From the Knowledge@Wharton today blog.

Deirdre Woods, former associate dean and chief information officer at Wharton, made a point during her years as a senior manager of encouraging other women to advance in their professional careers. One thing has always surprised her, however.

Women who are offered promotions “generally feel they need to know 80% to 90% of their current job before they feel ready to step up into a new role,” she says. But if you are smart and knowledgeable, “probably somewhere closer to 40% to 50%” is all that you need.

Men, on the other hand, feel no such constraints. “Men will start thinking about their next promotion right after they start their new promotion,” says Woods, who is currently interim executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s open learning initiative and has started her own consulting company. “I’m not sure if men are necessarily more ambitious, but they are much more overt about having a plan and moving forward.” She remembers attending a conference where another woman made the same point, in a different context: In government, the speaker said, “a six-term congresswoman doesn’t feel she is ready for the Senate yet, whereas a first-term congressman does.”

It’s not just a phenomenon in the non-profit sector, according to a report last May in the Wall Street Journal titled “The XX Factor: What’s Holding Women Back?” The article quoted an executive at Google saying that the company “must invest extra effort to persuade women engineers to nominate themselves for promotions…. Men jump at the chance, often before they are ready, and are often turned down.”

But women, the executive noted, “must be prodded.” Indeed, he tells them that by not putting themselves up for promotions, they are holding themselves back. “By the time a woman says she is ready, she was probably ready a year ago,” he said, adding that the company promotes women engineers at about the same rate as men.

Woods agrees. “Women tend to be ridiculously over-prepared for everything. But at a certain point, over-preparedness doesn’t get you moving forward. It doesn’t leave you open to other opportunities.” She suggests that women should be able to clearly define what type of job they want to do next. “They should be thinking about the next step even if it feels overwhelming.”

And “as scary as it seems,” she adds, women who do get promoted “should start signaling, at least to their bosses, that this isn’t the last thing they want to do. They should show they want to do a really good job in their current role, but that they also have ambitions.” In addition, she notes, men know that wandering around the office and chatting with their colleagues qualifies “as work. Talking to the boss, running into him or her at the coffee machine, having interactions – men understand that this is part of their work. Women don’t understand that. They think it’s a distraction from whatever they are supposed to be doing.”

Wharton management professor Matthew Bidwell suggests that there is “some evidence that women are held to a higher standard in the workplace than men, and that because women are stereotyped as less competent than men, any mistakes they make tend to reinforce those kinds of attitudes towards them as individuals. You can imagine that if this is the case, then it’s even riskier for women to take on that promotion.”

The Journal report was based on the comments of a task force set up to study the obstacles that women continue to face in the workplace. According to a McKinsey study quoted in the article, women get 53% of entry level jobs and “make it to ‘the belly of the beast’ in large numbers.” But then “female presence” drops sharply, “to 35% at the director level, 24% among senior vice presidents and 19% in the C-suite.”

The McKinsey study cited by the Journal article also noted that hiring and promoting talented women is important “’to getting the best brains’ and competing in markets where women now make most of the purchasing decisions.”

This blog was previously posted in Knowledge@Wharton today blog: Do Women Shy Away from Promotions?

From the Knowledge@Wharton today blog.

Yahoo’s board is on borrowed time to fix its woes — a situation that was no doubt aggravated by the board’s decision not to name a new CEO at its annual meeting on Thursday. Wharton professors Kartik Hosanagar, Eric T. Bradlow and Waheed Hussain have advice for the board on how to ensure stable leadership and reposition the struggling company for growth.

Hosanagar, Wharton professor of operations and information management, states that time is running out for the company’s board. “They need to elect someone … who can bring back some of the entrepreneurial spark in Yahoo,” he says. “Traditional, seasoned management veterans are not the right candidates for Yahoo given all that it’s going through.”

Many expected Yahoo’s board to name interim CEO Ross Levinsohn to the top job, but now speculation is growing that the board is considering other candidates, too. Levinsohn, 48, took over as interim CEO in May from Scott Thompson, who quit after being accused of making false claims on his CV. Since then, Levinsohn has scored several victories, including making peace with Facebook last week by settling patent disputes. Also, Yahoo and Facebook agreed to form advertising and content-sharing partnerships. Finally, Levinsohn in May guided Yahoo’s decision to sell half its 40% stake in Chinese e-commerce firm Alibaba for $7.1 billion, ending tensions over how much value Yahoo can extract from that investment.

