WIXLIB

1. IntroductionAustralia is widely celebrated as a multiculturaltriumph, but any such success remainsincomplete. There remains significant underrepresentation of cultural diversity in the seniorleadership of Australian organisations. Oursociety does not yet appear to be making themost of its diverse talents.Doing so is important, not only as a naturalprogression of our multiculturalism, but alsobecause it is necessary. Australia needs adiversity of ideas, capabilities and culturalintelligence to navigate technological, social,economic and geopolitical changes.In 2016, for the first time, research provided astatistical snapshot of the cultural diversity ofsenior leaders in business, politics, governmentand higher education. As published in Leadingfor Change: A Blueprint for Cultural Diversity andInclusive Leadership, the story was an unhappyone. There was an almost total absence of nonEuropean backgrounds represented among thecohort of chief executives in Australia.During the past two years, more attention hasbeen devoted to getting cultural diversity right.There is growing recognition that efforts ondiversity and inclusion have focused primarilyon gender, and have downplayed or ignoredculture and race. This is a welcome, thoughoverdue, development.At the same time, concerns about culturaldiversity are still often assimilated intodiscussions about gender diversity. Forexample, while there are some similarities inthe obstacles for greater gender and culturaldiversity in leadership, the issues are by nomeans identical. There is a need to givededicated time and energy to cultural diversityin its own right.This report provides an updated overview of therepresentation of cultural diversity in the seniorleadership of Australian organisations. Applyingand updating the methodology used in Leadingfor Change (2016), it gives a breakdown of thecultural diversity of the two most senior tiers ofsenior management within the ASX 200 groupof listed companies, Commonwealth and Stategovernment departments and universities. Thereport also provides statistics for the culturaldiversity of the Australian Parliament.The findings of this report suggest we have along way to go before realising the full potentialof our multicultural population. If progress isbeing made on cultural diversity, it remains slow.We reiterate that improving the representation ofcultural diversity requires action at three levels:leadership, systems and culture. Through aseries of case studies drawn from Australianorganisations’ experience, we highlightexamples of how such concrete steps canbe taken.This report does not purport to provide anexhaustive treatment of cultural diversityand leadership. It aims, though, to provide areference point for understanding how we arefaring. This includes providing a classificationthat can assist in discussing cultural diversity.This report also aims to provide some thematicguidance to organisations, in light of currentdebates. In addition to the inherent challenge ofdealing with race and culture, a contemporarybacklash against diversity might also impedeprogress. In the United States, Britain andEurope, political debates have exhibited ahardening of sentiments against immigration andmulticulturalism. This has been accompanied bynotable campaigns against diversity initiativeswithin workplaces, including within Silicon Valley.There are signs that such sentiments may alsobe gaining strength here in Australia.None of this gives us a reason to abandoncultural diversity. The fact that something is hardto do does not in any way mean that it is not theright thing to do. But it does mean advocatesfor cultural diversity must be prepared to updatetheir thinking and reinvigorate their language.Leading for Change 03

