The Business Case for Women at Work (When DE&I Isn’t ‘Trendy’ Anymore)

In this special episode of Work It Like a Mum, we’re sharing the second panel discussion from our Give to Gain Summit, hosted in support of International Women’s Day.

This honest and thought-provoking conversation explores the future of women at work through the lens of flexibility, workplace culture, leadership, AI and changing employer expectations.

Featuring leaders across talent, DE&I and business strategy, the panel discusses the realities women are still navigating in modern workplaces and what organisations need to do to better attract and retain talent.

What We Cover:

• Why younger generations are becoming more sceptical of employers
• Why flexibility is often the first thing to disappear in tougher markets
• How visibility still impacts women’s progression
• The hidden career risks of flexible working
• Why leadership behaviour matters more than policy
• How AI could reshape jobs and career paths
• Whether DE&I targets still matter

Key Takeaways:

• Flexibility still relies heavily on trust
• Women are still balancing visibility with caregiving responsibilities
• Flexible leadership is still not fully normalised
• Culture is shaped by leadership every day
• AI will reshape jobs, but human skills remain critical
• Inclusion only works when embedded into everyday business decisions

Why Listen:

 If you’ve ever questioned whether flexibility really works in practice, worried about visibility while working flexibly, or wondered how AI will shape future careers, this conversation offers an honest and practical perspective on the realities women are navigating at work right now. 

Show Links:

Connect with  Elizabeth Willetts on LinkedIn here

Visit ISC Group’s website here 

Visit Elsevier’s website here 

Visit Markel’s website here 

Visit Intact Insurance’s website here 

Explore and download the full Women At Work Survey here

Boost your career with Investing in Women's Career Coaching! Get expert CV, interview, and LinkedIn guidance tailored for all career stages. Navigate transitions, discover strengths, and reach goals with our personalised approach. Book now for your dream job! Use 'workitlikeamum' for a 10% discount.

Transcript

Welcome To Work It Like A Mum

SPEAKER_03 0:00

Hey, I'm Elizabeth Willis, and I'm obsessed with helping as many women as possible achieve their boldest dreams after kids and helping you to navigate this messy and magical season of life. I'm a working mum with over 17 years of equipment experience, and I'm the founder of the Investing in Women Job Board and Community. In this show, I'm honoured to be chatting with remarkable women, redefining our working world across all areas of business. They'll share their secrets on how they've achieved extraordinary success as the children, their boundaries and balance, the challenges they face, and how they've overcome them. Shy away from the real talk. No way. Money, struggles, growth, lots, boundaries and balance. We cover it all. Think of this as coffee with your mates, mixed with an inspiring TED talk, sprinkled with the career advice you wish you'd really had at school. So grab a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, make sure you're cozy, and get ready to get inspired and chase your oldest dreams or just survive Mondays. This is the Work It Like a Mum podcast. This episode is brought to you by Investing in Women. Investing in Women is a job board and recruitment agency helping you find your dream part-time or flexible job with the UK's most family-friendly and forward-thinking employers. Their site can help you find a professional and rewarding job that works for you. They're proud to partner with the UK's most family-friendly employers across a range of professional industries. Ready to find your perfect job? Search their website at investinginwomen.co.uk to find your next part-time or flexible job opportunity. Now, back to the show. Hello and welcome to the second panel of our International Women's Day Summit, which is a really, really important panel. And I think it's something that a lot of us within the DENI space have noticed. But we're going to be talking today about the business case for women at work when D E and I isn't trendy anymore. And, you know, as obviously said to politicians that seem very against D E and I. And it is definitely filtering in to organisations as well. So we've got a brilliant panel here today to talk through what this means. As people are logging on, do let us know if you can hear us all okay. As before in the previous panel, please um post your comments if you've got any questions, and we will definitely do our best to answer them. But we're going to be talking today about what happens when companies drop their DENI targets, what does it actually cost them, why some organizations are pulling back on DEI, the risk of neutral um neutral I'll take one of my words out on what employees still gain when they invest in women even without targets and how flexibility has become a real inclusion lever. And we've got some brilliant, brilliant people on our panel today, including Carmen Powell, who is the CEO of ISC Group, which is an organization committed to increasing the number of women in leadership roles within insurance. John Miles, um, who is the senior manager talent acquisition at LC. I can never pronounce your company's name. Is it Elsevier?

SPEAKER_05 3:24

Yes, bang on.

SPEAKER_03 3:25

Oh my gosh, amazing. And they are they are a really big company that they're that we that most people haven't heard of, haven't they? Are they like the FTSE 10 or something?

SPEAKER_05 3:34

Yeah, so we've actually been dropped out of the FTE10. We won't we won't talk about that. Um yeah, well so LCV is part of a business called Red X. Red X is probably the biggest, at least well-known company in the in the UK.

