Securing Army’s Future: Enhancing Career Management
Abstract
Army’s leaders are determined to build and sustain a relevant, positive organisational culture for its people and the land force capability they create. Army recognises that, in the future, competition for labour will be fierce. By raising its status to that of a first class employer of choice, Army hopes to recruit and retain quality personnel. This article describes one aspect of Army’s career management reform — the Officer Enhanced Career Management model (ECM). It provides insight into Army’s development of the ECM, which was informed both by the recent reviews into Defence culture and leading research into diversity and inclusion in the corporate world.
Introduction
In 2011 reviews into aspects of Defence and Australian Defence Force culture were published which called for Defence to create a more inclusive and accountable culture for its members.1 Review recommendations were synthesised into a strategy for cultural change and reinforcement in Defence entitled Pathway to Change.2 Career management was identified as a key area for reform, particularly in relation to women,3 with the Report into the Treatment of Women in the Defence Force (Broderick Review) noting that Defence’s career management systems were outdated and lagged significantly behind those of other corporate entities.4
People within the military often argue that the unique function of the armed forces precludes their comparison with and prevents them learning from non-military organisations — the old analogy that apples cannot be compared with oranges. But even comparisons between militaries are akin to comparing apples, oranges and grapefruit given differences in size, demography, geography and national intent. Army recognises that current world leaders in diversity and inclusion tend to inhabit the corporate sector and offer evidence-based lessons and approaches that can be universally applied across industry. Thus, Army has drawn on leading diversity and inclusion research in the corporate sector to develop a strategy that consolidates best practice with service needs. This article describes a key career management reform in Army that promotes greater diversity and inclusion — the Officer Enhanced Career Management model (ECM).
The need for change
Army’s career management system was established in the 1920s, developed further in the 1950s and has evolved incrementally since. While the system has proven effective in producing a pool of talented officers, it was fundamentally designed for and optimised to support an overwhelmingly male workforce. The discriminatory nature of the system reflected contemporary societal norms and institutional expectations. The ethical and social justice issues associated with a more balanced acknowledgement of the value of women’s service within Army has seen slow, modest, incremental improvement since the 1970s. And while ethics and social justice may be less tangible but more powerful currents of long-term change, this article explores only the demographic realities compelling more substantial action today.
Increasing the proportion of women in the Army is essential for future capability as demographic indicators project a relative contraction of the Australian labour market.5 The Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency has recently reported that competition for labour will be fierce in the coming decades.6 As noted in the Broderick Review:
Over the next five years, Australia is projected to see fewer than 125 people exiting education for every 100 people retiring … this shift is particularly significant in the ADF’s core target market of 17-24 years which will experience very little growth over the next 15 years. This means that the pool from which the ADF traditionally recruits is diminishing [within a growing economy], placing further pressure on Services to engage and retain talented employees.7
For the past 20 years, the participation of women in Army has ‘flat-lined’ at around 10%, indicating that recruitment and retention strategies have not adequately engaged one of the largest pools of available labour. In addition, Army has attracted limited numbers of people from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, a second untapped labour source. The representation of members from a non-English speaking background within the ADF is 5.4%, well below the benchmark average of the Australian labour force of 23.6%.8 Given that this sector represents another very large pool of labour in the country, which is predicted to grow over coming years, the ADF is missing out on acquiring a diverse and talented group of people with the potential to significantly enhance capability.9 Recent comments by Nareen Young, CEO of the Diversity Council of Australia, support this argument: ‘… harnessing cultural diversity in Australia and from abroad will be essential to meeting the challenges of skill shortages, global labour market competition and an ageing population.’10 While the focus of this paper is on women in the Army, ethnic diversity is another critical area for reform. If it does not draw talented labour from the broadest sectors of the Australian community, most notably women and people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, the ADF may soon find itself in a parlous state.
Women in the Army
The recent reviews into Defence culture provided an impetus for Army to complete a comprehensive analysis of policy, recruiting, retention, career management and facets of Army life that influence women’s decisions to serve. By examining women’s experiences, Army has been able to identify strengths and weaknesses associated with its career management system in general. This research has supported the progressive redevelopment of Army’s career management system, strengthening its basis in gender-neutral policy and refining its application to recruiting, retaining and managing Army’s people, while preferentially developing and advancing the most talented. The first phase of this process has involved scrutinising Army’s career management of its officers, leading to the development of the ECM.
