News

Interest rates could begin falling from June after inflation plunged to a two-year low of 4.1 per cent, but a leading economist warned Anthony Albanese’s rewrite of stage three tax cuts risked delaying relief for mortgage holders until later in the year.

Financial markets predict the 4.35 per cent Reserve Bank cash rate will be cut by the middle of the year, after December quarter data showed a higher-than­-expected decline in annual inflation from the 5.4 per cent recorded in September.

The sharemarket rose to a ­record 7680.7 points on the back of the inflation numbers released on Wednesday, with the market expecting Australians to receive relief on mortgage repayments just as stage three tax cuts flow through to pay packets from July 1.

AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver said he expected three rate cuts this year, starting in June. But he said there was a risk the rewrite of the stage three tax cuts – which are skewed towards lower-income workers who spend more of their pay – would delay interest rate reductions until ­August.

“It might delay the RBA but the impact won’t be instantaneous,” Dr Oliver said.

“The (tax cut) will be spread out over the course of the next 12 months so the impact will become more slowly apparent. But that is obviously a risk.”

Jim Chalmers said price growth had “come off really substantially” since the peak in late 2022, but declared there was still a need for Labor to push ahead with its broken promise to change the stage three package and provide cost-of-living relief for low and middle-income earners.

“Inflation has come off really substantially. But we need it to moderate further and even faster, because we know that people are still under pressure,” the Treasurer said.

“We’re making welcome and encouraging progress in this fight against inflation. But the reason the tax cuts are so important is because people still need relief from these cost-of-living pressures.”

Inflation has fallen to 4.1 per cent from 5.4 per cent in the December quarter. Sky News Business Reporter… Edward Boyd says inflation is down a little bit more than anticipated. “The market was pricing in 4.3 per cent for inflation during the calendar year 2023, instead it’s gone.

With cost-of-living concerns likely to ease ahead of the next election, due in 2025, opposition Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor said voters were better off ­before the Coalition lost office in 2022. “There’s no plan to get back to where we were when we were in government, absolutely none whatsoever,” Mr Taylor said on Wednesday.

“And this is the problem with Labor. At the end of the day, if you want everyone to be better off, you’ve got to manage the economy the right way and this is what Labor’s failing to do and the results are clear.”

Ahead of the Reserve Bank board’s first meeting of the year on Tuesday, Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed consumer prices lifted just 0.6 per cent through the final three months of 2023 – the smallest increase in nearly four years – and half the 1.2 per cent rate in the September quarter. The consensus among economists had been for annual consumer price growth to drop to 4.3 per cent.

Westpac chief economist Luci Ellis said the latest consumer price report capped a series of weak data releases over recent months, including soft labour and retail sales figures, that had “sealed the deal” for rates to stay on hold.

“The RBA will keep the cash rate on hold next week, and it is unlikely to raise rates further this cycle,” Dr Ellis said.

There was even better news in the more timely – if less complete – monthly figures, which showed inflation plunged to 3.4 per cent in the year to December, from 4.3 per cent in November.

Financial markets were pricing in a nearly 90 per cent chance of a rate cut by mid-2024, according to NAB, with Capital Economics economist Abhijit Surya predicting the cash rate could drop to 4.1 per cent as soon as May.

The biggest price increases in the December quarter were a 7 per cent jump in tobacco, a 3.9 per cent increase in domestic holiday costs, and a 1.5 per cent rise in the price of newly built homes.

Rents increased by a relatively subdued 0.9 per cent in the September quarter, versus 2.2 per cent in the prior period, as the Albanese government’s 15 per cent boost to Commonwealth Rent Assistance from September 20 flowed through the ABS’s official numbers. Still, rents were 7.3 per cent higher than a year earlier.

Food prices continued to rise at a brisk 4.5 per cent in the December quarter, albeit down from 4.8 per cent in September and much lower than the peak annual increase of 9.2 per cent in the final three months of 2022.

There was also better news for motorists, with petrol prices dropping by 0.2 per cent through the quarter, albeit with some volatility. The average of unleaded 91 reached as high as $2.13 in early October, before hitting a low of $1.78 in mid-December.

Goods inflation again fell sharply, from 4.9 per cent in September to 3.8 per cent in the latest numbers.

Some economists remain cautious about the rate-cut trajectory. EY chief economist Cherelle Murphy said mortgage holders hit by 13 interest rate rises in 18 months could “breathe a sigh of relief”. But she said there were still risks to the inflation outlook and that the central bank would not rush into cutting rates.

“Mortgage holders will need to remain patient,” Ms Murphy said.

As economists at investment bank Barclays brought forward their forecast timing for a first rate cut by three months to the September quarter, ANZ senior economist Catherine Birch said price growth remained too firm for RBA governor Michele Bullock to abandon her cautious messaging that further policy tightening may still yet be needed.

“Our base case remains that the cash rate has peaked at 4.35 per cent but that cuts won’t begin until late this year,” Ms Birch said. “That said, risks might be starting to skew toward an earlier commencement of rate cuts. We doubt the RBA will signal this at its coming meeting, however.”

Ms Bullock has pointed to high cost pressures in areas such as hairdressing and dining out as evidence that demand in the economy remains too strong, but the latest figures showed services inflation also dropped sharply to 4.6 per cent, from 5.8 per cent in the prior quarter.

Retail sales figures released on Tuesday showed a sharp drop in December and confirmed that the most aggressive rate hike cycle since the late 1980s alongside cost-of-living pressures had flattened spending.

An estimated 40 per cent of employers expect economic conditions to be weaker this year, as business chiefs predict the most anaemic growth rates since the end of the mining boom more than a decade ago.

A survey of 320 members of the Australian Industry Group from across the economy and employers large and small shows they believe Australia is entering an economic period similar to the stagflation of the 1970s, with persistent inflation, rising unemployment and weak consumer demand, even if an official recession is avoided.

“Industry expects to, at best, work through mediocre business conditions this year,” AI Group’s CEO, Innes Willox, writes in Monday’s The Australian Financial Review.

“The economic momentum driven by government support and pent-up consumer demand that lifted us out of the COVID-19 period is over. The clouds of economic slowdown and conditions akin to a recession linger for some key sectors of the economy.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has suggested he is considering more cost-of-living relief before the May budget, and Mr Willox said the government needed to act.

His wish list includes lifting productivity with skills and training, reducing payroll tax and WorkCover premiums, supporting technology investment through incentives and write-offs, putting downward pressure on energy costs, and reducing barriers to employment and to paying bills on time.

Business leaders say while the outlook remains net positive for revenue, employment, margins, investment and technology, the forecast growth is low with all indicators at or near their lowest levels in a decade.