Why Some Firms Step Back

SPEAKER_03 3:46

Nice, there we go. And this was your idea, wasn't it, this panel, John? Um I thought it was a brilliant, brilliant one. So um Gemma Jackson, she is the head of diversity, equity and inclusion at Intact Insurance. We're gonna be talking, she's gonna bring a real practical insight into what meaningful DNI um looks like beyond targets and statements. And Dr. Julie Humphreys, who is the head of diversity, inclusion and community engagement at Marshall International as well, which is another leading insurance firm. Um, this panel has been quite insurance heavy. Um it was never meant to be be that, but obviously it goes to show um how committed the insurance um insurance sector is to the E and I. So thank you so much to everybody that is joining us today, whether you're watching um or um on the panel as well. So first question um I've also got the QR code as well on the screen. We ran a women at work survey, over 500 of you completed that and shared your views about work and what it means for you. If you'd like to download the results of that survey, please scan the QR code and those will be sent across to you. Um so, Carmen, from a CEO perspective, why do you think some medium-to-large organizations have stepped back from DI commitments recently, even where there has been previously been genuine support at a leadership level?

SPEAKER_00 5:08

Well, um, I wouldn't need to argue whether it was um a sort of genuine support, if it was it is some companies were so quick to drop the support. Um, I think that is a mixture. There is not just one reason. Um for larger organizations that they are um government contractors, the the concern there was um that they may be losing uh contracts um because of the you know what happened in January 2025, um the appointment of Donald Trump and uh and and the DEI uh was shaking up. So I think that I will say that some companies were genuinely concerned about losing business, but they did find other ways to still work with companies like ISC, and that shows that they were still supporting women, even though um they did it knowing and such an open way as they would have done before. Um then on the other hand, you have many companies that um I felt that they were just sticking the box because even if they were not at danger of losing contrast with government, they used it very clearly to just to come out of the DEI policies and um and just stop supporting the programs that they used to.

SPEAKER_03 6:42

Okay. Um do you see this, Carmen, as a deeper trend in how organizations are thinking about responsibility for inclusion rather than a short-term reaction to pressure or priorities?

SPEAKER_00 6:56

I think that everybody, when this happened last year in Quota One of 2025, I think that everybody was quite puzzled. Um, how is the leadership going to react? Some people they were we cannot even negotiate or or think about renewals because we just don't know which direction it's going to take. So I think that a lot of people were confused, but and even the leadership, they were starting to, if they were part of a group, what is the group um dynamics to what that is going to be? What I have seen um even in in America that was the hardest hit by these um these uh policies, um I noticed that although in the US it seems that the they are still quite reluctant to um to support DEI in general, I have noticed that the support for women is even is even better now. I do think that there were a lot of women leaving organizations that they felt that they didn't have DEI policies or that the um programs that they used to have about supporting women, they they disappear. And I think that I don't know whether this is a reaction of women leaving and it's like a retention strategy or saying less let's now um you know even double down in supporting women, or whether it was an initial reaction and now that the the what the the waters are a little bit calmed and they are starting to go back to normal. So um I do think that there is also being very realistic that a lot of companies felt that they were being, and and probably you know the rest of the panel will know this um uh even better than me from their own internal processes, that um that a lot of the um a lot of the time is um you know the we get oh they are still a lot there are now a lot of women uh in senior positions, and I always say, well, you know, is 7% OCOC in the city closing up, or uh how is your pipeline? Because the pipeline for leadership is not there. So um so I think that there is still a way to go, and I will hope that companies are are going to still support uh women throughout their their careers because there is still pretty much a need for it.

SPEAKER_03 9:32

John, you work within a global US um headquarters business. From your perspective, are you seeing this as part of a wider international trend? And how is this playing out in talent attraction and candidate expectations?

SPEAKER_05 9:48

Thanks, Liz. Um it is it is absolutely uh a global conversation, right? I think um Karma mentioned it there, but I think I think the US and the US administration probably have a lot to to answer for. Um languages obviously may differ by region, but I think candidate expectations are pretty pretty consistent, and and and candidates look for evidence, not statements. I think um when you look at the values page on a on a careers website, uh, or on a business website, rather, they they all tend to look the same. Um, there's sort of four or five key values that that sit on probably most of the the biggest 50 companies uh across the globe, their their websites. So they they really look for evidence, and and that evidence can come in a lot of different formats. Um senior leadership makeup, who they meet in an interview process. If they go into an interview process and meet five or six middle-aged white men, yet diversity and inclusion is labelled all across their website. There's there's probably potentially a slight, slight disconnect there. And I think pay equity, right? Obviously, we know the the EU pay equity directive, which is coming into force or started coming into force in Poland late last year, but for the rest of the EU this year, what what are a company's just meeting um the directive, or are they are they going above and beyond?

SPEAKER_03 11:10

What is the directive? Sorry, I should know this.

SPEAKER_05 11:13

Yeah, that's all right. Um, so to publish um uh gender pay transparency um and to publish salary ranges externally for for all positions.

SPEAKER_03 11:25

Oh, on job adverts you mean, yeah. So no more competitive salaries advertised on job adverts.