In November 2012, women comprised 8.1% of Army’s senior leaders at the rank of colonel or above. While this rate was marginally higher than Air Force and only 2% lower than Navy, it nonetheless represents a significantly lower level than the 21.2% of Australian Public Service (APS) staff at the EL2 classification or above in Defence.11 Some may dismiss this comparison on the basis of the different roles and requirements of military and APS staff in Defence. Army also rates poorly against comparable industries in relation to female workforce participation, as illustrated in the following table: 12
|
Industry |
Female (full time) |
Female (part time) |
|
Public administration and safety |
32.5 |
11.4 |
|
Information media and telecommunications |
28.1 |
12.2 |
|
Navy |
18.5 |
20.4 |
|
Electricity, gas,water and wasteservice |
18.4 |
5 |
|
Air Force |
17.4 |
21 |
|
Manufacturing |
16.7 |
9.5 |
|
Agriculture, forestry and fishing |
14.7 |
16.8 |
|
Transport, postaland warehousing |
13.9 |
8.4 |
|
Mining |
13.2 |
2.1 |
|
Army |
10.7 |
13.3 |
|
Construction |
5.8 |
5.9 |
While the public administration and safety sector may be comparable only to office roles in the military, Army is hardly in an ideal position, tracking only better than the construction industry, in which women’s participation rates currently sit at 5.8% (full time) and 5.9% (part time). The Chief of Army has set a goal for women to comprise 12% of the force by 2014. Clearly, if mining, manufacturing and utilities can do better, 12% is only the first step.
Army will never be able to compete with the corporate sector to pay its way out of the constraints of demography. Rather, Army must be a first class employer of choice. If it fails to adequately reform its organisational culture and recruit more women and people from non-Anglo backgrounds future capability requirements will not be met. While Army’s ECM applies to all officers, it draws its initial insights predominantly from the experience of women in the Army — and the ECM will necessarily continue to evolve to embrace the breadth of talent and diversity resident within the nation. Acknowledging the challenge Army faces in attracting a more ethnically and culturally diverse workforce, this discussion will now concentrate on the question of gender.
Army’s senior leadership does not assume that reforms to provide gender-neutral employment will drastically change the demographic nature of certain elements of the service, for example the ground combat arms. Overseas trends, particularly in Canada and New Zealand, indicate that very few women choose this career path. Canada for example recently reported that women represented 2.4% of its combat arms.13 That said, those women who do choose this career path have proven themselves highly effective professionals within strong combat teams. Despite recent media discussions being somewhat fixated on women in combat roles, Army is cognisant that greater numbers of women are more likely to be drawn into other areas of service. Whatever career path an individual chooses, Army’s leadership is intent on providing that choice, subject to each applicant meeting gender-neutral physical, educational, intellectual and psychological employment standards.
Unsurprisingly, women in the Army are as diverse in their views, interests, needs and wants as any other sector of the community. However there are three key aspirations that have been consistently raised through forums and workshops in the development of the ECM:
- remove all gender barriers and explicit or implicit employment discrimination
- design a career model that assumes our people may, at a time of their choosing, have family care responsibilities
- employ all Army’s people on merit
While the ECM addresses some aspects of each of these aspirations, every officer and soldier in the Army also has his or her part to play. When the stereotypical man explains that ‘I did this and I did that’ and the stereotypical woman says, ‘we did this and we did that’, both are often saying the same thing. When a man eagerly steps forward for early promotion and a woman suggests she might need another year of development, they may both be equally ready. When a man reflects on his successful career it has often been enabled by a supportive partner and caregiver; when a woman reflects on her career, successful or otherwise, it has often been a dual career — military professional and principal carer. The policies and processes of the ECM or any other arrangement will never be sufficient in isolation. Army’s people need to confront and question their inherited, assumed and unconscious biases that constrain rather than liberate all of Army’s talent.