Australia’s economy grew just 0.2 per cent over the three months to September 30, and 2.1 per cent over the past year, according to National Accounts data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in December.

Concerns over belt-tightening, port problems

The Ai Group survey shows 40 per cent of industry leaders expect business conditions to be weaker in 2024 than last year, while only 27 per cent expect them to be better. Net optimism was minus 13, the lowest score in the survey since the end of the mining boom more than a decade ago.

“The key worries from industry leaders for 2024 are heightened uncertainty driven by our geopolitical environment; ongoing supply side constraints, especially inflation and labour shortages; and weak demand, driven largely by households tightening their belts as their disposable income shrinks,” Mr Willox writes.

The survey identified three factors – uncertainty, ongoing supply side constraints and weakening demand – as the main inhibitors this year.

“Conflicts and blockages of key supply routes to Australia, combined with our own difficulties facing our ports, are rekindling concerns that supply chain pressures will keep inflation higher for longer this year and next,” Mr Willox writes.

Supply chain strategies will shift from managing disruptions to controlling costs; 78 per cent expect their input prices to rise this year, but only 57 per cent plan to raise prices.

Growth strategies will focus on the product offering, and most leaders intend to introduce new products and services or improve their current offerings. There is a clear preference for developing Australian over international markets, given lingering uncertainties about the global environment.

Investment efforts will focus on productivity over growth. Business process improvement and staff training top the investment priority list for 2024.

Technology and innovation will be a top priority for leaders this year, the survey found – either to drive cost savings in the face of inflation and rising wages or to find new markets in a slowing economy.

Staff shortages will also continue, with 87 per cent of industry leaders expecting to be affected.

To manage labour supply risks, business leaders plan to invest in training, increase wages and benefits, and change operational processes to lower labour demand.

 

Recent research reveals that within a 12-month period, half of candidates have accepted a job offer and then backed out at the last minute. How can recruiters avoid falling victim to this concerning trend?

The road from engaging a candidate to welcoming them into an organisation can often feel like a treacherous one. No matter how many resources are invested into recruitment, even the smallest of doubts on the part of a candidate can derail the process and lead to a great deal of lost time and effort. 

As a result, recruiters may well breathe a sigh of relief upon hearing that a candidate has accepted a job offer – particularly those feeling the pinch from current skills shortages. However, recent research serves as a warning to employers that an accepted offer does not necessarily constitute a done deal. 

In fact, in a survey of over 3500 job candidates, one in two respondents said they had backed out of a job offer after accepting a position within a 12-month period.

The research, conducted last year by Gartner, also found more than half of HR leaders (59 per cent) expect competition for talent to intensify in the coming months, indicating a risk that this trend will continue to cause problems for recruiters seeking in-demand skills.

“What our research is telling us is that candidates today are often not as committed as we would like them to be further into the process,” says Jonathan Tabah, Director, Advisory at Gartner.

“We’re in a market right now where there are lots of jobs around and confidence in job availability is quite high. There’s also still a lot of flexibility in the marketplace for candidates – they can accept an offer in another city without moving, so they have more choice now… And [the stage where candidates back out] has continued to move back deeper into the process.”

Why are candidates backing out at the eleventh hour?

According to the research, the top reasons why candidates ditched one job offer in favour of another were greater flexibility (59 per cent), better work-life balance (45 per cent) and higher compensation (40 per cent). 

Given candidates’ strong focus on flexibility, it’s noteworthy that the uptick in employees abandoning job offers has coincided with an increase in return-to-office mandates. According to AHRI research, mandated office days increased by 11 percentage points (48 per cent) between 2022 and 2023.

“There are a lot of conversations between HR and business leaders around the trade-offs of these return-to-office mandates and the impact they have on employees,” says Tabah. “Very rarely are they also considering how this is going to make it harder for them to bring in additional talent to replace the talent they may lose as a result.

“It is incumbent upon the recruiting leaders within an organisation or recruiting agency to communicate clearly with their senior stakeholders that this is the trade-off that you’re asking us to make.”

“Friction and delay are your enemies, and that’s where we’re going to see the most attrition.” – Jonathan Tabah, Director, Advisory, Gartner

The results indicate that employers who fail to convey work-life balance as a guiding principle throughout the recruitment process also risk seeing candidates back out, he says.

“It was probably a single-digit number of years ago that we would look each other straight in the face and say, ‘You come to work as a professional. You leave your personal issues at home.’ Now, saying that would be like smoking in the office. Today, we [need to] talk about how we’re going to support the whole person.”

How can HR ensure candidates stick around after accepting a job offer?

Keeping potential candidates engaged in the hiring process is set to become a growing challenge in the coming years. 

To help hiring managers overcome this challenge, Tabah offers a number of key tips for employers to avoid top candidates slipping through the cracks.

1. Map out the hiring process

When employers observe that candidates are getting cold feet midway through the hiring process, it’s important to take a data-backed approach to identifying where and why they are losing talent.

“Where candidates are backing out of the process could be different for everyone. So it’s really important that [employers] map their candidate journey,” says Tabah. 

“Take a very diligent and thoughtful approach to understanding exactly what the candidate journey looks like. What are the steps in the process? What are the key points of friction or delay in that process? Friction and delay are your enemies, and that’s where we’re going to see the most attrition.”

Once these friction points have been identified, he suggests looking at potential process improvements based on that information and, crucially, holding hiring teams accountable for executing these changes.

2. Examine drivers of attrition 

Focusing on what candidates want is undoubtedly key to a successful hiring process. However, Tabah believes employers would benefit from paying more attention to what candidates don’t want.

“We spend a lot of our time talking about drivers of attraction when we’re talking about hiring, but I’m also a really big believer in drivers of attrition,” he says.

“Why someone’s leaving another organisation is going to give us a really important cue as to what’s important to them, what would be a breath of fresh air to them and what would make them want to come and work for us.”

For example, if an employer learns that someone is leaving due to a poor relationship with their boss, it would be useful to take the time to speak to the qualities of their soon-to-be manager, or arrange a meeting so that they can get to know each other. Or, if they wish to leave due to a stressful, high-pressure environment, you could reinforce your company’s wellbeing approach and connect them with current staff who can testify to this.

For a well-rounded approach, it’s useful to look at broader industry trends that contribute to attrition as well as the unique factors pushing an individual employee to seek new opportunities. For instance, in many industries, employees are becoming increasingly put off by employers not having formal policies in place to support flexible working. 

This dual focus on attraction and attrition allows for a comprehensive understanding that enables employers not only to attract top talent, but also build an environment that encourages long-term commitment and professional growth for existing employees.

3. Avoid the ‘us-versus-them’ dynamic

In a job market where many candidates are spoilt for choice, one thing that’s sure to put talent off is a hiring process that positions the employer as an adversary rather than an ally, says Tabah. 