What should guide the Yahoo board as it picks the firm’s next CEO? “The last two Yahoo CEOs were outsiders, and it seems that Levinsohn is also essentially an outsider, having been at Yahoo for only two years,” says Hussain, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics, whose research areas include corporate governance issues. “You never know an outsider the way that you know one of your own executives, and you naturally have to take much more on trust.”

Hussain’s advice for corporate boards in general, including Yahoo, is to build better structures and processes for grooming leaders from within the corporation. “There is no hard and fast law that says internal leaders have less viable and transformational ideas than outsiders,” he says. “And in general, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.”

Wharton marketing professor Bradlow says the new CEO must develop “a core niche strategy” to restore Yahoo’s fortunes. “[That person] should rebuild from the ground up by owning a segment of customers and branching [out] big from there.”

Bradlow has a specific to-do list: “Be willing to experiment,” he says, such as offering value-added services like web page layouts. His other suggestions: “Track much more than visits/sales to understand performance. Make sure you understand repeat visitation behavior, page depth and [other] things at the individual customer level.” Any company, including Yahoo, that tracks only aggregate behavior will miss out on important diagnostics showing whether a strategy is or is not working, he adds.

Hussain cautions against placing too much emphasis on just the CEO’s actions. “In the long run, the choice of a CEO is only one moderate factor among many that figure into making a company successful,” he says. “These decisions get an enormous amount of attention in the media, so boards tend to feel enormous pressure to do something dramatic. But it’s important to be realistic. You can only do so much to move an ocean liner in a short amount of time. Where it ends up depends a great deal on the seas and the winds.”

Shaky at the Top

Yahoo has had more than its share of instability at the top. Thompson, who quit after less than six months as CEO, had replaced Tim Morse, who had been at the helm for four months. Morse was named interim CEO last September after Yahoo’s chairman fired then-CEO Carol Bartz for what was widely seen as a failure in her efforts to boost the company’s fortunes.

Bartz, who had been CEO since 2009, had a little more than a year left on her contract when she was fired. Bartz had replaced Yahoo’s co-founder Jerry Yang, who had taken on the CEO role in July 2007. Yang had replaced then-CEO Terry Semel, a six-year veteran at the company, amid worries that Yahoo’s ad revenues were shrinking as business opportunities on the Internet were expanding.

Concerns over revenues persist to this day. Yahoo’s revenue has fallen steadily from $6.46 billion in 2009 to about $5 billion by 2011, although net income has grown in that period from about $600 million to a little more than $1 billion. “The major issue is that [its] growth is lagging the industry, especially [that of] Google, Facebook, etc.,” Hosanagar had noted in a Knowledge@Wharton Today report after Bartz’s exit.

Meanwhile, Yahoo’s shareholders seem to be losing patience. “You are behind the ball and you have been behind the ball, regardless of which CEO has shown up,” a shareholder told Levinsohn and other Yahoo executives at a Q&A session on Thursday, according to The Associated Press. “You don’t execute…. As a consumer, I have given up on this company.” Many still rue Yahoo’s decision not to sell itself to Microsoft four years ago for $47.5 billion. Back then, Yahoo’s share price was $33; Last week, it closed at $15.69.

This blog was previously posted in Knowledge@Wharton today blog: How Yahoo Can Search for its Growth Engine

About this blog:

These blogs are all about getting you expert advice for the business you are in, however, I will not be using the traditional business experts you may expect.

You will get access to greater tools to use in your professional life from these specialists I have lined up just for you, that will allow you to think outside the square and succeed.

Read on a benefit from these ‘not so usual expert’ experts.

Danielle Di-Masi | AGSM Alumna

Effective leadership skills are one of the most desired skills to have in your toolkit, well especially according to Google Trends and the conversations and questions I get from my clients. People always seem to be wanting to enhance their leadership abilities and so in this blog series we will get a few different views on this skill from different ‘not so usual expert’ experts.

For the first touch on leadership I thought I would start with an expert where being an effective leader can be a life or death situation. I’m not talking about end of financial year kind of life or death, I’m referring to the real deal so our expert is a man who’s ability to lead a team can lead them to safety and success, for themselves, his unit, the mission and our country.