2. MethodologyOur study examined the cultural backgrounds ofchief executive officers of ASX 200 companies,federal government ministers, heads of federaland state government departments, and vicechancellors of universities. It also examined thecultural backgrounds of senior managementat the level directly below chief executivesand equivalent – namely, group executives ofASX 200 companies, elected members of theCommonwealth Parliament, deputy heads ofgovernment departments and deputy vicechancellors of universities.1These cohorts were chosen to illustrate therepresentation of cultural diversity amongleaders in business, politics, government (publicservice) and civil society.2.1 Cultural backgroundand classificationWe consider cultural background to referprimarily to a person’s ethnicity and ancestry.The concept of ethnicity can be understoodto relate to a human group or population thathas a common origin, and which may exhibitshared defining features such as homeland,language, customs, historical tradition, religionand physical appearance.2 We regard ancestry –a person’s descent and family background – asinextricably tied to ethnicity.Our study adopts a classification that includes fourwide groups of cultural backgrounds, which wasfirst used in the Leading for Change report (2016):1. Indigenous background;2. Anglo-Celtic background;3. European background; and4. non-European background.04The use of this classification, and the way inwhich cultural backgrounds are grouped, doesnot imply the expression of an opinion on thepart of the authors about the recognition ofsuch backgrounds by governments or thestatus accorded to them. It does not implythat there are only four ways in which people’scultural backgrounds can be expressed orcaptured – using this classification does nothingto prevent or deny people from expressingtheir cultural background or heritage. We usethis classification simply as a conceptual aidto understanding the representation of culturaldiversity. It provides a means of aggregatingcultural backgrounds in a way that permits moresophisticated analysis than otherwise possible.The meaning of the classification can beexplained in the following way.‘Indigenous’ designates those who have anAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culturalbackground.‘Anglo-Celtic’ describes those culturalbackgrounds that are English, Scottish, Welshand Irish.3 ‘European’ includes all Europeanbackgrounds other than Anglo-Celtic – includingNorth-West European (e.g. German, French,Dutch) and Southern and Eastern European(e.g. Italian, Greek, Polish).‘Non-European’ encompasses all other culturalbackgrounds, including South-East Asian(e.g. Vietnamese, Malaysian), North-East Asian(e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean), Southern andCentral Asian (e.g. Indian, Sri-Lankan, Afghani),Latin American (e.g. Mexican, Colombian),Middle Eastern and North African (e.g. Egyptian,Turkish), Sub-Saharan African (e.g. Nigerian,Zimbabwean) and Oceanic and Pacific Islander(e.g. Maori, Tongan).4

The use of any such categories necessarilyreflects the history of a particular society andthe preponderance of groups within it. Webelieve the above four categories – Indigenous,Anglo-Celtic, European, non-European – areappropriate in light of Australia’s demographichistory. In particular, they reflect the main wavesof immigration that have primarily shaped thecomposition of Australian society today.For some 60 000 years Australia was solelyoccupied by Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander peoples, until the arrival of the FirstFleet in 1788. With the colonisation of Australia,the population would become predominantlyBritish (English, Scottish, Welsh) and Irishin background. Scholars refer to Australiannational identity being shaped during its colonialera by an ‘Anglo-Celtic’ hybrid culture.5Such composition in the Australian colonialpopulation was reinforced by cumulativeimmigration from the British Isles. Significantnumbers of Chinese and other immigrantsarrived during the gold rushes in the second halfof the 19th century; there would also be manythousands of Pacific Islander workers who cameto Australia as indentured labourers in the 19thcentury, largely in Queensland. But immigrationrestrictions imposed by colonial and later theCommonwealth governments meant the culturalimpact of such immigration – namely, of nonAnglo-Celtic origin – was limited.The maintenance of the White Australia policyfor most of the 20th century meant thatimmigration was mainly from the British Isles –that is, until the post-Second World War period.The 1950s and 60s were years when significantnumbers of immigrants from Europe settled inAustralia. This would inject a new (non-AngloCeltic) European cultural component to theAustralian population.The next waves of immigration have been of anon-European origin, with the formal dismantlingof the White Australia policy in 1973, and thearrival of refugees following the conclusion ofthe Vietnam War and related strife in Cambodiaand Laos.The late 1970s and early 1980s saw some70 000 Indochinese refugees resettled inAustralia, with many more thousands of theserefugees’ relatives arriving in later years throughfamily reunion programs. This has also beenaccompanied by the arrival of immigrants fromother countries in Asia, as well as the MiddleEast, South America and Africa.62.2 Our process of classificationIn determining the cultural backgroundof Australian leaders in business, politics,government, and higher education, weexamined the following:a. publicly available biographical informationabout the individual (e.g. organisation websiteand Who’s Who entry);b. other relevant public statements that mayinclude information about the individual’scultural background (e.g. speeches andmedia reports);a. an individual’s full name and its origins;b. an individual’s place of birth; andc. photographs of the individual.Where possible, we have sought to findreferences to ancestry and cultural backgroundgoing back as far back as two generations (thatis, to a person’s grandparents). After gatheringthe available data, we then placed leaders’cultural backgrounds into one of the fourcategories: Indigenous, Anglo-Celtic, European,non-European.Such a methodology is consistent withacademic and industry studies of culturalbackground, as well as some internationalmonitoring practices.7 For example, in itsCapitalising on Culture study of corporateAustralia, Diversity Council Australia measuredcultural diversity based on the surnames ofboard and senior executive managers in ASX200 companies.8Leading for Change 05