One driver of this perception is a lack of transparency in the recruitment process, particularly when it comes to compensation. The impact of this is demonstrated by Gartner’s findings, which show nearly half of candidates (44 per cent) decided not to apply to a job in a 12-month period because the job description did not include salary information.

“Part of it is just that the lack of information makes it harder to make the decision,” he says. “But, secondly, it also calls the organisation’s culture into question. 

“It sends the signal that we’re withholding this information. We’re negotiating with you already. If you were truly transparent, and you were looking for a win-win partnership, you wouldn’t be hiding information. And everyone recognises that.” 

This off-putting ‘us-versus-them’ dynamic can also manifest in the interview process, he says, making it crucial to coach hiring managers in the way they present the employment relationship during an interview.

“For those of us who have ever been through an interview, there’s really nothing worse than feeling like you’re sitting on the opposite end of the negotiating table,” he says. 

“What [we should be] trying to do is figure out whether we can be on the same team. And recognising the opportunities to do that is really important.”

Women are more ambitious than ever, and workplace flexibility is fueling them. Yet despite some hard-fought gains, women’s representation is not keeping pace. That’s according to the latest Women in the Workplace report from McKinsey, in partnership with LeanIn.Org.

This year’s research reveals some hard-fought gains at the top, with women’s representation in the C-suite at the highest it has ever been. However, with lagging progress in the middle of the pipeline—and a persistent underrepresentation of women of colour—true parity remains painfully out of reach.

The survey debunks four myths about women’s workplace experiences and career advancement. A few of these myths cover old ground, but given the notable lack of progress, they warrant repeating. These include women’s career ambitions, the greatest barrier to their ascent to senior leadership, the effect and extent of microaggressions in the workplace, and women’s appetite for flexible work. We hope highlighting these myths will help companies find a path forward that casts aside outdated thinking once and for all and accelerates progress for women.

The rest of this article summarizes the main findings from the Women in the Workplace 2023 report and provides clear solutions that organizations can implement to make meaningful progress toward gender equality.

State of the pipeline

Over the past nine years, women—and especially women of color—have remained underrepresented across the corporate pipeline (Exhibit 1). However, we see a growing bright spot in senior leadership. Since 2015, the number of women in the C-suite has increased from 17 to 28 percent, and the representation of women at the vice president and senior vice president levels has also improved significantly.

These hard-earned gains are encouraging yet fragile: slow progress for women at the manager and director levels—representation has grown only three and four percentage points, respectively—creates a weak middle in the pipeline for employees who represent the vast majority of women in corporate America. And the “Great Breakup” trend we discovered in last year’s survey continues for women at the director level, the group next in line for senior-leadership positions. That is, director-level women are leaving at a higher rate than in past years—and at a notably higher rate than men at the same level. As a result of these two dynamics, there are fewer women in line for top positions.

Moreover, progress for women of colour is lagging behind their peers’ progress. At nearly every step in the pipeline, the representation of women of colour falls relative to White women and men of the same race and ethnicity. Until companies address this inequity head-on, women of colour will remain severely underrepresented in leadership positions—and mostly absent from the C-suite.

“It’s disheartening to be part of an organization for as many years as I have been and still not see a person like me in senior leadership. Until I see somebody like me in the C-suite, I’m never going to really feel like I belong.”

—Latina, manager, former executive director

Four myths about the state of women at work

This year’s survey reveals the truth about four common myths related to women in the workplace.

Myth: Women are becoming less ambitious
Reality: Women are more ambitious than before the pandemic—and flexibility is fueling that ambition

At every stage of the pipeline, women are as committed to their careers and as interested in being promoted as men. Women and men at the director level—when the C-suite is in closer view—are also equally interested in senior leadership roles. And young women are especially ambitious. Nine in ten women under the age of 30 want to be promoted to the next level, and three in four aspire to become senior leaders.

Moreover, the pandemic and increased flexibility did not dampen women’s ambitions. Roughly 80 per cent of women want to be promoted to the next level, compared with 70 per cent in 2019. And the same holds true for men. Women of colour are even more ambitious than White women: 88 per cent want to be promoted to the next level. Flexibility is allowing women to pursue their ambitions: overall, one in five women say flexibility has helped them stay in their job or avoid reducing their hours. A large number of women who work hybrid or remotely point to feeling less fatigued and burned out as a primary benefit. And a majority of women report having more focused time to get their work done when they work remotely.

The pandemic showed women that a new model of balancing work and life was possible. Now, few want to return to the way things were. Most women are taking more steps to prioritize their personal lives—but at no cost to their ambition. They remain just as committed to their careers and just as interested in advancing as women who aren’t taking more steps. These women are defying the outdated notion that work and life are incompatible, and that one comes at the expense of the other.

Myth: The biggest barrier to women’s advancement is the ‘glass ceiling’
Reality: The ‘broken rung’ is the greatest obstacle women face on the path to senior leadership

For the ninth consecutive year, women face their biggest hurdle at the first critical step up to manager. This year, for every 100 men promoted from entry-level to manager, 87 women were promoted (Exhibit 2). And this gap is trending the wrong way for women of colour: this year, 73 women of colour were promoted to manager for every 100 men, down from 82 women of colour last year. As a result of this “broken rung,” women fall behind and can’t catch up.

Progress for early-career Black women remains the furthest behind. After rising in 2020 and 2021 to a high of 96 Black women promoted for every 100 men—likely because of heightened focus across corporate America—Black women’s promotion rates have fallen to 2018 levels, with only 54 Black women promoted for every 100 men this year.

While companies are modestly increasing women’s representation at the top, doing so without addressing the broken rung offers only a temporary stopgap. Because of the gender disparity in early promotions, men end up holding 60 per cent of manager-level positions in a typical company, while women occupy 40 percent. Since men significantly outnumber women, there are fewer women to be promoted to senior managers, and the number of women decreases at every subsequent level.

Myth: Microaggressions have a ‘micro’ impact
Reality: Microaggressions have a large and lasting impact on women

Microaggressions are a form of everyday discrimination that is often rooted in bias. They include comments and actions—even subtle ones that are not overtly harmful—that demean or dismiss someone based on their gender, race, or other aspects of their identity. They signal disrespect, cause acute stress, and can negatively impact women’s careers and health.

Years of data show that women experience microaggressions at a significantly higher rate than men: they are twice as likely to be mistaken for someone junior and hear comments on their emotional state (Exhibit 3). For women with traditionally marginalized identities, these slights happen more often and are even more demeaning. As just one example, Asian and Black women are seven times more likely than White women to be confused with someone of the same race and ethnicity.