As noted previously, research into Australian demographics highlighted the fact that Army needs to conduct its business differently in order to attract and retain its people. The design of Army’s ECM was informed by the insights and aspirations of Army’s women and men as one mechanism to achieve this goal. Not only does it seek to provide a more equitable playing field for all Army officers but, in doing so, it seeks to draw on the talent of a sector of Australian labour thus far grossly under- utilised by Army.
The ECM — key concepts
The objective of the ECM is to assess and apply merit to select and advance a diverse and inclusive group of strategic leaders. Much of the research on which Army has drawn in formulating this model has emerged from the experience of large, complex, multinational corporations operating in ruthlessly competitive and dynamic business environments. While Army is not a public corporation, it should not be prejudiced against or afraid to learn from business, as indeed business has routinely learnt from the military. Critically, understanding the intellectual rigour of relevant research and how it might be usefully applied to Army is what is important. The four key concepts that provide the basis for the ECM are merit, strategic leadership, diversity and inclusion.
Merit in the Army comprises a comparative judgement of an officer’s performance, qualifications, education and potential made by an authorised Delegate informed by the advice of a committee of senior officers and external experts. Excellence in infantry minor tactics does not automatically translate to effectiveness in leading Defence capability development. Hence, the implicit weighting of these four characteristics will vary for different rank levels and at different times in Army’s institutional history. A more sophisticated, less doctrinaire or dogmatic appreciation of the subtleties of merit is an issue with which Army’s leaders are coming to terms. The criticism of ‘like begetting like’ is an easy but lazy caricature of a complex challenge, as Army strives to embrace the capability value inherent in a diverse, inclusive workforce.
The purpose and value of assessing merit is to develop and progress strategic leaders which Army defines as those officers who demonstrate the following critical attributes:
- a shared identity as an officer in the Army and the Australian Defence Force
- a deep appreciation of Army’s role within twenty-first century Australian society
- the mental agility and leadership skills to operate in complex, multi-faceted environments marked by ambiguity and uncertainty
- expertise as a combat or logistic officer capable of developing, supporting and executing plans across the full spectrum of conflict
- selfless interpersonal maturity
Strategic leadership is not about rank or level. Rather it is about attributes and understanding, such that an officer can contribute, lead and take action at any level (tactical, operational or strategic), aligned to and progressing Australia’s national objectives and the long-term institutional needs of the ADF and the Army.
Diversity involves recognising, respecting and valuing visible and non-visible difference among people. Army’s concept of diversity is not confined to perceived visible difference but seeks to value a diversity of thought and considered opinion which is rigorous, critically analysed and culturally astute. In its ‘Business Case for Diversity’, leading US company Chubb outlined the importance of this approach:
Diversity is about recognizing, respecting and valuing differences based on ethnicity, gender, color, age, race, religion, disability, national origin and sexual orientation. It also includes an infinite range of individual unique characteristics and experiences, such as communication style, career path, life experience, educational background, geographic location, income level, marital status, military [or in Army’s case non-Army] experience, parental status and other variables that influence personal perspectives.
These life experiences and personal perspectives make us react and think differently, approach challenges and solve problems differently, make suggestions and decisions differently, and see different opportunities. Diversity, then, is also about diversity of thought. And superior business performance requires tapping into these unique perspectives.14
While diversity is critical in fostering enhanced and sustainable institutional performance, such improvement cannot be fully realised without efforts to create an inclusive organisation.
Inclusion involves generating a sense of belonging by providing an environment in which the diverse contribution of individuals is respected and valued. Inclusion harnesses the latent potential that diversity provides. Inclusion is recognised and actively promoted by leading global companies such as the Rio Tinto mining group:
We are a global company, and wherever we operate, and across every part of our business, we strive to create an inclusive culture in which difference is recognised and valued. By bringing together men and women from diverse backgrounds and giving each person the opportunity to contribute their skills, experience and perspectives, we believe that we are able to deliver the best solutions to challenges and deliver sustainable value for Rio Tinto and its stakeholders.15
The recent cultural reviews into Defence performance highlighted the fact that it needs to create a more inclusive culture. Research into positive organisational environments has highlighted the importance of inclusivity:
When employees feel highly included they feel more engaged in their work. This means that employees are motivated to turn up to work and to do their best work. On the other hand, the more an employee feels excluded (e.g. that they are not being treated respectfully or that they do not belong to the team), the less likely they are to want to participate or bring their full capabilities to the table.16
Army wants its members to feel part of a cohesive team, a team that gains from and provides support to its members as they collectively face the unique professional and personal challenges involved in serving the nation. This is why ‘respect’ and ‘teamwork’ are two of Army’s core values. By creating an environment in which Army’s people feel included and valued, they are more likely to contribute to and embrace innovation. They are also more likely to speak out against unacceptable behaviour.
