --> 0:10:17.836 being better about women and leadership, the more things will change. 0:10:17.996 --> 0:10:21.116 I mean, I lived with the phenomenon of social media, 0:10:21.316 --> 0:10:24.676 but you know, it was relatively recent. I mean, social 0:10:24.716 --> 0:10:27.876 media is being turbo charged in the time since, and 0:10:27.956 --> 0:10:32.196 now social media is often used to call out someone 0:10:32.236 --> 0:10:35.156 who's engaged in sexist conduct. I mean, this is the 0:10:35.236 --> 0:10:37.956 legacy of the Me Too movement, but it goes beyond 0:10:38.556 --> 0:10:41.756 the issue of sexual harassment. There wasn't much of that 0:10:41.876 --> 0:10:44.116 when I was there, so in some ways we were 0:10:44.116 --> 0:10:47.316 getting the negative side of social media without that more 0:10:47.396 --> 0:10:52.316 positive side of trying to advocate for better ways of 0:10:52.396 --> 0:10:57.156 including people in dialogue without name calling or using gendered insults. 0:10:57.276 --> 0:11:01.676 There's an interesting distinction between the participation of women as 0:11:01.716 --> 0:11:05.196 a whole and participation of women in the highest levels 0:11:05.196 --> 0:11:08.036 of leadership. And I'm wondering, are there one problem or 0:11:08.036 --> 0:11:11.436 are there two problems? Can you if you solve the 0:11:11.556 --> 0:11:15.556 first question of general participation, do you inevitably solve the second, 0:11:15.676 --> 0:11:18.636 or is there a whole different battle that has to 0:11:18.636 --> 0:11:21.716 be fired about getting women from the backbenches to the 0:11:22.596 --> 0:11:27.436 cabinet or to the prime minister's office. I think they're related, 0:11:28.396 --> 0:11:32.756 but not the same problem. So you're never going to 0:11:32.796 --> 0:11:36.876 see equal ministries or women be prime ministers an equal 0:11:36.916 --> 0:11:39.916 amount of time unless you've got a backbench that's round 0:11:39.956 --> 0:11:42.276 about half half, because you don't even have people in 0:11:42.276 --> 0:11:47.356 the qualifying ring. But you then still need to change 0:11:47.396 --> 0:11:49.876 a set of other things to make sure women are 0:11:49.876 --> 0:11:56.116 coming through for leadership, including this public media reception and 0:11:56.196 --> 0:11:59.596 how gendered that is very practical set of questions for 0:11:59.636 --> 0:12:03.516 women with kids around work and family life. Even the 0:12:03.916 --> 0:12:08.676 attraction or lack of it for women to these combative 0:12:08.796 --> 0:12:13.356 sort of occupations. I think all of that needs some attention, 0:12:13.756 --> 0:12:17.916 but it starts with getting half half on the back bench. Yeah, 0:12:17.996 --> 0:12:20.236 in terms of because I was thinking this in terms 0:12:20.276 --> 0:12:22.836 of if you think about from the perspective of a voter, 0:12:23.196 --> 0:12:26.676 I've always wondered whether the act of voting for a 0:12:26.716 --> 0:12:31.556 female candidate prepares you adequately for the act of supporting 0:12:31.596 --> 0:12:36.476 a female leader, or whether one might actually be an 0:12:36.516 --> 0:12:39.676 excuse night to do the other. That because I've voted 0:12:39.716 --> 0:12:42.036 for a female candidate and no longer feel I need 0:12:42.036 --> 0:12:44.876 to support a female female leader. So the get I've 0:12:44.916 --> 0:12:49.156 given it the office kind of. I think in this 0:12:49.276 --> 0:12:52.556 area of gender and leadership there is a bit of 0:12:52.636 --> 0:12:55.996 giving it the office. I think that's true in the 0:12:56.036 --> 0:12:59.436 corporate world as well as in politics. There is actually 0:12:59.516 --> 0:13:04.596 research that shows that many chairs of boards of directors 0:13:04.636 --> 0:13:07.276 and CEOs, when they get the one woman, you know, 0:13:07.316 --> 0:13:09.356 the one woman on the board, the one and in 0:13:09.396 --> 0:13:12.756 the c suite, then go take that box, that gender thing. 