As a result, the workplace is a mental minefield for many women, particularly those with traditionally marginalized identities. Women who experience microaggressions are much less likely to feel psychologically safe, which makes it harder to take risks, propose new ideas, or raise concerns. The stakes feel just too high. On top of this, 78 percent of women who face microaggressions self-shield at work, or adjust the way they look or act in an effort to protect themselves. For example, many women code-switch—or tone down what they say or do—to try to blend in and avoid a negative reaction at work. Black women are more than twice as likely as women overall to code-switch. And LGBTQ+ women are 2.5 times as likely to feel pressure to change their appearance to be perceived as more professional. The stress caused by these dynamics cuts deep.

Women who experience microaggressions—and self-shield to deflect them—are three times more likely to think about quitting their jobs and four times more likely to almost always be burned out. By leaving microaggressions unchecked, companies miss out on everything women have to offer and risk losing talented employees.

“It’s like I have to act extra happy so I’m not looked at as bitter because I’m a Black woman. And a disabled Black woman at that. If someone says something offensive to me, I have to think about how to respond in a way that does not make me seem like an angry Black woman.”

—Black woman with a physical disability, entry-level role

Myth: It’s mostly women who want—and benefit from—flexible work
Reality: Men and women see flexibility as a ‘top 3’ employee benefit and critical to their company’s success

Most employees say that opportunities to work remotely and have control over their schedules are top company benefits, second only to healthcare (Exhibit 4). Workplace flexibility even ranks above tried-and-true benefits such as parental leave and childcare.

As workplace flexibility transforms from a nice-to-have for some employees to a crucial benefit for most, women continue to value it more. This is likely because they still carry out a disproportionate amount of childcare and household work. Indeed, 38 percent of mothers with young children say that without workplace flexibility, they would have had to leave their company or reduce their work hours.

But it’s not just women or mothers who benefit: hybrid and remote work are delivering important benefits to most employees. Most women and men point to better work–life balance as a primary benefit of hybrid and remote work, and a majority cite less fatigue and burnout (Exhibit 5). And research shows that good work–life balance and low burnout are key to organizational success. Moreover, 83 percent of employees cite the ability to work more efficiently and productively as a primary benefit of working remotely. However, it’s worth noting companies see this differently: only half of HR leaders say employee productivity is a primary benefit of working remotely.

For women, hybrid or remote work is about a lot more than flexibility. When women work remotely, they face fewer microaggressions and have higher levels of psychological safety.

Employees who work on-site also see tangible benefits. A majority point to an easier time collaborating and a stronger personal connection to coworkers as the biggest benefits of working on-site—two factors central to employee well-being and effectiveness. However, the culture of on-site work may be falling short. While 77 percent of companies believe a strong organizational culture is a key benefit of on-site work, most employees disagree: only 39 percent of men and 34 percent of women who work on-site say a key benefit is feeling more connected to their organization’s culture.

Not to mention that men benefit disproportionately from on-site work: compared with women who work on-site, men are seven to nine percentage points more likely to be “in the know,” receive the mentorship and sponsorships they need, and have their accomplishments noticed and rewarded.

A majority of organizations have started to formalize their return-to-office policies, motivated by the perceived benefits of on-site work (Exhibit 6). As they do so, they will need to work to ensure everyone can equally reap the benefits of on-site work.

Recommendations for companies

As companies work to support and advance women, they should focus on five core areas:

• tracking outcomes for women’s representation
• empowering managers to be effective people leaders
• addressing microaggressions head-on
• unlocking the full potential of flexible work
• fixing the broken rung, once and for all

Sixty percent of companies have increased their financial and staffing investments in diversity, equity, and inclusion over the past year. And nearly three in four HR leaders say DEI is critical to their companies’ future success.

1. Track outcomes to improve women’s experience and progression

Tracking outcomes is critical to any successful business initiative. Most companies do this consistently when it comes to achieving their financial objectives, but few apply the same rigor to women’s advancement. Here are three steps to get started:

Measure employees’ outcomes and experiences—and use the data to fix trouble spots. Outcomes for drivers of women’s advancement include hiring, promotions, and attrition. Visibility into other metrics—such as participation in career development programs, performance ratings, and employee sentiments—that influence career progression is also important, and data should be collected with appropriate data privacy protections in place. Then, it’s critically important that companies mine their data for insights that will improve women’s experiences and create equal opportunities for advancement. Ultimately, data tracking is only valuable if it leads to organizational change.

MOST POPULAR INSIGHTS

1. What matters most? Eight CEO priorities for 2024
2. The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier
3. Ten unsung digital and AI ideas shaping business

Take an intersectional approach to outcome tracking. Tracking metrics by race and gender combined should be table stakes. Yet, even now, fewer than half of companies do this, and far fewer track data by other self-reported identifiers, such as LGBTQ+ identity. Without this level of visibility, the experiences and career progression of women with traditionally marginalized identities can go overlooked.

Share internal goals and metrics with employees. Awareness is a valuable tool for driving change—when employees are able to see opportunities and challenges, they’re more invested in being part of the solution. In addition, transparency with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals and metrics can send a powerful signal to employees with traditionally marginalized identities that they are supported within the organization.

2. Support and reward managers as key drivers of organizational change

Managers are on the front lines of employees’ experiences and central to driving organizational change. As companies more deeply invest in the culture of work, managers play an increasingly critical role in fostering DEI, ensuring employee well-being, and navigating the shift to flexible work. These are all important business priorities, but managers do not always get the direction and support they need to deliver on them. Here are three steps to get started:

Clarify managers’ priorities and reward results. Companies need to explicitly communicate to managers what is core to their roles and motivate them to take action. The most effective way to do this is to include responsibilities like career development, DEI, and employee well-being in managers’ job descriptions and performance reviews. Relatively few companies evaluate managers on metrics linked to people management. For example, although 61 percent of companies point to DEI as a top manager capability, only 28 percent of people managers say their company recognizes DEI in performance reviews. This discrepancy may partially explain why not enough employees say their manager treats DEI as a priority.

Equip managers with the skills they need to be successful. To effectively manage the new demands being placed on them, managers need ongoing education. This includes repeated, relevant, and high-quality training and nudges that emphasize specific examples of core concepts, as well as concrete actions that managers can incorporate into their daily practices. Companies should adopt an “often and varied” approach to training and upskilling and create regular opportunities for coaching so that managers can continue to build the awareness and capabilities they need to be effective.

Make sure managers have the time and support to get it right. It requires significant intentionality and follow-through to be a good people and culture leader, and this is particularly true when it comes to fostering DEI. Companies need to make sure their managers have the time and resources to do these aspects of their job well. Additionally, companies should put policies and systems in place to make managers’ jobs easier.