High levels of diversity and inclusion are required to achieve organisational excellence. This is supported by research into business performance conducted by Deloitte Australia and the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission which concluded that diversity and inclusion ‘are equally critical for business success’.17 This study surveyed 1550 employees from the manufacturing, retail and health care sectors to better understand the interplay between diversity and inclusion. It revealed that, when a company showed a bias towards either diversity or inclusion, its performance was rated by employees as significantly lower than when it displayed high levels of bias towards both.18 It stated that employees were 80% more likely to regard their company as high performing when they perceived a strong level of commitment to both diversity and inclusion.19 This assessment of employee perception is substantiated by research undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which reinforces the performance advantage of a dual focus on diversity and inclusion:
People work best—and remain engaged and loyal—when work enables and empowers them to be fully who they are. Diversity absent inclusion erodes employee engagement: involvement in and commitment to their work, and to the company’s strategy, mission, and value proposition. The organization must be not only diverse, but also inclusive and flexible.20
Critical to, and implicit in demonstrating strategic leadership is the capacity for officers to foster truly diverse, inclusive teams such that multi-faceted, ambiguous or complex challenges are successfully overcome, and allowing Army to excel as an organisation. To that end, diversity and inclusion need to be embraced in the understanding of each of the four elements that describe merit — performance, qualifications, education and potential — and the relative weighting applied to them for both individuals and groups of individuals within Army. In practical terms this means valuing and recognising a broader range of skills and experiences, enhancing the flexibility of careers such as the sequence and delivery of professional development, experience (time in rank) requirements, and developmental career milestones. For example, officers with alternative but commensurate experiences will now have an increased opportunity to contend for senior and demanding (rank-progressive) appointments alongside counterparts who have taken a more traditional route. By developing a more sophisticated understanding of what constitutes ‘merit’, Army is both securing and improving its already high professional standards.
The insights from business offered in the preceding paragraphs should not surprise anyone in the Army — well-led teams of professionals perform well. But sometimes it is worth hearing this from others whose job descriptions and challenges vary but whose people, like Army’s, just want to be a valued part of a team making a contribution to their community. These four key concepts — merit, strategic leadership, diversity and inclusion — have informed the design of Army’s ECM and its benefits for capability, should it be applied diligently and appropriately.
By way of reassurance, while excellence in combined arms manoeuvre will remain an essential requirement for Army’s combat leaders, there may be more than one pathway and one timeline to acquiring such skills. Further from the combat arms, the variety of options to build rank-progressive careers will be more readily apparent. In both however, diversity and inclusion will characterise the approach of our strategic leaders at all levels to harness the full potential of all our people.
The ECM
Pathway to Change has provided the catalyst for the ECM. Australian demography compels change in the way Army attracts and retains its people. The aspirations of Army’s women inform the objectives of change to career management for all. The concepts of merit, strategic leadership, diversity and inclusion provide the policy basis for change. From these considerations, the next evolution of Army’s officer career management system, the ECM, has been developed, principally through changes in two core aspects of that system: ‘talent management’ and ‘progression through career milestones’, including recognition of non-Army experience.
Talent management
In Army, ‘talent’ (or ‘talented officers’) is defined as those officers who demonstrate heightened levels of intellect, sophisticated interpersonal skills, conscientiousness, determination and innovation. Talented officers are identified by members of their chain of command and by the Directorate of Officer Career Management–Army through documenting individuals’ potential for more demanding appointments from the rank of junior captain onwards.