Academic research in the United Statesby sociologists investigating the culturalbackgrounds of CEOs in Fortune 500companies has drawn upon biographicalinformation about race and ethnicity, as wellas photographs.9 Similarly, managementresearchers from Ryerson University, in theirannual studies measuring diversity amongleaders in Canada, have relied upon publicinformation such as captioned photos andbiographies to identify leaders and theirdemographic profiles.10 The United States EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission, in itsinstructions for its EEO-1 survey form (which allcompanies employing more than 100 peopleare required to submit), indicates that where‘employee declines to self-identity, employmentrecords or observer identification may beused’.11 A 2017 study of race and leadership inthe United Kingdom, involving a sample of morethan 1000 senior leaders, used a combination oflists and photographs to identify the backgroundof leaders.12After an initial review and identification of anindividual’s cultural background, the authorsreviewed the assessments made. We have erredon counting more cultural diversity than lesswithin leadership cohorts. Where we have beenunsure of how to classify someone’s culturalbackground for the purpose of this study, wehave favoured counting someone as Europeanrather than Anglo-Celtic, as non-Europeanrather than European, and as non-Europeanrather than Anglo-Celtic.06For example, in classifying an individualhas a father of Scottish background buta mother of Italian background, we wouldcount that individual as having a Europeanbackground rather than Anglo-Celtic. Withinthis exercise, an individual who has a father ofChinese background but a mother of Germanbackground, would be counted as havinga non-European background rather thanEuropean. Similarly, in the case of an individualwho has a father of English background buta mother of Indian background, we wouldcount that individual as having a non-Europeanbackground rather than Anglo-Celtic.

3. Findings3.1 The Australian populationProviding definitive statistics about the culturaldiversity of the Australian population is a difficulttask. There are no official statistics on the ethnicor cultural composition of the population. TheAustralian Bureau of Statistics, through theCensus, collects data on people’s place ofbirth, languages spoken at home, and selfidentified ancestry. However, none of thesevariables alone provide a satisfactory measure ofcultural diversity.In 2016, the Leading for Change report referredto studies suggesting at least 10 per cent of thepopulation have a non-European background.It drew upon Census figures from 2011 whichshowed that almost half of the Australianpopulation were born overseas, or have a parentborn overseas.13New analysis, undertaken for this report,provides an updated estimate of Australia’scultural diversity. By combining aggregate datafrom the 2016 Census and record-level datafrom the 2011 Census, in particular responsesto questions about ancestry and Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander identification, we suggestthat the Australian population is even moreculturally diverse than previously estimated.14We estimate that about 58 per cent of thepopulation has an Anglo-Celtic background.An estimated 18 per cent of the population hasa European background, 21 per cent of thepopulation has a non-European background,and 3 per cent of the population has anAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous)background. According to these estimates,Australia’s cultural diversity has increasedover time.Figure 1: Australia’s population by opeanIndigenous18Sources: ABS; estimates from RBA ERG3.2 Senior leaders of AustralianorganisationsThe cultural diversity of Australian society issignificantly under-represented within the seniorleadership of Australian organisations. Our studyexamined senior leaders in business, politics,government and higher education. Of thosewho occupy 2490 of the most senior posts inAustralia, 75.9 per cent have an Anglo-Celticbackground, 19.0 per cent have a Europeanbackground, 4.7 per cent have a non-Europeanbackground and 0.4 per cent have anIndigenous background.Described another way, about 95 per centof senior leaders in Australia have an AngloCeltic or European background. Althoughthose who have non-European and Indigenousbackgrounds make up an estimated 24 per centof the Australian population, such backgroundsaccount for only 5 per cent of senior leaders.Leading for Change 07