SPEAKER_05 11:32

Yes, and and no longer can a salary be kept secret from offering to starting. Um to try and to try and level that playing field, right? Um, so again, what what a company's doing to get ahead of that directive, how are they going beyond that directive versus just sort of meeting meeting expectations? Um I think as well, when you think about it globally, you you can't afford any inconsistencies. So again, for for 99% of the countries across the globe, this is this is an important talking point. Um and I think generally in less mature markets, the expectations are less, but those less mature markets are moving significantly quicker and will still have or will be very close to having the same expectations as the US and Western Europe uminently.

SPEAKER_03 12:20

Interesting. Because I know that um I don't know if it's in all states, but certain states you can't advertise roles as as competitive. Um you have to show the salary in certain um states. Yeah, you probably know that more than anyone. So and I know that it's a big bug there for a lot of job seekers when roles are advertised as competitive and there doesn't seem to be transparency on adverts. So hopefully that will, you know, come here as well. Because obviously I know that'll be welcomed by a lot of people. Not necessarily organization. I should be interested to know your perspective from an organization's why have they been always so reluctant to publish salaries on job adverts. This would be interesting to know from an employer perspective.

SPEAKER_05 13:04

I guess because if they published it, they they would open up in the from their perspective, be opening up a can of worms and conversations they didn't particularly want to have.

SPEAKER_04 13:12

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 13:13

Um, where there are pay inconsistencies across gender, across ethnicities, um, across locations to a certain degree. Um and they're conversations that if a business can avoid having, they probably want to avoid having, right? Because the data there for a lot of organizations probably isn't glamorous.

SPEAKER_03 13:34

Yes. I mean, I guess if it's happening in the EU, then hopefully it will it will come here soon um as well. So um, John, another question for you. From a talent acquisition perspective, particularly within a larger global organization, what impact are you seeing when DENI becomes less visible or less prioritized?

SPEAKER_05 14:48

So I think I'm a I'm a big believer in what gets measured gets done. And and again, because of the the the great US administration, I say that very ironically, um it stopped cut companies have taken a very conservative approach to adhere to that US administration and therefore have stopped measuring it. And then when it stops getting measured, it slowly starts to impact or creep into if we talk about hiring, a lot of different aspects of hiring, right? So um recruiters start being um less intentional around divert like building diverse pipelines. Um companies lower investments or or completely eradicate investments with external partners, for for example. Um succession planning in organizations becomes a lot a lot narrower and a lot shallower. Um, so those those factors really are really the outcome with it becoming less prioritized and less visible. And they are they are really dangerous.

SPEAKER_03 15:55

Yeah. Do you think there are any signals that um candidates pick up on when inclusion genuinely isn't embedded? And what are the implications of that, particularly for future leadership pipeline?

SPEAKER_05 16:08

So I think I think there's a disconnect when there's a disconnect between what the company says externally and what what a candidate sees, physically or virtually, as they go through an interview process. Um, I think we've got there's a there's a ton of different platforms across different countries where where candidates who go into interview process with companies share their feedback, be it Glassdoor or or other sites similar to it. And I think that happens quite quite quickly. Um so you can sort of see that that feedback within like three to six months, probably. Um, I think you then start to, when you start looking at the the the sort of hiring metrics and you're looking at the the various dimensions of dirt diversity that most companies assess, you start to see that tail off probably at about 12 months. And I think from there, you then start probably in about two, three years, you start seeing innovation reduce, right? And and I guess obviously the sector that we work in, where we we're a data analytics software business, if we stop innovating, we die, right? Um you lose your competitive edge very, very quickly. And I think the business case for not just women in work, right, but diversity in general, is about how do you, when you're tackling a problem or looking for a solution, how do you get a group of people together that come from different life experiences, different viewpoints, and look at the same problem in a lot of different ways, that creates innovation, right? When you stop measuring or you stop focusing on diversity and inclusion, you tend to then consciously, subconsciously build a group of people who all look the same, sound the same, and think the same. And then your innovation dies. And then once that goes, it doesn't happen overnight. You'll see your commercial, your commercial or your financials of the business start to start to plateau or decline in three, five years. And then to unpick that is if it is doable, is probably a decade-long exercise. So, what starts with something that seems, oh, okay, well, our short lists are just getting a bit less diverse. Or we've hired a few less women than we did last year, but you know, it's not the end of the world. That can have a detrimental impact to the business long term.

Why Neutrality Creates Silence

SPEAKER_03 18:28

That's really that's really interesting to know. Thank you for sharing that. Um, Gemma, we're hearing more about organisations taking a neutral approach to D and I from your experience and what are the unintended consequences of that?