The ECM includes a Talent Management Program that provides focussed management of individuals identified as potential senior leaders. Previously, Army managed the highest performing officers on the command and leadership pathway through reviewing an individual’s relative merit according to defined gates, mostly associated with attaining command positions. However, Army recognises that talent exists well beyond this group to include officers with the diverse range of skills needed to sustain workforce requirements. This has become evident in recent years through the promotion of officers who have progressed through non-linear career pathways. Importantly, this cohort tends to include many female officers with families who have struggled to balance career and personal requirements in order to remain competitive for promotion. As Elizabeth Broderick indicated in her review into women in the Defence Force, increased levels of female participation in the workforce leads to enhanced performance and capability.21 It is in Army’s interests to address this issue and capitalise on female talent. Through the creation of a Talent Management Program that recognises and fosters the development of all talented officers, a more diverse pool of high quality candidates will be available for selection for senior roles.
Progression through career milestones
Army currently recognises that an officer’s broad formative experiences, skills and performance are the best indicators of potential for more demanding senior appointments. Significant weight is afforded to performance as a sub-unit commander, at Command and Staff College, service as a lieutenant colonel staff officer, and unit command in determining an officer’s merit for more senior rank. The new ECM will continue to recognise the skills and experiences that these four career milestone appointments provide, but the sequence and method of attaining these milestones can be tailored to an individual officer’s circumstances, correlated to their assessed talent and potential. In addition, the model formally recognises that an officer can gain similar experiences in alternative environments that are also of value to Army. By devising a system of comparable professional experience, Army seeks equity within the ECM to ensure that the quality and range of Army officers considered for promotion remains high.
In the past, Army career management required officers to meet a minimum ‘time in rank’ requirement before being considered for progression by the Personnel Advisory Committee. This system was intended to provide Army officers with a similar range of experiences and opportunities in which to demonstrate their potential for more demanding roles. However, this has also stymied the progress of some of our most talented officers. This was noted in the Broderick Review:
Women and men can — and do — have career breaks that may affect their progression, but the reality for many women is that they are more likely to need to access periods of leave and flexible working arrangements at different times of their careers … Given the reality that women (and increasingly men as well) will take time out of their careers at various ranks, a strict time in rank model predicated on traditional full-time unbroken service is an inefficient way for the ADF to develop and harness the potential of its entire workforce. Those taking career breaks will simply not have the ability to progress into senior leadership ranks, regardless of talent, because they will be precluded by time requirements.22
The ECM will broaden the number of career filters to create a candidate list for the Personnel Advisory Committee’s consideration that precludes ‘time in rank’ as an obstacle. This change recognises that ‘talent’ can take a multiplicity of forms and creates a broader pool of candidates for consideration for promotion to middle- level and senior ranks. In the junior ranks, ‘time in rank’ requirements will remain as Army believes that extensive experience and foundation in an officer’s corps are key to success at more senior levels. Subsequently, in certain circumstances, Army may benefit from accelerating a few of its most promising mid-level leaders.
While Army understands the importance of nurturing its leaders, it is also essential that selection and posting are based on business and capability requirements. A core function of the ECM includes the selection of officers for posting based on considered interaction between an officer and his or her career advisor. Compassionate circumstances are closely considered; likewise personal development and individual preferences comprise supporting considerations, but ‘service need’ must ultimately retain primacy.
Professional development and experience outside Army have the potential to bolster Army’s performance when an officer returns to duty. For example, outplacements in selected organisations can generate networks and corporate knowledge that will enhance Army’s business performance. In recognition of this benefit, the ECM will encourage and support outplacements for a small number of Army’s most talented officers. It is envisaged that these opportunities would initially be six months in duration and selected and arranged by Career Manager– Army (CM–A) with a range of significant corporate entities and other government departments. On return to service, officers will not lose seniority and their acquired skills and experiences may support their presentation to the next Personnel Advisory Committee or be considered in their selection for more demanding roles.