Shaun McTeigue was an Army leader for Australian Special Operations. When interviewing Shaun for his thoughts on leadership I wasn’t sure what response I would get back that would benefit those in business, however, his answers were some of the most insightful and articulate I have had on this topic so I am now confident that he can help think about being a leader in a much different way.

For Shaun, being a leader is about balance; a balance of looking out for your team but also your mission and seeing it until completion. “Leadership is being able to mentor and nurture to not only maximise the efficiency of the team but enhancing their skills and ability.”

His view on leadership is extremely team focused as he states, “You always have to earn the respect and never demand it.  People who sit in positions of authority or power must remember that, for your team to achieve the task at hand, you need all efforts from each of them and to remember that no matter how much power or authority you have, no job can be completed with just the leader alone.”

Sometimes, when you are busy, you can lean on the team to get things done but this is not the most effective way forward.

Shaun also states that leaders should always remember how they are perceived in their role by their team so they are in fact not left alone, “The position that you are in is merely a word, you must prove in actions that you are worthy of the position; people will not respect someone who does not show their team that they are capable of the role.”

Engaging your team is a powerful tool and Shaun best does this by involving the team in every aspect of the mission, right from the planning, this way they take ownership and responsibility of the outcome and the mission as a whole.

Shaun also has a tactic of engaging his team by letting them learn from his mistakes. I had to ask this question twice to confirm he said “mistakes” as some leaders don’t like to expose their faults, however, Shaun believes it’s a brilliant learning tool, for all. “I definitely have made mistakes, thankfully it was always in training and I would always stop the team and explain that I made the wrong decision and we would identify why it was the wrong choice.  This way, my team can identify Team Leader mistakes and when they are in the hot seat they won’t do the same.  I want my team to always be judging my leadership and decisions just as I do to them.  This kind of environment always ensures that each of the soldiers, me included, are performing 110%.  This also builds trust and trust is how I turn my team into a family and this was my ultimate goal, because brothers will do anything for each other.”

So can we all learn to be strong leaders like Shaun? He thinks we can but it doesn’t just come down to a sole effort, “There is certainly an element in every person to lead, but certain lifestyles and experiences will unlock that ability in you. There are definitely people who naturally can lead, but I believe that you need good mentors and leaders that will foster you.”

So look at your leadership strengths, engage your team as a whole, learn from your mistakes, always remember to work with your team to utilise all of the team as it is very hard to run a mission alone and approach a good mentor that will help you develop strategies and a path towards your successful future as a victorious leader.

Danielle Di-Masi is the Principal Click! Consultant at Click! Training & Consulting. She is a keynote speaker and business trainer. She specialises in business etiquette and all things around behaviours and human interaction; especially in building effective business relationships through connection and rapport.

Contact Danielle @ Click!:

info@clicktrainingandconsulting.com

www.clicktrainingandconsulting.com

www.facebook.com/clicktrainingandconsulting

Professor Chris Styles

If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.

Therefore, managers need a formal, cascading set of KPIs (key performance indicators), KPTs (key performance targets), and annual performance reviews to keep staff accountable. It’s hard to argue with that. And with quarterly reporting, the need to meet market expectations, and bonuses up for grabs, it’s no surprise that this is management’s default mode of operation.

But what motivates our top talent? How do we get the most of out of our high performers? What gets them out of bed every day and late to bed every night? Making budget? Meeting KPIs? And do we really want to “manage” them?

I’m not so sure.

Curiosity, experimentation, achieving the unachievable, and pushing boundaries tend to be the things that turn top talent on. Sure, they have to make their numbers: if we don’t have cash flow today, there is no tomorrow. But that’s not what really drives them.

The traditional corporate mindset drives the need to find answers – tackling the known knowns, and solving the known unknowns, to coin a phrase. But the real challenge – and the challenge top performers love – is to go beyond this. What are the interesting and challenging questions? What don’t we know? How do we discover what we don’t know?

Managers have learnt over the past decade that the world is far less linear and predictable than it ever was – if that ever was the case. Perhaps the true skill of the leader is not to know the right answers, but rather to know the right questions to ask, before creating the organisational environment conducive to experimentation and finding pathways through these challenging questions.

This means getting things wrong is OK. Failing often but failing fast is the catch-cry. Knowing what doesn’t work means at least we know something. If we know it before the competition, we have an advantage.