0:13:12.796 --> 0:13:15.756 We've done that, let's move on. So a bit of 0:13:15.796 --> 0:13:20.796 giving it the office. I think in politics, voting for 0:13:20.876 --> 0:13:25.276 a female candidate is a great start, but we shouldn't 0:13:25.276 --> 0:13:28.356 assume just because people are prepared to vote for female 0:13:28.396 --> 0:13:31.516 candidates that they'll look at a female leader and receive 0:13:31.636 --> 0:13:36.076 her and evaluate her equally. There's plenty of psychological research 0:13:36.156 --> 0:13:40.076 about all unconscious biases, the little whispers in the back 0:13:40.116 --> 0:13:43.236 of our head that tell us that when women come 0:13:43.276 --> 0:13:47.236 through for leadership, they're probably not very likable, probably very 0:13:47.276 --> 0:13:51.756 hard bitten, difficult to get along with, and that then 0:13:51.996 --> 0:13:56.116 refracts into how much sense of connection do you feel 0:13:56.116 --> 0:13:58.716 to the leader, how much are you prepared to follow her, 0:13:58.916 --> 0:14:01.996 how critical or harsh your evaluation is if she gets 0:14:02.036 --> 0:14:05.636 into some political trouble, And inevitably, if you're in politics, 0:14:05.636 --> 0:14:08.196 you'll get into trouble one day. So I think that 0:14:08.276 --> 0:14:10.876 there's a set of other things that have to happen. 0:14:11.396 --> 0:14:15.116 But I don't think people sit there and say, oh, 0:14:15.156 --> 0:14:17.916 I've voted for a woman, so job done. I do 0:14:17.996 --> 0:14:20.916 think that there's an appetite in the community to see 0:14:20.996 --> 0:14:24.676 more women come through. If your task is to increase 0:14:25.436 --> 0:14:28.076 your goal is to increase the number of female leaders, 0:14:28.196 --> 0:14:30.796 particularly in areas where there have been very few, I'm 0:14:30.836 --> 0:14:34.436 curious about how strategic one should be. So I'm remembering 0:14:35.076 --> 0:14:37.916 during the Civil rights movement in America. You know, there 0:14:37.996 --> 0:14:40.996 was a Rosa Parks was the woman who was chosen 0:14:41.636 --> 0:14:45.756 to desegregate the buses of Montgomery, and she was chosen 0:14:46.076 --> 0:14:49.836 very deliberately. They wanted a woman of a certain age, 0:14:49.876 --> 0:14:53.636 of a certain background, of impeccable character, of and on, 0:14:53.676 --> 0:14:55.556 because they knew they had one shot to sort of 0:14:55.556 --> 0:14:58.636 make their And I had the same feeling when I met. 0:15:00.756 --> 0:15:04.396 She's now left, but she was the Secretary of the 0:15:04.436 --> 0:15:07.716 Air Force in the current administration in America. I happen 0:15:07.796 --> 0:15:10.836 to meet her and I thought, Oh, there's a woman. 0:15:10.876 --> 0:15:15.236 If she ran, could become president. I don't know why 0:15:15.236 --> 0:15:17.956 I felt that, but I felt that, and we can 0:15:17.996 --> 0:15:20.116 talk about why I felt that. But I'm curious about 0:15:20.716 --> 0:15:23.996 is that a worthwhile activity, that kind of strategizing at 0:15:24.036 --> 0:15:27.156 the beginning about who and do you have it? Do 0:15:27.196 --> 0:15:28.796 you have a picture in your mind about who the 0:15:28.796 --> 0:15:34.956 pioneer should be. I'm really cautious about that. And I'm 0:15:34.996 --> 0:15:39.036 cautious about it because I sort of learned my feminism 0:15:39.556 --> 0:15:43.836 doing things like reading and summers. A great Australian feminist 0:15:43.916 --> 0:15:48.396 wrote an incredibly important book called Damn Who's and God's Police, 0:15:48.876 --> 0:15:52.516 and it was an analysis of women's roles in the 0:15:52.596 --> 0:15:57.716 early days of when the United Kingdom started sending convicts 0:15:57.716 --> 0:16:00.596 to