SPEAKER_02 18:44

I think, I mean, and John definitely touched on some of them there. I, you know, I acknowledge that it's rough out there, the landscape is really difficult. Um, it ebbs and flows, it gets more challenging by the day. Um, but I think from an organization perspective, those that are leaning away from um DNI, the ones that um frame DNI inclusion under a political agenda, rather under that frame of neutrality, I think, aren't actually demonstrating a neutral position themselves, that what they're actually doing is just staying comfortable in the dynamics that currently exist at the minute. So actually, it isn't a neutral statement. Um, and this work is really difficult, it's tough, it carries with it some really emotional labour and often some really difficult and uncomfortable conversations. So you need the right people leading this conversation, and it needs reframing into the fabric, you know, the wider facets of the business. I think the first consequence is definitely silence, you know, when you take a step back from these conversations. The people that are most marginalized by our systems and our structures are the ones that will often shrink back so they won't be speaking up the issues that people have, they don't they won't disappear, but that what you will find is they just go underground. And those are the types of things where um you have less honest conversations, don't you? So where we're trying to drive from a business a positive culture engagement perspective, those are the things that ultimately pay the price when we move and shift this agenda because DNI is an acronym, actually. The real cons the real construct of it is inclusion, embedding culture and in and equity for everybody in the business, and that does look different for different communities and different facets of it. I think um neutrality, you know, you know, is it neutral, is it passive, you know, it's stepping back in terms of uh of a focus of attention. John touched on a number of things in terms of consequences, and again, I think I'd have to say, are they intended, are they unintended? Because actually, if there's a step back, there's quite an intentional effort to move away from that. But actually, some of the things, and you've you spoke to them already, is um a lack of innovation, you know, just different perspectives, breeding, real creativity, innovation, um, and challenging on the decision making that we're having in the business. But what it also does is create ambiguity. So actually, when we don't have um a clear stance on what our business stands for, that impacts on values, on behaviors, on the way ways that people show up um every day in the business, and actually that heightens tension rather than reduces it.

SPEAKER_03 21:51

You obviously, in your role, you've you'll have seen this, but what happens to women and other underrepresented groups and organizations stop being intentional.

SPEAKER_02 21:59

I think again, and you use the word intentional, John, as well earlier. I think um the opportunities will just start to flow back into the networks and the the spheres that they already existed in. So actually, you know, the people that are getting pulled in the room are the same people that they were before, actually, the people that are tapped on the shoulder for leadership opportunities are the same people that are in the in the similar or familiar networks because it's not often malicious, some of those intentions actually it's um human nature, so we default to the familiar, and that's where some of the more um unconscious bias elements come through. But um, it is weaved into absolutely everything that we do through uh culture, through how we show up in the business, career progression, what That looks like, who's in the room. There are so many different elements to that. And ultimately, we're building a product for our customers that isn't reflective of the people that we're trying to serve in the first place.

Flexibility Needs Culture To Work

SPEAKER_03 23:05

Be interesting to show people's experience that are watching either live or on the replay, you know, what's been your experience with your employers or what you've seen anecdotally? You know, have you seen that employees generally aren't prioritising DE and I and what's been the impact on you and your communities to let us know in the comments. Julie, in your view, has flexibility become the most powerful and often overlooked a quality lever for women at work? And if not, what do you think matters more?

SPEAKER_01 23:38

Thanks, Liz. So I'm going to caveat what I've what I'm about to say with the fact that this morning we've had nine puppies in and I've spent all morning stroking them. So that might be the most powerful lever I'm thinking of. But flexibility is good as well. So yeah, joking aside, I do think flexibility is genuinely a powerful lever for women at work, but only when culture around it makes it real. Flexibility on its own just isn't enough. And I think culture is what gives people that permission to use it without fear or consequence. I think there's actually some strong evidence for it as well. So there's some research King's College London have um conducted, which shows flexibility alone doesn't deliver the gender equality that we're looking for. And in fact, without the right cultural reinforcement, it talks about uh women uh experience what we call uh flexibility stigma or bias. That's where using flexible arrangements can damage their progression or even reinforce stereotypes around commitment. So that's why I think that flexibility isn't just flexibility, uh, as we say, it's just not a word, it's not hybrid working, it's not remote working, it's actually flexible working is about trust and it's about that psychological safety and enabling people to shape their own working lives in ways that actually does work for them. Um, and and I guess what what I'd like to really look at is team culture, because um, team culture is three times more important than organizational culture in shaping how people experience work. So it's the behaviour of the line managers, those unspoken norms, the reactions to flexibility or the flexibility requests, and and that really determines whether flexibility levels playing field in an organization, or actually does it quietly reinforce that inequality? So if we have to um, or if we want to unlock flexibility and equality for women, we're going to come back to that word of being intentional. We have to be intentional about the environments that we create because culture cannot be left a chance. Um, so flexibility can be a powerful lever, but culture is what makes it real.

SPEAKER_03 25:58

I like that. And it's interesting because we ran a survey, I know women at work surveying it came up that the people that were getting flexible working actually um they felt there was less opportunities to grow and develop. Within their role, which is obviously really sad. Yeah, and I suppose that leads on to the next question I had to you, Julie. What happens when flexibility exists on paper as well, but not in practice?