For many organisations, this requires a change in mindset. A tight style of management through KPTs is comforting and probably an element of that is necessary. But perhaps it is not always conducive to real innovation.

One interesting example is what is happening at AMP. Senior management has recognised that there is a significant level of staff passion for making changes at AMP. They have introduced an innovation program, where one component of it is based on the “wisdom of the crowd” – its staff. This means that everybody can post an idea on a platform that is visible and accessible to all employees. Employees who do not have their own idea can collaborate with their colleagues’ ideas and earn points together, which they then redeem for something tangible. AMP acknowledges every idea that is implemented by recording a short video of the idea owner and announcing it through the organisation. They believe that peer recognition is very important for people who dedicate their time to advocating change.

In addition, AMP has recently established an Innovation Board, but in quite an unusual way. Senior leaders have invited all staff to apply for nine seats on the board and have asked them to submit one page or short video to demonstrate how they are going to make difference at AMP. Two key objectives are set for them: a) to shape an innovation program which will help to reinvent AMP and b) embed a creatively restless culture in everyday activities across AMP. After accomplishing a set of agreed activities, the board members will get funding for their personal leadership development with the leading innovation institutions.

By establishing the Innovation Board, AMP has created innovation ambassadors, who have significant influence among their peers and the capacity to stimulate the crowd to collaborate on making changes for AMP. These ambassadors are the key to exploring the unknown.

Letting go, knowing you won’t know, and creating the conditions in which the unknown unknowns can be explored, is perhaps a big part of the answer.

Professor Chris Styles is Deputy Dean and Director Australian Graduate School of Management (AGSM).

Professor Chris Styles

Now that the party’s votes are in, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has to make up ground with the voters. The polls are indicating the Labor Government is in deep trouble. Kevin Rudd was nothing if not analytical and blunt about their prospects at the next election. And everyone knows it.

As leader, what does Gillard do now? Perhaps the leadership drama is a gift in disguise. Some leaders would love a crisis to give them an excuse to instigate change and rally the troops around a cause.

In this case, Gillard has been handed a real crisis where there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. It’s clear that business as usual is not an option.

In her speech after winning the leadership battle she said as much. She admitted things have to change otherwise defeat is a sure thing. Perhaps what is needed is a genuine paradigm shift across a number of policy fronts.

The Business Council of Australia (BCA) among others are calling for the government to look away from in-party fighting and focus on the big issues the country faces with renewed vigour.

BCA President, Tony Shepherd, said the leadership ballot should be a catalyst for “more focused government and a renewed commitment to make Australia more competitive and productive”, reiterating its stance on a need for a more competitive tax system, a more flexible, mobile and skilled workforce to improve competitiveness, and a regulatory environment that encouraged business to invest.

The question for Gillard now is how she goes about instigating this change. The government could do worse than start with a clean piece of paper and devising some paradigm shifting approaches. Some would say this is a risky strategy, but perhaps it is not.

The most daring approach for any organisation on the decline – such as this government – is continuing on as they have been. We often see this in business when organisations take a safety first approach and employ what see “sensible” (conventional) strategies to the detriment of innovation. Strategic convergence may feel good at the time but it can’t win in the long run.

Let’s consider the wise words of a great philosopher: “My life is the opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every part of life, be it something to wear, something to eat … It’s all been wrong.” The great philosopher was George Costanza and advice came from his good friend Jerry Seinfeld. “If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”

The weekend papers highlighted perceived flaws in the instincts of the Prime Minister – such as agreeing to appear on the ABC’s recent Four Corners program, leaving out references to the achievements of Kevin Rudd during last year’s Annual Conference, and so on. It has been suggested that she would be in a better place if she had done the opposite.

This isn’t a bad starting point for any leader facing dire straits. What are the sacred cows? What do we consider conventional wisdom? Is it right? Was it ever? Perhaps it once was but now is no longer?

The role of a leader is to ask the big questions and encourage those working with them to be brutally honest and rigorous in their answers. Being brave enough to suggest “the opposite” is more likely to illicit innovative and creative ideas than the same old, same old. That’s leadership.

One of the criticisms of the Prime Minister’s leadership style is that she is very managerial. This is great for “getting things done”, but perhaps not great for generating “big ideas”.