Australia, and she was making the point that there 0:16:00.596 --> 0:16:03.636 were really only two ways to be a woman. You 0:16:03.676 --> 0:16:07.356 were either the virtuous one or you were a damned whore, 0:16:07.556 --> 0:16:11.196 and there was nothing in between. And I would worry 0:16:11.236 --> 0:16:15.596 that we're going to uplift that template and say, you know, 0:16:15.956 --> 0:16:21.596 here's Pearl pure Heart, who is this incredible person who's 0:16:21.796 --> 0:16:24.636 never put anybody's needs in front of her own and 0:16:24.756 --> 0:16:28.836 she's the perfect candidate. You know, why do we lift 0:16:28.956 --> 0:16:30.956 that burden up and put it on the shoulders of 0:16:30.956 --> 0:16:32.796 women when we don't lift it up and put it 0:16:32.796 --> 0:16:36.636 on the shoulders of men. They can be self interested, petty, 0:16:38.276 --> 0:16:41.916 angry and still end up president and prime minister and 0:16:42.116 --> 0:16:45.076 all of the other things around the world, CEO, chair 0:16:45.116 --> 0:16:50.396 of the board. So I'm anxious about that, but I'm 0:16:50.436 --> 0:16:55.356 not naive either. You know, when the US, and obviously 0:16:55.396 --> 0:16:59.796 we're in primary season now, when the US next looks 0:16:59.836 --> 0:17:03.556 towards a female candidate, I think there will be a 0:17:03.636 --> 0:17:07.436 lot of reflection on what is it that will make 0:17:07.516 --> 0:17:11.716 her the most electable, particularly having been through the scarring 0:17:11.796 --> 0:17:15.876 experience with Hillary. But just something in it me just 0:17:15.996 --> 0:17:20.156 feels quite itchy and irritated by the stereotyping. But it's 0:17:20.196 --> 0:17:24.156 interesting though that the rules are different for the dominant 0:17:24.156 --> 0:17:27.596 group and the group that's trying to get in right. 0:17:27.716 --> 0:17:31.596 The dominant group has extraordinary latitude and who they as you. 0:17:31.996 --> 0:17:41.516 I don't need to nickname names, but you can be boorish, narcissistic, unqualified, 0:17:41.516 --> 0:17:44.476 ill equipped for you know, unknowledgeable. I could go on 0:17:44.596 --> 0:17:48.076 and be elected as a man like bar is quite low, 0:17:48.356 --> 0:17:51.796 but the bar very high for the first woman or 0:17:51.836 --> 0:17:55.036 the second reading the second woman, that's the only reason 0:17:55.116 --> 0:17:57.796 I But now I'm thinking of this woman who was 0:17:57.836 --> 0:18:00.076 the secretary of the Air Force. But I'm wondering, is 0:18:00.116 --> 0:18:04.636 my perception of what electability is am I simply reinforcing 0:18:05.516 --> 0:18:07.996 my own stereotypes about women when I when I go 0:18:08.116 --> 0:18:11.636 through the analysis of what electability means, I think it 0:18:11.836 --> 0:18:14.516 is a little problematic in the sense that there's a 0:18:14.596 --> 0:18:20.316 set of assumptions about potential stereotyping of women candidates. So 0:18:20.676 --> 0:18:23.116 I think you're attracted to a candidate with a military 0:18:23.116 --> 0:18:27.116 background because you're working off the assumption that a female 0:18:27.116 --> 0:18:28.796 candidate is going to be looked at and people are 0:18:28.796 --> 0:18:33.116 going to think, is she too soft? Press the button 0:18:33.196 --> 0:18:35.516 one day if that's ever needed in the defense of 0:18:35.516 --> 0:18:38.996 the United States, And so you're all ready going for 0:18:39.036 --> 0:18:43.916 the stereotype and trying to then counteract the stereotype in 0:18:43.996 --> 0:18:49.276 the candidate. And that's practical and smart, and if you 0:18:49.316 --> 0:18:52.196 were getting a job as a political advisor, you'd probably 0:18:52.276 --> 0:18:54.916 need to be doing all of those things. But I 0:18:55.156 --> 0:18:59.516 still worry about the stereotyping underneath. Is the problem different? 