3. Take steps to put an end to microaggressions

Microaggressions are pervasive, harmful to the employees who experience them, and result in missed ideas and lost talent. Companies need to tackle microaggressions head-on. Here are three steps to get started:

Make clear that microaggressions are not acceptable. To raise employee awareness and set the right tone, it’s crucial that senior leaders communicate that microaggressions and disrespectful behavior of any kind are not welcome. Companies can help with this by developing a code of conduct that articulates what supportive and respectful behavior looks like—as well as what’s unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

Teach employees to avoid and challenge microaggressions. Employees often don’t recognize microaggressions, let alone know what to say or do to be helpful. That’s why it’s so important that companies have employees participate in high-quality bias and allyship training and receive periodic refreshers to keep key learnings top of mind.

Create a culture where it’s normal to surface microaggressions. It’s important for companies to foster a culture that encourages employees to speak up when they see microaggressions or other disrespectful behavior. Although these conversations can be difficult, they often lead to valuable learning and growth. Senior leaders can play an important role in modeling that it is safe to surface and discuss these behaviors.

4. Finetune flexible working models

The past few years have seen a transformation in how we work. Flexibility is now the norm in most companies; the next step is unlocking its full potential and bringing out the best of the benefits that different work arrangements have to offer. Here are three steps to get started:

Establish clear expectations and norms around working flexibly. Without this clarity, employees may have very different and conflicting interpretations of what’s expected of them. It starts with redefining the work best done in person, versus remotely, and injecting flexibility into the work model to meet personal demands. As part of this process, companies need to find the right balance between setting organization-wide guidelines and allowing managers to work with their teams to determine an approach that unlocks benefits for men and women equally.

Measure the impact of new initiatives to support flexibility and adjust them as needed. The last thing companies want to do is fly in the dark as they navigate the transition to flexible work. As organizations roll out new working models and programs to support flexibility, they should carefully track what’s working, and what’s not, and adjust their approach accordingly—a test-and-learn mentality and a spirit of co-creation with employees are critical to getting these changes right.

Few companies currently track outcomes across work arrangements. For example, only 30 percent have tracked the impact of their return-to-office policies on key DEI outcomes.

Put safeguards in place to ensure a level playing field across work arrangements. Companies should take steps to ensure that employees aren’t penalized for working flexibly. This includes putting systems in place to make sure that employees are evaluated fairly, such as redesigning performance reviews to focus on results rather than when and where work gets done. Managers should also be equipped to be part of the solution. This requires educating managers on proximity bias. Managers need to ensure their team members get equal recognition for their contributions and equal opportunities to advance regardless of working model.

5. Fix the broken rung for women, with a focus on women of color

Fixing the broken rung is a tangible, achievable goal and will set off a positive chain reaction across the pipeline. After nine years of very little progress, there is no excuse for companies failing to take action. Here are three steps to get started:

Track inputs and outcomes. To uncover inequities in the promotions process, companies need to track who is put up for and who receives promotions—by race and gender combined. Tracking with this intersectional lens enables employers to identify and address the obstacles faced by women of color, and companies can use these data points to identify otherwise invisible gaps and refine their promotion processes.

Work to de-bias performance reviews and promotions. Leaders should put safeguards in place to ensure that evaluation criteria are applied fairly and bias doesn’t creep into decision making. Companies can take these actions:

• Send “bias” reminders before performance evaluations and promotion cycles, explaining how common biases can impact reviewers’ assessments.
• Appoint a “bias monitor” to keep performance evaluations and promotions discussions focused on the core criteria for the job and surface potentially biased decision making.
• Have reviewers explain the rationale behind their performance evaluations and promotion recommendations. When individuals have to justify their decisions, they are less likely to make snap judgments or rely on gut feelings, which are prone to bias.

Invest in career advancement for women of color. Companies should make sure their career development programs address the distinct biases and barriers that women of color experience. Yet only a fraction of companies tailor career program content for women of color. And given that women of color tend to get less career advice and have less access to senior leaders, formal mentorship and sponsorship programs can be particularly impactful. It’s also important that companies track the outcomes of their career development programs with an intersectional lens to ensure they are having the intended impact and not inadvertently perpetuating inequitable outcomes.

Practices of top-performing companies

Companies with strong women’s representation across the pipeline are more likely to have certain practices in place. The following data are based on an analysis of top performers—companies that have a higher representation of women and women of color than their industry peers (Exhibit 7).

Retail workers are leading a push for more paid leave, with an increasing number of employers offering five weeks of annual leave in what an industrial relations expert calls a “win-win-win” for workers, employers and the economy.

IKEA and Bunnings are among major retailers that have agreed to five weeks of annual leave, while the retail union says it is in negotiations with Coles, Woolworths and Kmart for more paid leave.

The union movement says more paid holiday leave will improve workers’ wellbeing and boost the economy, but employer groups warn it will impose extra costs on businesses.

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association NSW secretary Bernie Smith said there had been no wages trade-off to achieve five weeks of annual leave in agreements negotiated with Bunnings and IKEA.

“Other employers like Big W, Apple and The Reject Shop have either included a fifth week of paid leave or are on a pathway to five weeks of annual leave,” he said.

Smith said retail workers deserved extra annual leave entitlements after years of productivity gains but low wages growth.

“We also know the importance of a healthy work-life balance for workers and the benefits this creates for customers and businesses,” he said.

Smith also said that giving workers more paid holiday leave would boost the economy, “particularly for the retail, hospitality and tourism sectors, where many people spend their leisure time”.

But Business NSW chief executive Daniel Hunter warned that widespread adoption of five weeks’ annual leave would raise inflation because higher staff costs would be passed onto consumers.

“While big corporates may have the flexibility to offer five weeks of annual leave, this prospect is challenging and potentially damaging to small and medium businesses,” he said.

“If widely adopted, it could add billions of dollars in cost to the books of already struggling businesses – limiting their growth and ability to borrow.”

IKEA’s 4000 Australian employees are entitled to five weeks of annual leave – or six if they regularly work overnight shifts – which the company’s co-worker experience manager, Greg Day, said had a positive impact.

“We believe it makes for a more engaged workforce who can more easily balance work and home life and want to build a meaningful career in retail with us,” he said.

Day said the introduction of five weeks’ annual leave would not affect customers or workflow.

“The main motivation for us is to be able to attract the very best co-workers to join IKEA, and for them to want to stay with IKEA and build their career with us,” he said.

IKEA employee Luke Nocke wants to use his extra week of annual leave to go to concerts and musical festivals outside Sydney and a motorcycle trip up the coast.

“It means I have enough extra leave days up my sleeve to take one here and there for things like spending time with friends, playing basketball and catching up over lunch with my family,” he said.