There is no doubt she has ground to make up with her party and Australian voters; but if she truly wants to win over the business community, then she needs to be open to more radical ideas. Perhaps she should think beyond the “business as usual” approach, particularly given she has nothing to lose by approaching her Prime ministership with an entirely new perspective. Being brave enough to consider the opposite view of everything she’s done before maybe a good start and signal to the electorate.

After all, it worked for George. He ended up getting the girl and job of his dreams with the New York Yankees.

If the Prime Minister adopts this approach perhaps she has some chance of turning a positive into a negative and salvaging something from this crisis.

There is a lot to be said for rigorous thinking and daring to think the unthinkable. It’s what we expect of our leaders.

Professor Chris Styles is Deputy Dean and Director Australian Graduate School of Management (AGSM). This article first appeared in The Conversation, 28th February 2012 http://theconversation.edu.au/how-gillard-should-think-the-unthinkable-and-look-like-a-leader-5600

Professor Chris Styles

Today is a big day.

Yes, it’s the day that the Allan Border Medal for Australia’s premier cricketer will be awarded. Allan Border, or ‘AB’, is known for a lot of things, including a number of cricketing records.  But perhaps the biggest thing he is known for is being the reluctant captain that took over in a time of crisis in the mid 1980s.

For those of us around at the time, the tearful resignation of the then captain, Kim Hughes, that lead to AB’s appointment, will be remembered as a pivotal point in Australian cricket.  The turnaround that followed took time, but it was pronounced and long lasting.  

Given the captain of the Australian cricket team is supposedly the second most important job in the country, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned by the current Labor Government.

When AB took over as captain Australian cricket was at a low point.   The team had experienced many deep defeats. A rebel tour of South Africa was about to happen and the mighty West Indies had inflicted wounds that were hard to heal.  But over the next decade Australian cricket experienced a turnaround that set it up for a decade of dominance.  AB’s leadership was a critical component.

Irrespective of who wins the Labor party’s challenge today the focus will be on how the floundering organisation – that is not unlike the Australian cricket team of the 1980s – can begin the road to recovery. What lessons can ABs leadership provide them and others in a similar situation?

There are perhaps three key ingredients to what AB achieved. The first was having a clear goal.  It is well known that AB’s obsession was winning the Ashes. Of all cricket’s conquests, this is the one that meant most to him.  Wining the one-day World Cup in 1987 was nice (and unexpected), but it was a step on the way to the prize that really mattered.  Once he won 4-0 in the six test series in 1989, he did not lose a test against England until he retired. For political parties the goals are clear – election victory.

The second key ingredient was focus.  Everyone in the team knew what was required. Everything else was a distraction. Knowing why you are there and what needs to be achieved provides clear direction for decisions. Players were dropped, and plans were hatched. Everyone knew why. For the Governments its about a clear legislative program and societal outcomes. Ministers who perform stay, those who don’t, don’t.

The third ingredient was discipline.  During the 1989 Ashes tour AB gained the title ‘Captain Grumpy’.  He decided that the team had to shun their English opponents and be totally dedicated to their defeat.  He even put his own close relationship with Ian Botham to one side. No idle chatter, no coming together after games with the opposition, and the level of aggression on the field set the standard for the sledging we see today.  Most would agree that the last 12 months has not been the most disciplined performance of the parliamentary Labor party.  John Howard was a  leader that understood discipline and the results followed.

Once the dust settles after Monday’s leadership battle, the focus will need to be on how to dig the Federal Labor party out of its deep hole.  It’s hard to argue that it will be at a low point and will be in need of organisational renewal and turnaround, a situation not unlike that faced by AB.

The big question is how to move forward. Despite both leaders assurances that they’ll encourage the party to unite around the chosen leader, the destructive comments about both leadership contenders over the last week will make it very difficult for whoever wins Monday’s vote to achieve the turnaround that is needed. Like Australian cricket witnessed in the 1980s, perhaps Monday will bring a tearful end to leadership ambitions and then at some stage perhaps a ‘reluctant captain’ will emerge. Although in politics, there are probably few leaders who are truly reluctant.

Chris Styles is the Deputy Dean and Director of the Australian Graduate School of Management.

Professor Chris Styles

Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten’s comments yesterday that managers need to do more to improve employee engagement shines the light on the current productivity debate on the quality of management and leadership in Australia. Is he right and what should be done about it?