Enhancing professionalism through education is a core component of Army’s officer development. At present, Army selects approximately 70 officers for attendance at Australian Command and Staff College each year. Some of those selected subsequently withdraw, typically for personal reasons, while many attending already have tertiary qualifications commensurate or in excess of that awarded by Staff College. To date, the great majority of officers promoted above the rank of major have been Staff College qualified. While the immersion experience of Staff College represents professional best practice narrowly conceived, it can act as an insurmountable hurdle in relation to some officers’ ability to progress their careers. This is particularly the case for officers who are unable to attend a residential course due to family commitments. The Broderick Review highlighted the potential negative implications of this:
This particular career gate often coincides with critical child-bearing years for women, and therefore poses a potential structural disadvantage to women’s career prospects. One woman told of cutting her maternity leave short to take up a position at ACSC which she believed would otherwise have been lost, while another said that she had: ‘never seen a group of women who plan their conception down to the actual day in the way that Army women do … I’ve got to have the baby then, because if I don’t have the baby then I’m not going to get into staff college’.23
Army realises that there are legitimate alternative avenues for gaining this knowledge and experience already being undertaken within the broader Defence Organisation. For example, the Australian Defence College is developing an Army Reserve Australian Command and Staff College package to be delivered via distance education. CM–A, in consultation with the Australian Defence College and Headquarters Forces Command, is developing complementary distance programs from a range of Australian universities to be undertaken by selected officers in existing posting locations. By providing Army officers with residential or distance education opportunities, Army acknowledges the need to develop some of its people through flexible work arrangements.
For many years global research has indicated that flexible work arrangements contribute to enhanced business performance.24 Research conducted by the Center for Talent Innovation in New York, a leading think tank in diversity and talent management, concluded that flexible work arrangements were a major drawcard for workers and resulted in high productivity levels. It found that:
… data shows that workers across a spectrum of ages — from Baby Boomers who have worked hard to reach the peaks of their career, to Generation X’ers struggling to satisfy professional ambitions and personal fulfillment, to Millennials who view work/life balance as their right — are looking for a remix of conventional rewards. Many of these don’t cost a dime but pay off in increased engagement, loyalty, and willingness to go the extra mile … If there’s one work perk that rises above the rest, it’s Flexible Work Arrangements … 87% of Boomers, 79% of Gen X’ers, and 89% of Millennials cite flex as important.25
Army policy actively supports formal and informal flexible work arrangements. Officers are already able to negotiate with their local chain of command to form arrangements that enable them to start work late or finish early supporting broader family and personal commitments. The focus of the ECM is on a more formalised arrangement for an officer to take advantage of part-time work or ‘job share’ opportunities. The new model empowers CM–A and the chain of command to endorse flexible work arrangements with no detriment to the officer’s career progression, predicated on close consultation with the officer’s career advisor concerning his or her relative merit, potential and career aspirations.
As with the previous career management system, the Personnel Advisory Committee will remain a powerful and relatively objective mechanism in assessing the comparative merit of officers. It will continue to play a central role in informing career management and Delegate decisions in relation to both promotion and appointment. Under the ECM, the Personnel Advisory Committee will be further empowered to evaluate a broader range of experiences and skills than at present. This will facilitate the consideration of talented officers who may not have previously met a filter requirement. To assist this process, membership of the committee is being expanded to offer greater diversity by including senior officers with non- traditional career paths and members external to Army and Defence. While these additions may result in slightly longer processes, they will ensure that change meets external best practice.
Conclusion
Army’s leaders are determined to build and sustain a relevant, positive organisational culture for its people and the land force capability they create. The ECM is one example of change in that direction, drawing on the experience of women in the Army. The success of Army’s ECM will be measured by the degree to which the processes of successive career management cycles support the identification, selection and posting of all Army’s officers to maximise their contribution over the long term. Success is critical to Army’s future. In 2013, Army will develop a comparable career management model for soldiers. This will be a complex task due to the sheer number and broad-based membership of this group. However, it is a challenge that Army is determined to meet.
Endnotes
1 Geoff Earley, Review of the Management of Incidents and Complaints in Defence including Civil and Military Jurisdiction, Report by the Inspector General Australian Defence Force (2011), Margaret Hamilton, The Use of Alcohol in the Australian Defence Force, Report of the Independent Advisory Panel on Alcohol (2011), Carmel McGregor, The Review of Employment Pathways for APS Women in the Department of Defence (2011), Craig Orme, Beyond
Compliance: An Operations Focussed Culture and The Australian Profession of Arms, Report of the Australian Defence Force Personal Conduct Review (2011), George Patterson Y&R, Review of Social Media in Defence (2011).