Nocke also said more holiday leave would benefit his physical and mental health.

“Having five weeks means it’s easier to take a day off to re-energise when I need it without stressing that I’m using up all my leave days,” he said.

Annual leave for full-time workers at Bunnings will increase from four to five weeks across the life of a new enterprise agreement, which began in November 2023.

Bunnings chief people officer Damian Zahra said the new package also provided higher rates of pay, more flexibility and choice on how employees structure their workweek in addition to the phased increase in annual leave.

“We want to attract and retain a high-performing team by providing industry-leading benefits and a great culture,” he said. “The new agreement, including the five weeks of leave, plays an important role in doing that.”

Australian Council of Trade Unions president Michele O’Neil said more annual leave would improve the wellbeing of workers. The union movement is also pushing for new laws to support rights for casual and gig workers and the right for workers to disconnect.

“Improved annual leave entitlements enable working people to have a better work-life balance, spend time with the people they love and it’s good for our community’s health and wellbeing,” she said.

Australian workers are legally entitled to four weeks of annual leave, which University of Sydney Business School associate professor Chris F. Wright said was relatively standard in international terms but was outdated.

“These entitlements reflect outdated social norms, originating in a time when family structures were very different from today, and there is a strong case for updating them,” he said.

Wright said European countries such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden provide workers with 24 or more days of annual leave.

But Korea (15 days), Canada (10-20 days depending on provincial law and an employee’s length of service), Japan (10-20 days depending on an employee’s length of service) and the US (no statutory entitlement exists) are less generous.

Wright said additional annual leave would relieve a major source of pressure for workers with care responsibilities.

“Overall, I would expect additional annual leave to be a ‘win-win-win’ for workers, employers and the economy.”

More paid leave will also alleviate the recruitment challenges that are endemic in industries such as retail, hospitality and agriculture, Wright said.

“Jobs in these industries are often low-paid and insecure and the quality of employment conditions are not competitive compared to other industries.”

Some of the country’s biggest employers are turning to an old tool to bring staff back to the office: bonuses.

As many large corporations sought to get more workers into city office towers in 2023, banking giant ANZ Bank, financial conglomerate Suncorp, and electricity retailer Origin Energy all said they would tie remuneration to office attendance for some staff. But some experts say the trend is risky.

John Hopkins, associate professor of supply chain management at Swinburne University of Technology, worries that linking remuneration to office attendance is rewarding the wrong thing.

“It does worry me a lot,” he says. “What’s the impact on an employee who’s working really well and hitting all their targets, but only averaging two days a week in the office, and therefore not getting a bonus? From an equity perspective, I think it’s very dangerous.”

While the hybrid work model has become a common feature in most office-based workplaces, there are signs of increasing forcefulness from companies looking to draw employees into the office including mandated time in the office and linking attendance to promotions.

ANZ, Origin Energy and Suncorp are among the first majors to tie remuneration to office attendance, although they say there are exceptions.

Team leaders at Suncorp develop “hybrid work plans” for their teams which reflect varying degrees of face-to-face interaction required by different roles. While there is flexibility for individual cases such as those who have moved out of town, performance reviews take into consideration whether employees have followed their hybrid work plan.

A Suncorp spokesperson said the move was intended to provide clarity and wasn’t specifically put in place to mandate office attendance.

“Our hybrid work plans only represent a very small percentage of an overall performance rating,” they said. “Where an employee isn’t able to meet the expectations of their team, leaders can work with them to develop alternate flexible work arrangements"

In October, Origin also linked office attendance to its annual performance review process. A company spokesperson said that included “the modest expectation that our people spend a minimum of 40 per cent of their working month in an Origin office”.

Most staff at ANZ can work up to half of their time – averaged over a calendar month – remotely. If hybrid working expectations are not met, this may be taken into consideration in performance and remuneration reviews at the end of the next year.

“If you are one of our people who are yet to be spending more than half your time in the workplace, we need you to adjust your patterns unless you have a formal exception in place,” ANZ said in an internal email to staff.

ANZ employees with “exceptional circumstances” may be considered for a temporary period of greater flexibility of up to two months. Longer periods of flexibility require a formal exception signed off by several leaders.

Tech firms backtrack on working from home

These large ASX-listed companies aren’t the only ones ramping up the pressure on staff who prefer to work from home.

Many big employers in the technology sector – which embraced work from home during the pandemic – are now quickly and aggressively shifting their workers back into the office. Australian fintech start-up Futurerent is one tech company to have bucked the remote-first trend. Its staff is back in the office four days a week, a move that chief executive Godfrey Dinh says is about prioritising collaboration gains over potentially losing talent.

“Our team works together in the office four days per week, with most people working from home on Fridays,” Dinh says. “They can always choose to work from home whenever they need, but the default is to come into the office.”

Dinh says that most companies are still trying to find the balance that works for them, but given his start-up is relatively new – and still a small team – being in the office together is the best option.

“I don’t buy the idea that unless WFH [work from home] is your default workplace policy, you won’t attract top talent,” he says. “I’ve found an incredible team that thrives on each other’s energy and wants to win together. But by the same token, as the business grows and you need to hire remotely, you need to enable workplace flexibility and find ways to spend time together physically where there are team members who are remote.

“I do think you need to provide a nice environment with small conveniences like coffee and soft drinks. You only need to offer incentives when your office culture has gone too far one way or you have the wrong people on board and you need to correct it.”

Many of the US-headquartered global tech giants are also winding back their pandemic work-from-home policies. Amazon, which employs about 7000 Australians, has mandated that its employees spend at least three days a week in the office. It has also barred workers who work from home more than twice a week from getting a promotion unless they have further leadership approval. Facebook parent company Meta, Google parent company Alphabet and collaboration software maker Zoom have also asked employees to return to the office.

Mitesh Mangaonkar is the lead data engineer for Airbnb’s global trust and safety unit, helping to mitigate fraud on the company’s platform. He says he’s been working remotely for the past five years – even before the pandemic – and that while Airbnb has long embraced the work-from-home model, the company’s approach runs deeper.

Airbnb lets its employees effectively live and work from anywhere in the world for up to 90 days a year per country.

“We are indeed reaching a pivotal point in the WFH debate. But it’s not just about location, it’s about rethinking work paradigms, emphasising outcomes over hours and fostering a culture of trust and autonomy,” Mangaonkar says.

“It’s time for companies to accept that full-time office work is a thing of the past for many employees. The future is hybrid … And businesses should focus on building systems and cultures that support this.

“While bonuses or incentives seem appealing, they are not a long-term solution to encourage office returns. The key lies in understanding employees’ preferences and concerns.