SPEAKER_01 26:22

Yeah, and this does lean into sort of some of the comments that John was making and Gemma um around when flexibility exists on paper, but not in practice, it becomes that performative action. So that's where the real damage can happen. Um, and you can tend to either see a physical exodus or a psychological one. And to be honest, both are equally harmful to organisations and to people. So sometimes people simply leave. Um, and there's a survey uh done by McKinsey called Women in the Workplace, and their research showed that more and more women were choosing employers based on three things culture, well-being, and flexibility. But they're actually what it also showed was that they're actually walking away from organizations that are failing to deliver on those. Um, and then the other flip of the coin is others that are staying in the workplace, but they're quietly disengaging. So their trusts just going down, their happiness at work, which is a really big metric, uh, overlooked often happinesses, but that goes down as well, that drops, and people just mentally check out. Um, and then once that happens, that sort of level of disengagement just spreads across teams really fast, uh, faster than organizations uh realize, actually. And then finally, I would say um there's a reputational risk, again, leaning into what John was talking about in terms of uh you know, the that people jump straight on to um social media. Um employees don't wait for exit interviews anymore um to give feedback. Uh those stories travel quickly, they travel instantly on the social media platforms, and organizations quickly become known as either genuinely flexible or quietly inflexible.

Gains From Backing Women Anyway

SPEAKER_03 28:06

Interesting. Thank you, Julie. Um, where my question has gone. Carmen, we've got um a question for you. When organizations continue to invest in women, even without formal targets, what do they actually gain?

SPEAKER_00 28:23

Well, there are plenty of statistics that shows uh benefits that affect the bottom line of a business. Um, I know that uh John was mentioning a lot about innovation, and that was gets major gets done. And uh the there are many, you know, there are researchers by the World Economic Forum, I can see many, many different firms that show the the importance of diversity of those and how it helps um companies at all levels from innovation to to revenue, like uh for example uh in insurance is um it's very important that women are part of the product development because uh sometimes, as we know very well in health, um if um if there are no women involved uh in in developing a um a service or a product for women, then there are a lot of things that are important, that they are myths. So um the women obviously have a lot of purchasing power, they they they make a lot of decisions uh whether it's insurance or anywhere else, and therefore uh having um uh employees at all levels that they are female, then they will be representing their different customer bases. So also as Gemma said, uh, you know, when uh when inclusion is embedded in a culture, then everything starts uh becoming uh uh you know flowing and uh and and more um you know it's not like the necessary to have targets because the culture is embedded of the need of having um balance at all different levels. And um we can we can see for example that um traditional sectors like um engineering where women um there were very few when women are involved in space in in less traditionally women um um sort of sectors, then it shows that the innovation uh increases. So they are very, very clear um benefits.

SPEAKER_03 30:40

Nice. So, yeah, can you give us some examples where it's made a tangible difference to some of the clients you work with when they do continue to invest in women?

SPEAKER_00 30:50

I um we had recently a client, and this one was funny enough in the US that for example they invested in 12 women uh to be um uh ISC um members, and these women they were all um um sort of identified as potential leaders, all were uh promoters and they all have the different departments. And I do think that um that we can really see that when um when women have role models to uh to represent and there is there is the say of if you don't see, you can't be. And I think that as more and more women they are representing all the different functions and all the different industries, I think that then you can really see tangible difference. So we have seen um as I was mentioning in the beginning, we have we have also seen the other end that when um when women are not supportive, they leave the business.

The Long Tail Cost Of Exclusion

SPEAKER_03 33:02

Absolutely. Um John, I've got a question for you. What um what do organizations risk losing when they stop prioritizing inclusion?

SPEAKER_05 33:14

Everything, from my opinion. Um I mean I I kind of answered that a little bit earlier by sort of getting to the the the the outcome in three to five years, which is commercial uh commercial plateauing or or decline, right? And I think I was just reading through some of the some of the comments in the chat here as well, and I I think it's really interesting, and I think you kind of have to come back to why do organizations exist, right? And I think there was a comment around um damaging employer brand for the next generation of talent, and and we're doing a lot of work with um Gen Z, I think it is. I think that's that's the next one into the workforce, um, and how skeptical they are um of large organizations, right? Because they've grown up with uh with their parents working in large organizations, seeing five, ten percent of the what the workforce laid off every single year to be rehired in by different different people be rehired in three months' time just because they missed an arbitrary number that they originally said they were going to do 12 months ago. And I think that there is that, I think it's already there in terms of most large organizations, their employer brand with this jet this younger talent coming into the workforce, are really skeptical and don't and don't trust us. Um and they're and they're right not to trust us, right? Because if you think why organizations exist, if you ask any CEO of the FTSE hundred businesses, why why do you exist?

SPEAKER_03 34:47

What would they say?

SPEAKER_05 34:48

Would you think so so they exist for their customers and they say they exist for their employees, right? They say oh, we put we prioritize customers. That is a phrase that if you look on any company's website, prioritizing customers will be will be there somewhere, right? Yeah, from my and this is I need to caveat this, is it's just my perspective, not not the business's perspective. Yeah, um, that isn't true, right? If you think about how capitalism, I'm I've got a bit of a tangent here, but bear with me. Capitalism is is established, companies are there for its shareholders, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was gonna say shareholders, isn't it really? But no company would put that on their website, right? No company would say, hey, we exist to line the pockets of the thousands of investors that that invest in our business, right? So they're already lying's a strong word, but they're already not completely transparent in saying why they exist, right?