Firstly, there is no doubt that Australia’s productivity is not at the level it should be, particularly when compared to other OECD countries.  The 2009 report Management Matters – How productive are we, completed for Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research concluded that one of the causes of our lagging productivity was that while some of our organisations stack up well with the best internationally, there are too many that don’t perform well at all, particularly when it comes to managing people. 

Getting people, processes and systems to work productively is a challenge and the responsibility of everyone in an organisation, but in particular those in managerial positions.  Creating, encouraging and reinforcing the right environment within an organisation drives innovation and, in turn, its productivity.  More productive organisations obviously result in a more competitive Australia.

However getting people, processes and systems to work productively is a lot harder than it sounds and while there are some proven principles, there is much to be discovered.    This has profound implications for the way we develop managers.   We not only need to draw on what research tells us works, but also instil a mindset of constantly finding new and better ways.   In the same way we emphasise innovation with respect to products and services, we also need a focus on innovation in business models and management practices.

As part of this, the debate in Australia would do well to go beyond “employers vs. employees”. Indeed the distinction between the two is rather blurred. Is not someone in a managerial position also an “employee”?  Anna Booth from the ACTU has a point when she says the current IR system is entrenching a ‘Unions vs. Management’ mentality.

We also need to think through what forms of organisation are needed now and may emerge in the future to meet customer demands.  Then taking into consideration the changing needs and aspirations of the workforce, we need create and develop the most productive models of management.  There isn’t – and won’t be – just one right answer.  

This leads on to the kinds of skills, attributes and knowledge needed by managers. Acquiring and developing these will be the result of experience, experimentation, coaching and structured learning experiences.  Getting this right will require dialogue between organisations, business schools, unions and government as to how to equip current and future managers with the mindset and tools they need. If ever there was a time for collaboration, it is now.

Chris Styles is the Deputy Dean and Director of the Australian Graduate School of Management.

This article first appeared in the Australian Financial Review, 14 February 2012.

Nina Mistilis

Qantas is facing a further drawn-out battle with the unions, and that may cause yet more long-lasting damage to its brand. The Qantas dispute is settling in for the long haul, now that it has been taken into binding arbitration – a move that could take months to resolve.

This confrontation with the unions has been building for years and seem and has now culminated in arbitration. All of this has taken place in full view of the travelling public. Qantas – in going to arbitration – has won what it was seeking – which is a stay on industrial action – but in the long term it seems to have lost the war.

I believe it has alienated passengers, the industry and the government, and that’s not a good position to be in. The Qantas brand is tarnished.

Negotiations between the airline and the Transport Workers Union, the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers’ Association collapsed just before a deadline set by Fair Work Australia (FWA).

I believe the longer this dispute rumbles on, the more the Qantas brand image will be badly impacted.

That’s a global perception, because passengers all over the world who want to get to Australia for a holiday, or back home for work, are wondering if it is safe to book a Qantas plane, or whether it will be cancelled again. Many are saying they will never trust Qantas again, particularly in business class, because business wants reliability above everything else. Certainly, in the immediate future, the brand is tainted and they’re really behind the eight ball.

I don’t see how they’re going to catch up easily. Even if the arbitration settles on the side of Qantas, it may still hurt Qantas in the medium to long term, although I think it’s really hard to say what the long term damage will be. It partly depends on how events unfold. If it is solved quickly, which seems very unlikely, then the brand will be restored. But if it continues, and if there’s a perception – as the unions are saying – that service will drop due to the “asianisation” of the airline, then the brand will be completely damaged. Will that mean that less passengers book on Qantas? I don’t know the answer to that. Time will tell.

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce yesterday said while his preferred option had been to resolve the dispute through negotiation, it was now time to let FWA bring the matter to a close.

But it is reliability is an important factor in terms of the branding of an airline. When it comes to the crunch, we need to get to the destination on a certain date and we cannot afford to be stranded at home, or somewhere in Australia, or abroad. So when it comes to the choice, will we choose Qantas or will we choose another airline?

Nina Mistilis is a senior lecturer in Tourism at the Australian School of Business.

Rosemary Howard

There is a widespread misconception among many Australian managers that operational excellence equates to saving dollars. However, focusing just on the bottom-line is not the way to transform organisations.

If a business is doing what it did yesterday, but just doing it a bit more cheaply, that isn’t going to deliver any long-term competitive advantage and it won’t make that business more successful.