“At Airbnb, instead of incentives for returning to the office, we focus on creating an office environment conducive to collaboration, social interaction and innovation – things that are harder to replicate in a remote setting. We view our offices more as collaboration hubs rather than mandatory daily workspaces.”

National Australia Bank and Westpac have policies requiring most employees to be in the office for a minimum of two to three days a week but do not currently tie remuneration to office attendance. A NAB spokesperson said employees could apply for flexible working arrangements in accordance with the national employment standards.

In July, the Finance Sector Union filed a dispute in the Fair Work Commission against Commonwealth Bank, claiming the bank had failed to consult employees over their direction for employees to return to the office at least 50 per cent of the time each month. A CBA spokesperson said the bank gave office-based staff two months’ notice in May and, since July, the vast majority of its people now spent 50 per cent of their working month in the office.

“Our approach to hybrid working has always been about finding the right balance between our long-standing commitment to flexible working and ensuring we deliver the best outcomes for our customers,” the spokesperson said. “Research has shown that connection, innovation and the ability to build and strengthen relationships is absolutely fundamental to how we continue to work.”

CEO nostalgia for nine to five

Despite a survey in October suggesting most chief executives predict a full return to the office in three years, Hopkins says that’s highly unlikely to happen.

“If you look around the world at occupancy rates in commercial real estate, they really tell a story and they’re not heading north by any means,” he says. “I think CEOs might be a little bit far away from the coalface to know what’s happening on an operational level.”

PwC Future of Work leader Caitlin Guilfoyle says there has been a stronger pull to get workers back into the office in sectors such as financial services.

“I think there is some element of chief executives having nostalgia for what has worked previously,” she says. “We have a long history where people working Monday to Friday, nine to five, worked really well.”

Guilfoyle says while employers are increasingly mandating a return to the office, hybrid work is “definitely here to stay” and that organisations should not make any sudden moves or mandates if they haven’t walked the process through with employees and leaders to work out what is right for them.

Organisations should also be cautious about providing financial incentives for office attendance, Guildfoyle says, because it can create inequity within organisations.

“We know that more women, more parents and people with neurodiverse needs are more likely to have a high proportion of working from home,” she says.

Hopkins also cautions against tying office attendance to remuneration, saying it can weaken productivity and workplace diversity.

“Where the problems lie is when people are being forced into the office simply to meet quotas from a mandate and they end up doing work there that they would do better at home,” he says. “If you’re looking at having a diverse workforce, forcing people to come into the office who clearly don’t want to is a dangerous policy and you will end up with a lot less diversity.”

Instead, businesses looking to see increased office attendance, social connection and collaboration could consider personal and professional development and mentorship, mental health and wellbeing initiatives and workplace access to amenities such as cafes, gyms and childcare, Guilfoyle says.

While there are benefits to working from home, Hopkins says the office still has a role to play.

“A lot of individual, administrative and thinking work can actually work better at home or in locations where you can have a bit more space, time and flexibility,” he says. “But there are things that work well when we’re physically together, and if you’re working from home for long periods of time, it can become isolating, so it’s important to take breaks and maybe take your laptop along to a cafe for the social interaction.”

Hopkins says for the most part, companies seem to have struck a balance at two to three days of office attendance a week, with managers wanting employees in three days a week and employees enjoying the flexibility of being in the office two days a week.

“Only a very small number of employees, say less than 10 per cent, want to work remotely all the time and a similar number want to work in the office full time,” he says. “People like having some time in the office, seeing colleagues and catching up for collaboration events that might work better in the office, but at the same time maintaining that work-life balance. There’s been a lot of flux since the pandemic, but we seem to have settled on the hybrid work model which is very popular and seems to be a good compromise solution.”

 

Flexible working from home arrangements could fray workplace connectivity and may pose a threat to productivity, says Kate Beattie, chief financial officer of pubs group and alcohol retailer Endeavour Group.

“I worry about the continuation of remote working,” Ms Beattie told the Financial Review CFO Live summit. “[We want] to make sure that we’re continuing to create places and spaces for people to come together and connect. Because at the end of the day, that drives productivity, but more importantly, that’s what drives people’s sense of purpose in life.” 

A similar concern was raised by Keir Barnes, chief financial officer at Dexus, who said several indicators – including the number of patents filed in Australia every year – showed productivity trending lower.

“We hear from our customers – the C suite of many of the tenants in our business – that their businesses are more productive when they have their people in not just for set periods but for a significant portion of the week,” Ms Barnes said. “Hybrid is here to stay. But that importance of bringing people together and to drive innovation to drive collaboration and to really build those cultures is important for driving productivity."

Dexus is one of the largest landlords of office space in the country. 

Ms Barnes and Ms Beattie’s comments come amid a broader national debate over whether employers can ask staff to return to the office, two years after most COVID-19 pandemic health restrictions were lifted. 

Earlier this month, the Fair Work Commission recognised there was an impact on productivity from working from home. The workplace tribunal supported employers’ rights to get workers back to the office.

Some companies, including Origin Energy and Suncorp, have also told workers their bonuses could be cut if they do not comply with office attendance rules. Many large companies are unable to convince employees to return to the workplace even for a few days every week.

Other chief financial officers appearing at the CFO Live summit included Coles’ Charlie Elias, who said companies were focused on lowering the cost of doing business and continuing to invest for the long term.

He said businesses should be “focused on is what does it take to lower the cost of doing business in Australia, whether that is removing red tape, whether it is streamlining approvals”. 

Mr Elias said the speed of projects from inception to completion was much quicker in Asia, but he said quickening approvals would need to be balanced with compliance.

He said cost-cutting could dent staff morale if it was not carefully considered. “If it’s seen as another program, then you get fatigue,” he said. “If it’s part of the DNA [of the company], how people are rewarded, how you engage ... it’s just part of everyday how you run the business.”

Virgin Australia’s Race Strauss said competition in aviation was “not entirely balanced”. “That’s what’s really keeping me up at night,” he added.

The CFOs said higher interest rates – on November 7, the Reserve Bank of Australia raised its official cash rate for the thirteenth time since May last year – had intensified the focus on cost-cutting. 

Mr Elias said Coles was investing more than it had before, despite the increased cost of capital. He told the summit it was investing more than $1 billion in two automated facilities in Queensland and NSW.

“Productivity, efficiency, safety, being able to provide amazing customer services – those investments make sense any point in the cycle. Good investments will always rise to the top,” he said.

Mr Strauss said Virgin Australia was boosting productivity by investing in technology and training its people to use the new systems. “You’ve got to drive productivity, but you can’t just expect it to happen,” he said, adding technology was allowing more efficient rostering for planes. 