SPEAKER_03 35:45

Because we trust them more if they actually were said that.

SPEAKER_05 35:50

I don't know. I I probably would, right? I'd say, okay, well, to drive shareholder value is a really important thing for us. And if we manage to do that, then we'll make sure our employees are well looked after and and what we do will benefit our customers, right? Yeah, but I think that sort of lack of transparency is probably a better way to phrase it, makes the workforce really skeptical, right? And if you've been a child or a young adult growing up and see this happen to to people you know and love, you become even more skeptical, right? Um so I think, and I don't have the solution to this, I wish I did. Um, but I I think that's sort of the the landscape that that a lot of companies are trying to navigate right now. And it's and I don't think actually many of them actually sit down and actually thought about the problem and looked at it from that younger generational talent and what they've seen and what they've lived through and how genuinely skeptical they are about businesses.

SPEAKER_03 36:49

I'm just gonna ask you something else that's actually maybe not so relevant to this. If they were more transparent about that they exist for their shareholders, which we we know that wouldn't that actually encourage us as a nation? And I know Rachel Reeves wants to become this. I know actually the Americans are quite good at this, to become much more of investors ourselves rather than consumers. Actually think, you know what, that's fine, I'm gonna invest in shares in these certain organizations because that's actually gonna benefit me more long term than just being an employee or consumer of your business.

SPEAKER_05 37:24

Good question. I mean, I'm I'm probably not qualified to answer that, and and um and my investing advice, I would strongly recommend you don't listen to it, it's probably terrible. Um but um yeah, maybe. Um yeah, I think it's yeah, I I think people are just really skeptical, right? And and again, when you when you look through some of the comments, and I think businesses now with a reducing workforce, workforce requirement for businesses through various technologies and large language models and AI, the supply-demand ratio now that we see is favoring employers. And then when employers feel that they're in a stronger position to hire, you see things like flexibility reduce, right? You see things like salaries start to plateau because there's 50 people wanting the same job. Um, and I think we're in that, I think we're in that situation now where businesses and large mass-scale hirers across Western Europe and the US hold quite a lot of the power.

Progress Without Targets In Practice

SPEAKER_03 38:26

Maybe the idea the trick is to become more of us to become shareholders, even if it's only a small holding, obviously, you know, not everyone can afford, you know, hundreds of thousands of pounds, but actually you can influence organizations a lot more by inviting being invited to their AGMs and shareholder meetings and things like that. So that's something to consider and definitely something for another another panel. Um but yes, um moving on, Gemma. If targets are dropped, what actually matters more day to day in driving progress for women at work? Oh, you're on mute, love.

SPEAKER_02 39:00

I would have got better at that over these years. Um I think in terms of dropping targets, I think the first thing to consider is actually why were they there in the first place? So, actually, where are we as a business? Where do we need to get to, and what is what is the gap that we're trying to plug? I think for me, targets are an all-star. So all they're doing is providing some direction, some accountability. In of themselves, they're not actually what derives the outcome. It's everything that sits underneath that. So it's the um processes through the recruitment cycle, it's the conscious, practical flexibility in our policies and our processes that enable underrepresented groups. You know, in this case, we're talking about women in accessing opportunities that other people find much easier to step into. I think like one tangible example of within the financial sector is we have the Women in Finance Charter that holds signatories accountable to driving progress in the gender balance space. Now we trend year on year around 1% progress. Um that is slow progress and that is with targets. So I dread to think where we'd be if we didn't have some guide rails around some of the direction that we're trying to plug. Um, this progress is not moving fast, it it's it is making progress, but not by any sort of pace. So it's the intentional actions in the everyday items. You know, I'm very um very much an advocate of not having DNIs a bolt on, and we've spoken already about this, but actually really weaved into every facet of the business in terms of making our processes inclusive and transparent so that everybody can access them. Um, so targets can obviously you know be some smoke and mirror around actually the content that we're really trying to drive progress against.

SPEAKER_03 41:11

And um can you give us some examples, Gemma, of what this looks like then in practice?

SPEAKER_02 41:18

I think in terms of the things that are sitting behind the targets, it's making sure that you've got sponsorship and stretch opportunities available for people. Um, as I say, policies that help enable people to work flexibly. And this isn't just women, this people we we need to strengthen the breadth of our policies to enable men and everybody else to tap into those so that that balance of responsibility isn't weighted on women, which is why policies like equal equal parental leave are so important, flexible working and visible demonstration of that in senior leadership. That we've we've spoken about um that population of senior leaders in boardrooms and exec rooms, actually, predominantly, and I don't know the stats off my head, will largely be full-time, if not all full-time employees, and how do we strengthen the opportunities that people underneath those pipelines have access to in order for everybody to be able to work more flexibly? You know, if the CEO of an organization had a number of successes underneath him, he might be able to go part-time or she might be able to work part-time. So, actually, how do we think more creatively? And when you don't have a diverse perspective in that room making these decisions that shape policy, that drive change, then our views are very one-dimensional, which is why some of our flexible working processes across organizations wider than just the sector that I sit within are so binary because you have one, you know, one version of the truth in that room that's making those decisions. So it's definitely around um making sure processes are fair, you know, tapping people on the shoulder, that it's underpinned with really structured talent decisions that are fair, um, that are giving people the right access to opportunity, um, and just making sure people are in the the right people are in the room.