Real productivity gains are needed but Australia, weighed down by its own good fortune, could struggle to make them.

The mining boom, the very thing that has kept Australia going while other economies in the world have struggled under the weight of the global financial crisis, is taking the focus off productivity levels, and undermining Australia’s ability to perform well in the long term.

A report from independent public policy think-tank the Grattan Institute has pointed out that according to the broadest measures Australia’s productivity performance has turned negative over the last five years. The authors of Australia’s Productivity Challenge, economist Saul Eslake and research fellow Marcus Walsh, issued a stern warning that the country’s economic performance could decline substantially once the commodity boom runs its course.

Australia is not doing the hard yards on a globally competitive basis.

Last year, only 42% of Australian organisations even measured productivity, down from 49% in 2009, according to The Telstra Productivity Indicator 2010.

If organisations are not measuring productivity, how are they managing it?

Leadership remains a key issue, and this is tied to levels of education. However, Australia has a dangerous disdain for business management methodologies such as Six Sigma. Used strategically, these tools can make a valuable contribution to operational excellence.

The education level of Australia’s workforce generally does not compare well with other advanced economies.

We have half the number of people with Masters degrees or PhDs versus the US or the UK and one-third the level of Germany.

Australia ranks 25th out of 33 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations for public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP.

And when it comes to collaboration between tertiary institutions and business, Australia is a lowly last among the European Union’s 27 nations.

Australia may take pride in being very ‘school of hard knocks’ competent, but if we don’t know what we don’t know, we won’t learn from leading frameworks and best practice.

Australian managers have plenty of positive points that are widely admired and deliver results. We say what we think and don’t hold back. We listen to each other and engage in reasonably open conversations. We form teams naturally, and global academics comment on the phenomenon of boards operating as real teams in Australia, which is comparatively unusual.

Despite this, we are still complacent about addressing productivity.

When the mining boom ends – and it will – we will rely on strong leadership and management skills, as well as technological innovation, to drive the real productivity performance required to sustain our quality of life.

Rosemary Howard is Executive Director and Conjoint Professor of AGSM Executive Programs at the Australian School of Business, UNSW.

Rosemary Howard

Childcare for many families is the second biggest expense after the mortgage. If laptops, cars and mobile phones are all tax-deductable, why isn’t childcare?

In a recent Knowledge@Australian School of Business article, leading business women and academics have flagged childcare as the single biggest and most directly related cost to earning income that should be eligible for a tax rebate.

That’s why it makes economic sense for it to be firmly on the agenda for next week’s Tax Summit in Canberra.  To fulfill the required rise in national productivity and global competiveness, we must address this issue head-on.

The prohibitive cost of childcare affects all families. The lack of financial support in the form of childcare incentives is a serious impediment to women’s participation in the workforce. It is at odds with the nation’s shared objectives when it comes to advancing women into leadership roles, including those at the executive and board level.

Women’s poor representation at the top of the business ladder has been a topic of robust discussion. The latest statistics show that of ASX 200 appointments, woman make up 51 per cent of professionals but only fulfill 2.5 per cent of chair people, 11 per cent of board appointments and 3 percent of chief executive roles.

The 2010 Global Gender Gap Report, a publication of the World Economic Forum, found Australia ranked as No. 1 in terms of educational attainment but No. 44 for labour-force participation of women. This shows that Australia has one of the most highly educated female populations in the world, yet we do not allow women to fully participate in the workforce. The current gender bias means that women are not being employed in roles where they can be most productive.

Substantial childcare incentives could not only help lessen the gender gap, but drive productivity levels. This is supported by the Productivity Commission’s July 2011 research which shows that a 1 per increase in early childhood education and care fees leads to a 0.3 per reduction in the employment rate of mothers with young children and a 0.7 per decline in hours worked.

According to a 2009 Goldman Sachs report, Australia’s Hidden Resource: The Economic Case for Increasing Female Participation, having more women in leadership roles has the potential to boost the level of economic activity in Australia by 20 per cent.

Unless the government is prepared to increase taxpayer subsidies for childcare, the increasing cost of childcare will continue to limit women’s participation in the workforce; ultimately inhibiting their career advancement.

Rosemary Howard is Executive Director and Conjoint Professor of AGSM Executive Programs at Australian School of Business, UNSW.