This finding of under-represented culturaldiversity is consistent with patterns in manyother countries described as multicultural ormultiethnic. According to McKinsey’s Deliveringthrough Diversity report (2018), in the UnitedStates, black Americans comprise 10 percent of graduates but only 4 per cent of seniorexecutives, Hispanics and Latinos comprise8 per cent of graduates but only 4 per cent ofsenior executives, and Asian Americans makeup 7 per cent of graduates versus 5 per cent ofexecutives. In the United Kingdom, 22 percentof university students identify as Black andMinority Ethnic, yet make up only 8 percent ofBritish senior executives.15 Such disparity wasalso found in the The Colour of Power study(2017), which showed that for more than 1000of the most senior posts in the UK in business,politics, government, sport, media and the arts,only 3.4 per cent of occupants are Black andMinority Ethnic (BME) – compared to 12.9 of thegeneral British population.16Table 1: Cultural Backgrounds of Senior Leaders in Australian Organisations (Chief Executivesand Other ‘C-Suite’ Leaders)Percentage ofsenior leadersPercentagePercentage over/of Australian under-representationpopulation( /-)Cultural 9.018 Eastern andNorthern African220.9Other 0Figure 2: Cultural Backgrounds of Senior Leaders in Australian OrganisationsPercentage of senior ndigenous19.008 17.9

3.3 Chief executives and equivalentsequivalents broadly tracks that of the total groupof 2490 senior leaders in this study, the levelof non-European background representation issubstantially lower (2.7 per cent compared to4.7 per cent). There is a combined total of 11chief executives who have a non-European orIndigenous background – or 3.0 per cent of thetotal of 372 chief executives. Put another way,97 per cent of chief executives have an AngloCeltic or European background. This is a dismalstatistic for a society that prides itself on itsmulticulturalism and egalitarianism.Of the 372 chief executives and equivalentsidentified in this study, we find that 76.9 percent of chief executives have an Anglo-Celticbackground, 20.1 per cent have a Europeanbackground, and 2.7 per cent have a nonEuropean background. There is one chiefexecutive who has an Indigenous background(0.3 per cent).While the pattern of cultural representationwithin the cohort of chief executives andTable 2: Cultural Backgrounds of Chief ExecutivesCultural backgroundNumberAnglo-CelticPercentage ofsenior leadersPercentagePercentage over/of Australian under-representationpopulation( /-)28676.958 18.9European7520.118 stern andNorthern African20.55Other igure 3: Cultural Backgrounds of Chief ExecutivesPercentage of chief anIndigenous20.1Leading for Change 09

We find that, of the ASX 200 group of chiefexecutives (n 200), 72.5 per cent have anAnglo-Celtic background, 23.5 per cent havea European background, and 4 per cent havea non-European background. There is no oneamong the ASX 200 chief executive cohort whohas an Indigenous background. Compared to2016, there has been a small increase in thelevel of European backgrounds, accompaniedby an almost equivalent decrease in therepresentation of Anglo-Celtic backgrounds.The level of non-European representation hasfallen from 5 per cent to 4 per cent.Within the federal government ministry(n 30) 83.4 per cent have an Anglo-Celticbackground, 13.3 per cent have a Europeanbackground, and 0 per cent have a nonEuropean background. 3.3 per cent have anIndigenous background, meaning one memberof the ministry. This reflects a higher level of nonAnglo-Celtic background representation from2016, in particular, of European backgrounds.Among federal and state governmentdepartmental secretaries or chief executives(n 103), 84.5 per cent have an Anglo-Celticbackground, 14.5 per cent have a Europeanbackground, and 1 per cent have a nonEuropean background. There is no one amongthe department secretary/chief executive groupthat has an Indigenous background. Comparedwith 2016, this reflects a slight increase in theproportion of Anglo-Celtic representation, and aslight decrease in European, non-European andIndigenous representation.Within the cohort of university vice-chancellors(n 39), 74.3 per cent have an Anglo-Celticbackground, 23.1 per cent have a Europeanbackground, and 2.6 per cent have a nonEuropean background. None of Australia’s 39university vice-chancellors has an Indigenousbackground. While these statistics reflect a risein the level of non-Anglo-Celtic representationwhen compared to 2016, the small size ofthis cohort means the result may not be asdramatic as it may appear. The rise in nonEuropean backgrounds, for instance, reflectsthe entry of one vice-chancellor who has a nonEuropean background.Table 3: Cultural Backgrounds of CEOs

As published in Leading for Change: A Blueprint for Cultural Diversity and Inclusive Leadership, the story was an unhappy one. There was an almost total absence of non-European backgrounds represented am