SPEAKER_03 43:28

Absolutely. Julie, if there's one thing you'd urge employers not to lose sight of right now when it comes to women at work, what would it be and why?

SPEAKER_01 43:38

Um so I guess it's a good question, and it's come up in in the uh chat as well. Um so the one thing that um employers shouldn't leave sight of, I think, is that culture piece. Um and it has to be intentional, and leaders have to be accountable for it. Um, so it's something that is their responsibility and they're accountable. Um, it just doesn't happen by accident. Um, you don't just suddenly have a culture in your team, and you know, how on earth did that happen? Um, leaders and managers are shaping that culture every single day. And we've got to stop putting the responsibility of all this on women. Um, it's not women's problem to fix, it's the organizations to fix and the culture to fix. So um it's workplace culture all the way for me.

Brand Risk And Visibility Trade Offs

SPEAKER_03 44:25

Lovely. Thank you. So we've had some questions in the comments, so I will go through those now. Um I'm going to ask you this, Gemma, if that's okay. Do you think organizations that step back from D ⁇ I risk damaging their employer brand with the next generation of talent?

SPEAKER_02 44:45

I think absolutely, I think it was John. Somebody mentioned it a little earlier in the conversation. Actually, certainly that Gen Z, the younger generation, uh, and that's not a sweeping, it's broader than that, uh, so much more attuned to social justice than our generations that have passed before. Um, the media um is so much more accessible. So, actually, to Julie's point around culture, a culture is demonstrated in many different ways, and the company website is not going to be the only way that that you know it does that. Um, when you mentioned earlier around the people that might potentially leave in the business, actually, and being a bit more explicit around what that is, even the subtle undertones that you see on LinkedIn profiles spell a culture whilst protecting that person's um integrity in searching the job market. So I um I think culture is inherently tied to brand, and therefore, when people are actively moving away from this and DI is culture, then essentially, yes, that is going to damage um. Um brand or reputation.

SPEAKER_03 45:59

Carmen, I'm going to unmute you. Um oh, sorry. Can you hear me, Carmen? Um, if flexibility is one of the most powerful equality levers, why do you think so many organizations still hesitate to put it into roles from the start?

SPEAKER_00 46:16

Well, I think that a few panelists have mentioned the word trust, and I think that is lack of understanding and also being very old-fashioned of if I don't see you, then that means that you are not working. And I would like to bring something up that for me is quite important, and that is that men at the moment tend to be in the office more than women because women are working more flexibly. And I know that you and I have spoken offline about this, uh Liz. Um, but the consequences here are that when um when they are the redundancies, women tend to be chosen because of the lack of visibility. So I always personally, in every event I I speak of, I always say, you know, take care of yourself, be free take care of the flexibility that's that your company offers you, but also be very aware that you need to be conscious and intentional about being in the office as well, because we know that being in the office, besides creating not all the time, but just a few days a week, it does create that um that sort of relationships, the the innovation, the creativity, and and I think that that is also needed, but I do think that flexibility has um, I don't know, it's affecting women, um big women's careers. Um, and I just would like uh women to be very aware of that, is is all I can say, because you go to an office in the city and you can still see a lot more men than women, but that doesn't mean that women are not working, they are just working and taking care of the kids and doing everything at the same time and being very productive, but again, is what you don't see sometimes you don't think that is there.

Job Market Power Shifts And AI

SPEAKER_03 48:18

Yeah, so I guess it's a little bit it's a balancing, isn't it? Of what you can do to make yourself visible in certain, you know, in certain situations. But actually, how are uh employers then actually measuring success and um the value that individuals are bringing, whether they are also in the office or not? So um John, this is a question for you um from India. In a tougher job market, do you think organizations feel less pressure to offer flexibility or be or inclusive policy or policies because talent supply has increased?

SPEAKER_05 48:53

Absolutely. I think um yes, trust has been spoken about a lot, right? And I think when you think about senior leaders in business, in businesses, they they tend to not need flexibility, right? They they're the they're the middle-aged white men who come into the office five days a week, right? People who need flexible flexibility don't do it because they just want to sit in their slippers all day, they they do it because whether it's childcare requirements, whether it's a disability, whether it's they're caring for relative uh elderly relatives, right? And I think until you start getting part-time workers and flexible working at the top of the organization, it's never truly understood. Um, but organizations have seen it as an opportunity, right? When um when unemployment increases and the supply-demand ratio starts favoring employers, they will use that as an opportunity. And those that that maybe have a trust issue with remote or flexible working will start to pull back from those requests. Um so yeah, look, I think business is actually absolutely leveraging the current situation.