0:18:59.876 --> 0:19:04.196 For business and politics. Is it harder to get women 0:19:04.236 --> 0:19:07.356 into the c suite in corporation and it is to 0:19:07.396 --> 0:19:11.276 get a woman into a relationship position in politics or 0:19:11.356 --> 0:19:14.636 the opposite. I think they're different kinds of hard, And 0:19:14.676 --> 0:19:17.596 if we look at the global statistics, it's telling us 0:19:17.636 --> 0:19:20.956 that they're different kinds of hard, because the number of 0:19:21.156 --> 0:19:25.156 women who are either political leaders or senior managers is 0:19:25.196 --> 0:19:28.356 around about the same in the twenty five percent zone globally. 0:19:28.676 --> 0:19:31.836 When we actually look at women on corporate boards globally, 0:19:31.836 --> 0:19:34.676 it's down at the fifteen percent range, And by the 0:19:34.716 --> 0:19:37.476 time you're talking about senior leaders in it, you're down 0:19:37.476 --> 0:19:40.196 at the nine percent range. So it's a different kind 0:19:40.196 --> 0:19:43.196 of hard. I think the heart in politics is a 0:19:43.236 --> 0:19:46.636 lot about how women are received in the public square 0:19:46.716 --> 0:19:49.676 and treated in the public square. I think a lot 0:19:49.716 --> 0:19:54.836 of the hard in business is about the tracks the 0:19:54.916 --> 0:19:59.396 pipeline where the women are in the areas that take 0:19:59.476 --> 0:20:02.796 you to leadership already from the start of their careers 0:20:03.036 --> 0:20:05.676 in those areas that might take you to being head 0:20:05.676 --> 0:20:08.996 of HR, but no further. And then there's a set 0:20:09.036 --> 0:20:12.916 of unconscious biases and male networks which come into play 0:20:12.956 --> 0:20:15.556 that make it harder for women to come through. When 0:20:15.596 --> 0:20:17.956 it comes to business, there's been a lot of focus 0:20:18.116 --> 0:20:20.876 on the role of the number of women on boards. 0:20:21.396 --> 0:20:25.316 I'm curious, do do we think that solving the board 0:20:25.436 --> 0:20:30.396 problem is the most important thing in in increasing a 0:20:30.476 --> 0:20:34.596 number of women in the c suite? Or is that? Well? 0:20:34.916 --> 0:20:37.436 I was, well, why is that such a priority? I 0:20:37.476 --> 0:20:41.476 would naively I would have said that's down on my 0:20:41.556 --> 0:20:47.116 list of things of priorities. I think it's important in 0:20:47.916 --> 0:20:52.436 the role modeling effect because boards are very celebrated and public. 0:20:53.556 --> 0:20:57.556 There is evidence that more women on boards do make 0:20:57.596 --> 0:21:01.076 a difference to the nature of the conversation and particularly 0:21:01.156 --> 0:21:05.036 the nature of the conversation around diversity and inclusion, so 0:21:05.076 --> 0:21:08.476 it's a trigger point for them getting further change. But 0:21:08.556 --> 0:21:10.676 I agree with you that if we ended up with 0:21:10.716 --> 0:21:14.236 businesses where the boards were always half half, but when 0:21:14.276 --> 0:21:16.996 you looked at the pipeline in the business, you still 0:21:17.116 --> 0:21:21.356 saw women clustered in the junior grades, big gender pay gaps, 0:21:21.636 --> 0:21:24.276 are not enough attention paid to work in family life, 0:21:24.276 --> 0:21:26.956 that would not be a victory. I think we want 0:21:26.996 --> 0:21:31.636 every point in a woman's life journey, and particularly from 0:21:31.756 --> 0:21:34.196 the work I'm doing at King's College, London, with the 0:21:34.236 --> 0:21:38.036 Global Institute for Women's Leadership. We're focused on the work journey. 