Comms Council forms anti-sexism body
Jokovic and Allwood
The Communications Council has launched a committee to tackle sexism in the industry.
The launch follows figures from the Comms Council that found that not a single woman in Australia is either a chairman, CEO, MD or creative director of a network agency.
The Gender Diversity Group will be chaired by Alex Allwood of The Holla Agency.
this measure smacks of political reactivism
where is the proof that gender discrimination is actively practiced in the comms industry?
that not a single woman in Australia is either a chairman, CEO, MD or creative director of a network agency proves nothing more than that a women in Australia is neither a chairman, CEO, MD or creative director of a network agency
it is backward, shameful and appalling that the Comms Council is positively discriminating in favour of women and doing so with a justification that implies that certain gender traits are good for business
You can’t have it both ways, gender is either relevant or irrelevant in hiring/promotional decisions. If, as the law decrees, it’s irrelevant, women should not be preferred for Comms Council board or any other positions
Practicising sexism to be anti-sexist doesn’t make sense, won’t change undesirable beliefs and practices (and in fact could inflame sexist attitudes) and is grossly hypocritical
As a senior exec who is a female, I would personally be MORTIFIED if I was chosen for a CEO role because I had boobs and not because of my ability. I imagine my male counterparts would be equally mortified if they missed out because they didn’t have boobs. This just creates greater division between the sexes. Can’t women and men be measured by their ability to do the job? Perhaps the reason there aren’t as many women in the top jobs is because they didn’t apply, perhaps their male counterparts were simply better qualified. Perhaps they already had killer jobs and didn’t want to change. When working at an enormous marketing services company some years ago, we observed that in their 52+ companies 22 had female CEO’s. They were strong females who loves what they did but family commitments, pregnancy and motherhood also got them. This isn’t sexism at play, it’s another talkfest. Yawn…..
Really? Perhaps the Comms council should take another look. Isn`t Naseema Sparks MD of GPY&R Sydney? As to the efficacy of the Comms Council…….
In an industry known for an 80:20 ratio of women to men, this seems a bit ridiculous. I can name countless female execs. Lots more than men.
‘Practicising sexism to be anti-sexist doesn’t make sense….’
This is a common misconception. Seems obvious to me that you can’t treat unequal people equally. For example, you don’t treat disadvantaged people the same way as privileged people. You don’t tax someone earning $500K the same as someone earning $50K. That’s positive discrimination and it DOES make sense.
I don’t think anyone would want to be appointed CEO just because they have boobs, but I find it hard to believe that there are no women good enough to be in these sorts of positions. That’s the problem – not that someone is going to get a job ‘just because they’re woman’. I don’t see how Freedman’s comments about attracting and retaining women being good business can be remotely offensive or a bad thing?
‘Perhaps the reason there aren’t as many women in the top jobs is because they didn’t apply, perhaps their male counterparts were simply better qualified.’
That’s exactly the point and I’m not sure how you’ve missed it! If women at the top means more diversity and is good for business, it’s surely about figuring out how make it work for the women and devloping female talent. Any initiative that works better for the business should be looked at.
Congrats to the Comms Council for this great initiative. It’s absolutely amazing how few women are in these positions in Australia, and this effects our industry and our country’s culture. It will interesting to analyse why and make some changes. Thank you.
It’s not about ‘execs’ Richard. Its about company heads.
‘Can’t women and men be measured by their ability to do the job?’.
This is the standard response to any ‘affirmative action’ in terms of redressing an imbalance. As someone much smarter than me pointed out…if you think all the senior roles that exist in our industry (or any industry) are appointed purely as a meritocracy, you’re dreaming. Bias exists and just because you’re not concious of it or aware of it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.
The Comms council need to work on a brand awareness campaign – I assumed they were some sort of PR organisation
Fantastic news, and thank you Comms Council.
It is blantantly obvious based on the statistics at Senior levels that there is a fundamental problem/s that prevents women getting promoted in the Marketing and Advertising industry. I attended a recent State Awards event and was appalled by the number of male executives on stage to receive accolades (95%) vs the representation of women in the crowd (circa 50-60%).
I’m sure most people think that these days there is no active discrimination against women. I hope it’s disappeared. Although, it does remind me of my first graduate interview where an advertising legend gave me some ‘helpful’ personal advice, that, “It’s hard for girls like you to get a job in the industry, because we usually only employ receptionists. There’s no point employing female graduates because they just have babies”. Thanks.
What is most concerning is sub-concious discrimination. This has been proven over and over again in academic studies, and I’d encourage you to read http://www.theage.com.au/natio.....-v4mv.html.
I have seen it myself. As a Founder of my own Marketing business I routinely have to take senior male Creatives to meetings with Senior male Clients to ‘adjust’ their behaviour. Quite simply, they act disrespectfully to me, disagree with my recommendations and give me a hard time. My male colleagues get the utmost respect, are quietly listened to and warmly hand-shaked at the end of the meeting. Yes, that might very well be a personal problem that I have, but I’ve worked all over the World in many situations to note the differences in behaviour TOWARDS male and female executives.
So, long post there, but I will be happy to support the Comms Council in all they do in this area.
What about the overlooked older women who missed out completely in the all-men phase?
@beezlebub – well said!
The interesting question is whether lindsey Evans and Melinda greetz feel they deserve their positions on the comms council
This is interesting. If you look at Media agencies around the country there are a number of women in top positions. Maybe not CEOs at the moment, there have been, but in top management positions there are a good % of women. Must be very different to creative land.
this is a really complex issue.
First comment to make is that in the agency leadership roles (MD/CEO), things are quite as bad as the current stats may suggest. Current or recent (5 years) Sydney agency heads include in no order – Suzie Shaw, Lindsey Evans, Julie Porter, Marianne Bess, Naseema Sparks, Marie Jackson, Victoria Curro, Judi Lewis, Julie Burke, Michelle Stott, Simone Bartley, Amy Smith. I’m sure there are more.
(creative leadership is a different matter – women are underrepresented at all levels of creative departments.)
It’s a complex issue because there are so many factors that contribute, from traditional attitudes towards leadership characteristics/attributes, through agency maternity policies and support, the natural attirition of agency execs in their 30s and to the goals and self expectations of women themselves as they approach the leadership years (among others).
As a headhunter, my starting point here is in terms of industry talent efficiency. As an industry, we don’t make enough of the talent that enters the business in their early 20s and the usage of female talent is the most striking – if roughly 65% of all account service and planning talent at entry level is female but less than 20% of agency leadership is female, this means that 80% of our leadership is coming from 35% of our talent intake and that the 65% of the intake which is female isn’t being used efficiently.
I don’t know whether positive discrimination is the answer, but if it provides more successful female role models for aspiring female agency execs and in a small way helps retain more of the female talent in the industry for longer, then I think it’s worth trying.
apologies – first sentence should read ‘aren’t quite as bad’ – a rather important typo!