SPEAKER_03 50:01

We have a panel on AI in this afternoon, which is gonna be really interesting. Um and I guess there's two sides, isn't there, to AI? There's the side that actually AI is gonna force us all probably to end up working part-time because as it takes some of those um, you know, more menial tasks away. Um but also it's obviously gonna increase competition because there's gonna be fewer jobs. How do you think um it's going to affect the job market moving forward, John?

SPEAKER_05 50:32

Um so I think there will be less jobs, right? I think businesses have a decision on whether to use AI to streamline their workforce or whether to use AI to enhance their workforce, right? So by automating basic tasks, does that give the individual more freedom to do more creative, more innovative, more human-based tasks? Um, or does it mean instead of having 10 people doing that job, they can now have six people doing it because AI is um AI is taking over four of the jobs? Um I think there will be a very clear difference between workers who adopt AI and those that don't. And I think it's it's already here, right? I mean, we've got a bunch of agents um within our TA ecosystem, um, AI agents that are that are that are integrated and used on a on a daily basis. Um, so if those that don't adopt it put themselves in a pretty precarious position, I think. But yeah, it will absolutely negative uh impact the job market actively.

Making Flexible Leadership Feel Normal

SPEAKER_03 51:39

Yeah. Um I've got a question for you, um, for you, Julie. Um, why do so many organizations still treat part-time or flexible leadership roles as unusual rather than normal?

SPEAKER_01 51:54

Um interesting question. Why do they? Um, well, first of all, can I just just go back on the AI question? Yeah, absolutely. Just a thought, um, because what I I agree with what John's saying, but also I think that organizations are gonna need to look at talent differently. Um, and this sort of, I guess, comes into the second question. Um, I don't in the future, I don't think we're gonna be assessed or assessing people on uh sort of linear experience anymore. We're gonna be looking at skills more um and what they can bring to the new role. Um, and I think that's where, and we I know we're doing a lot of work around that and what the future looks like. And I think more companies will do that, and it will be um less of competency-based interviews, it will be very, very skill-based um and potential skills. Um, that's one one part that I just wanted to bring out uh that will be a huge difference around talent. Um, sorry, the question was around the flexibility. Sorry.

SPEAKER_03 52:55

So, why do so many organizations still treat part-time or flexible leadership roles as unusual rather than normal? And that's from Amy.

SPEAKER_01 53:02

Um, I don't know whether I agree with the question, really. I guess some organizations may do that and other organisations might not. And it comes back to that cultural piece of you know, um, it's down to the team and down to the management. Um, and if a manager has um a group of people who do walk work in different patterns, then they will not see another request as an unusual pattern. Um, but I guess it's just getting to that time, isn't it, where it's not seen as an unusual pattern. And role modelling definitely comes into that. We're doing a lot of work around, for example, family leave and making sure that it's normalized across male and females around taking leave. And and I think the more people see um that it's equal, then the more people will feel empowered to do it themselves. So I think a bit of both, a bit of all corporate change, but a bit of individual sort of role modelling as well.

Accountability When Targets Go

SPEAKER_03 53:56

Absolutely. Brilliant. And then I've got a final question for you, Gemma, um, from John. When formal DNI targets disappear, what mechanisms actually hold leaders accountable for progress?

SPEAKER_02 54:12

I mean, that's that's a million-dollar question, really, because unless it's framed into the, and I know I've said this a number of times, unless it's just written into BAU and it's how we do things, it's very natural, um, it forms part of every single process, then it will naturally happen. And the accountability is the the broader metrics that we're measuring as a business for growth and um engagement and all the other types of things that we're measuring. I think without the guardrails of it, where we are in society at the minute, it will just flounder in the same way as that we've spoken around earlier in the panel. Um, but if we're looking at it in more depth, then actually it's it's in the engagement metrics. It shows up in what people say it is like um to be able to comfortably be yourself or to comfortably have um career or development opportunities. So it is weaved in more granularly to other and more broader metrics. It's in your attention data, it's in your attraction, it's your attraction data. Um, and ultimately, to our the broader panel's points earlier, it's who's applying for roles. We've talked about creativity and innovation, and actually your business, the your ultimate business results are what are going to make leaders most accountable when somebody over here are doing things really creatively and differently, and actually are building really strong business and growth results. So it is underpinned in wider metrics. I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of targets, but I think they serve a purpose for where we are right now until we get to a position where they can be moved away.

Closing Thanks And How To Connect

SPEAKER_03 56:02

Until the position, like we spoke about in the previous question, where it's the norm. So thank you so much, Gemma, John, Carmen, and Julie for joining me today. Thank you so much as well to everyone that has watched, that has asked questions, that completed our women at work survey as well. If you want to download the results, just scan the QR code and they will be sent across to you. Thank you so much. It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for thank you for listening to another episode of the Work It Like a Mum podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to share the link with a friend. If you're on LinkedIn, please send me a connection request at Elizabeth Willett and let me know your thoughts on this week's episode. You can also follow my recruitment site, Investing in Women, on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. Until next time, keep on chasing your biggest dreams.