0:21:38.396 --> 0:21:41.796 We want every point in that to be one where 0:21:41.836 --> 0:21:44.756 a woman is not treated in a lesser way than 0:21:44.796 --> 0:21:48.516 a man. Yeah, so let's talk about, first of all, 0:21:48.556 --> 0:21:50.996 who does this. Well, when you look around in your 0:21:50.996 --> 0:21:54.276 current position, King's College, in this program you just talked about, 0:21:54.636 --> 0:21:56.596 you must look around the world and you must say, Okay, 0:21:56.596 --> 0:22:01.076 there is someone who's a group, country, community, what have you, 0:22:01.596 --> 0:22:06.196 that's that's solving this problem in a way that we 0:22:06.956 --> 0:22:12.316 can use as a model. So your models. We're certainly 0:22:12.356 --> 0:22:16.356 looking for models, but there's an information problem that we've 0:22:16.356 --> 0:22:19.196 almost got to solve first, which is we've got any 0:22:19.276 --> 0:22:23.556 number of indexes about gender, but they are not focused 0:22:23.596 --> 0:22:27.276 on this question of women's leadership. And because they tend 0:22:27.596 --> 0:22:33.036 to include statistics about women's general health, women's education levels, 0:22:33.356 --> 0:22:37.276 then they cluster at the top the wealthiest nations in 0:22:37.356 --> 0:22:40.636 earth that have largely solved those problems, but they don't 0:22:40.676 --> 0:22:43.196 give you a fine grained look at women and leadership. 0:22:43.596 --> 0:22:46.676 So we are working to build an index that would 0:22:46.756 --> 0:22:49.036 do that, which would enable you to just do a 0:22:49.076 --> 0:22:55.036 comparison on women leaders politics, business, civil society. The law technology. 0:22:56.236 --> 0:22:59.236 If we had that information, we'd be able to surface 0:22:59.316 --> 0:23:03.636 some clearer examples. But just looking at the moment you 0:23:03.676 --> 0:23:08.756 get all sorts of interesting things popping up. Malaysia there 0:23:08.756 --> 0:23:12.156 are more women in it, far more than the global 0:23:12.156 --> 0:23:14.436 statistics would lead you to believe. So then you can 0:23:14.436 --> 0:23:18.156 go and unpack why is that Slovenia we looked at 0:23:18.196 --> 0:23:20.876 because there are far more women judges than the global 0:23:20.916 --> 0:23:24.356 statistics would lead you to expect. When we unpack that, 0:23:24.516 --> 0:23:27.676 we actually found that they've got a very rules based 0:23:27.956 --> 0:23:32.076 legal system with very little discretion. So being a judge 0:23:32.196 --> 0:23:34.996 is not viewed as that fantastic a job. It's a 0:23:35.036 --> 0:23:38.756 more mechanistic job. So we want to get more information 0:23:38.876 --> 0:23:43.996 to keep looking. Many big businesses, you know, I'm thinking 0:23:43.996 --> 0:23:47.036 of the biggest global companies in the world are very 0:23:47.356 --> 0:23:51.036 serious about this agenda. And you know, you can point 0:23:51.076 --> 0:23:54.996 to individual things they're doing that are working, but no 0:23:55.036 --> 0:23:57.516 one's done the big solve. There's no one that you 0:23:57.556 --> 0:23:59.956 can just point to and say, if everybody did what 0:24:00.276 --> 0:24:02.596 X is doing, then we would fix this. But if 0:24:02.596 --> 0:24:05.076 I was I was a twenty one year old woman 0:24:05.396 --> 0:24:08.956 whose ambition was to be the leader of a country, 0:24:09.116 --> 0:24:11.396 and in the world, and you could wave a magic 0:24:11.476 --> 0:24:14.876 wand and make me a citizen of any country in 0:24:14.876 --> 0:24:18.356 the world. Where would you Where would you send me 0:24:18.436 --> 0:24:22.756 to maximize my chances? The statistics that tell me that 0:24:22.796 --> 0:24:26.196 I'd have to send you to Iceland or one of 0:24:26.236 --> 0:24:31.796 the Nordic Scandinavian style countries. The statistics would tell you 0:24:31.836 --> 0:24:34.156 I could send you to wander But then we'd have 0:24:34.196 --> 0:24:36.796 a complex debate about how much power is in the 0:24:36.876 --> 0:24:40.396 parliament versus how much is in the hands of the president. 0:24:40.796 --> 0:24:43.236