2 Defence Committee, Pathway to Change: Evolving Defence Culture, Department of Defence, Canberra, 2012.
3 Pathway to Change; Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force, Phase 2 Report, Sydney, 2012.
4 Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force, pp. 43–48.
5 Deloitte, Building the Lucky Country: Business Imperatives for a prosperous Australia – Where is your next worker?, 2011, p. 15.
6 Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, Future focus: Australia’s skills and workforce development needs, discussion paper for the 2012 National Workforce Development Strategy, July 2012.
7 Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force, p. 46.
8 Defence People Group, Culture and Workforce Capability Outlook 2012, p. 60. While there is known under-reporting of those from non-English speaking backgrounds, even if this figure doubled, the statistical outcome is still well below the Australian labour force average.
9 Diversity Council of Australia, ‘How prepared are Australian organisations for the workforce of the future?’ at: http://www.dca.org.au/News/News/How-prepared-are-Australian- organisations-for-the-workforce-of-the-future/324 (viewed 26 March 2013).
10 Ibid.
11 Culture and Workforce Capability Outlook 2012, pp. 58–59.
12 Figures compiled from data presented in Women in the workforce: by industry, Workplace Gender Equality Agency, http://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2012-12-13%20-%20 Women%20in%20the%20workforce%20by%20industry.pdf (viewed 26 March 2013).
13 National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, ‘Women in the Canadian Armed Forces’, Latest 5, New Room at: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/mobil/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3578, (viewed 26 March 2013).
14 Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, ‘Business Case for Diversity’ at: http://www.chubb. com/diversity/chubb4450.html (viewed 11 February 2013).
15 Rio Tinto, Diversity and Inclusion Policy at: http://www.riotinto.com/12351_rio_tinto_diversity_ policy.asp (viewed 13 February 2013).
16 Deloitte, ‘Waiter, is that inclusion in my soup? A new recipe to improve business performance’, Research Report, November 2012, p. 9 at: http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/ Local%20Assets/Documents/Services/Consulting/Deloitte_Diversity_Inclusion_Report_V4_ Nov_2012.pdf (viewed 5 December 2012).
17 Ibid.
18 ‘Waiter, is that inclusion in my soup?’, pp. 6–10.
19 Ibid., p. 6.
20 PricewaterhouseCoopers, ‘Workforce inclusion: maximizing business performance: Is your top talent flying under the radar or soaring to its full potential?’, June 2011, p. 1 at: http://www.pwc. com/us/en/people-management/assets/workplace_flexibility.pdf (viewed 13 February 2013).
21 Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force, p. 43.
22 Ibid., pp. 144–45.
23 Ibid., p. 147.
24 Sara Charlesworth, Mark Keen and Kerri Whittenbury, ‘Integrating part-time work in policing services: policy, practice, and potential, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2009, pp. 31–47; Diversity Council of Australia, Get Flexible! Mainstreaming Flexible Work in Australian Business, 2012 at: http://www.dca.org.au/News/News/Get-flexible- or-get-real%3A-It%E2%80%99s-time-to-make-flexible-working-a-legitimate-career-choice/245 (viewed 28 November 2012); Barbara A. W. Eversole, Donald L. Venneberg and Cindy L. Crowder, ‘Creating a Flexible Organizational Culture to Attract and Retain Talented Workers Across Generations’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 14, November 2012, pp. 607–25; Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Maggie Jackson, Laura Sherbin, Peggy Shiller, Eytan Sosnovich and Karen Sumberg, Bookend Generations: Leveraging Talent and Finding Common Ground, Center for Work-Life Policy, New York, 2009; Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force, pp. 227–37.
25 Sylvia Ann Hewlett, ‘Attract and Keep A-Players with Nonfinancial Rewards’, Harvard Business Review at: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hewlett/2012/05/attract_and_keep_a-players_wit… (viewed 1 February 2013).