Endeavour’s Ms Beattie said operating in regulated industries including alcohol and gaming meant a constructive government dialogue was key.

“It’s very important to have productive ongoing dialogue with governments and regulators to ensure that there are effective policy settings that can be executed effectively in the interest of responsible service in both of those areas,” she said. “Ongoing, collaborative dialogue with government and regulators is very important.” She said AI and technology had also helped improve customer experience.

Whitehaven Coal’s chief financial officer Kevin Ball has topped the ranks of the country’s best performing financial bosses, based on the increase in the market capitalisation of top 100 companies over the past three years.

The low profile Mr Ball, who started at EY but has worked as a CFO at energy and coal companies since the 1990s, has helped the coal miner led by CEO Paul Flynn to defy a campaign by British hedge fund Bell Rock Capital and grow the share price from less than $1 back in September 2020 to over $7. 

The top five CFOs largely reflect the performance of the metals and mining sector with Lynas Rare Earths’ Gaudenz Sturzenegger, Yancoal Australia’s Kevin Ning Su and Mineral Resources’ CFO Mark Wilson ranked next after overseeing more than 130 per cent growth in market capitalisation. 

The top five was rounded out by medtech success story Pro Medicus’ CFO Clayton Hatch, during a “breakout period” for CFOs being appointed top company CEOs including Vicki Brady to lead Telstra, Leah Weckert as the new Coles boss, Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson and Michelle Jablko to lead Transurban. 

The index calculated for The Australian Financial Review by board advisors Yellow Folder examined the change in market capitalisation for the ASX’s top 100 companies for three years to the end of October, where the same CFO remained in their position over that period, from the first 6 months of the pandemic through to today’s high inflation, low growth environment. 

Yellow Folder’s managing director Julian Doherty said the CFO index was deliberately objective, rather than qualitative. “We think there’s value in just seeing what the data says.” 

But he said the index pointed to leading CFOs on a fast track to the top job within the next 12 to 24 months. He nominated Computershare’s Nick Oldfield, Carsales.com’s CFO William Elliott, QBE’s Inder Singh and REA’s Janelle Hopkins, among the top 25 CFOs to watch as potential future CEOs.

“Our data shows which CFOs are likely to be CEO candidates in the next 12 to 24 months,” he said.

Macquarie Group’s Alex Harvey and Commonwealth Bank’s Alan Docherty were the only mega cap companies (with more than $50 billion in market capitalisation) in the top 25 of the list. 

But the top 25 CFOs include well-known companies including WiseTech’s CFO Andrew Cartledge, Flight Centre’s CFO Adam Campbell, Suncorp’s Jeremy Robson, Seven Group’s Richard Richards, Medibank Private’s Mark Rogers and Reece CFO Andrew Cowlishaw.

Ms Hopkins, previously the CFO at Australia Post and who also worked at NAB and Deloitte, said she was not surprised more than 20 per cent of top 100 ASX companies have elevated their CFO to become CEO. 

“Twenty years ago the CFO might have been a backwards looking number cruncher but today they are completely intertwined with the CEO setting and executing the strategy,” she told The Australian Financial Review.

She agreed that while growing a business remained critical, keeping customers and stakeholders happy was just as important today and investment in issues like cybersecurity was crucial, despite no immediate return. 

“People might have a perception it can be boring but nothing could be further from the truth in my experience,” she said. “It gives you enormous flexibility and choice to go into any part of the business.“

Mr Singh, alsop deputy chair of the G100 who will appear at The Australian Financial Review’s CFO Live summit on Tuesday, said despite it’s expanding role, top CFOs remained more respected than liked.

“You’ve got to call it like it is, so you’re never going to be the most popular person in the room. If you have a real desire to be liked it’s probably not the right job for you,” he said.

“I’m very seasoned in delivering profit warnings to the market which we’ve had to do several times in the last few years but you’ve just got to be straight with the market when things are not going well, you just have to say it like it is. That’s how you build trust with the market.” 

The Financial Review reported in June the pay packets of top 200 company CFOs had jumped by 24 per cent last financial year in what recruiter Phil McCann called a “breakout period for CFOs”, as top companies battle to control costs and boards play it safe with their CEO picks.

Macquarie Group delivered the country’s highest-paid CFO in Alex Harvey, with pay of $10.5 million, who last year bought a three-storey Federation house on the Kirribilli waterfront for $18.7 million.

He also pointed to Australian CFOs on the world stage including HP’s Maria Myers, AngloGold’s Gillian Doran, Aon’s Christa Davies and Tesla chairwoman Robyn Denholm. 

 

Ask an expert is our weekly column dedicated to helping readers overcome problems at work and get ahead in their careers. This week, Amantha Imber, founder of behaviour change firm Inventium, helps a reader claw back precious time from unproductive meetings.

The problem: I typically spend two hours a day on Zoom meetings that I often contribute very little to. On the few occasions I’ve asked to skip them, my manager has said it would be a shame if I didn’t join because I would no longer be in the loop on certain topics. But I think my time would be better spent on actually doing the work we need to get done to meet our project deadlines.

I find that I often have to work outside normal hours to keep on top of my workload. So, how can I get out of these meetings? What can I say to my manager to convince her that my time could be better spent elsewhere without damaging the relationship too much? 

The advice: Don’t worry – you’re not alone. Imber says many of her clients at Inventium are “drowning in meetings” and have to finish their work outside their standard hours.

Her advice can be broken into two parts.

First, she recommends clarifying with your manager why you are being invited to these meetings. If it’s just to give you information, politely suggest alternative ways of getting you up to speed that don’t get in the way of your focused work.

Imber says Inventium defaults to “asynchronous communication” – or any type of communication that does not happen in real-time – for information sharing. In other words, they use emails, messages or voice notes that don’t require an immediate response.

It’s a common approach among firms that have embraced remote and hybrid working, as it allows employees to work at their own pace and at times that bring out the best in them.

“It sounds like these meetings that you’re being asked to attend are purely for information sharing or learning purposes,” Imber says.

“If those meetings are recorded, you can simply get an AI transcript [after the call] to fill you in, or you can watch the meetings at 1.5 or two times [the normal] speed, which is going to at least save you an hour a day.”

The second part of Imber’s advice involves having an honest conversation with your manager about the sacrifice you are making to attend these meetings. Make sure she understands that you are regularly working long hours to make up for lost time. She might not know. And the consequences aren’t great.

“For leaders, it’s a recipe for burnout and staff churn,” Imber says. “And if people are overworked and doing really long days, then the quality of their work is going to suffer too.”

Two-thirds of chief executives see workers returning to the office five days a week within the next three years as the hunt for talent slips down the list of management priorities against investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and moves to protect businesses from cyber crime.

KPMG boss Andrew Yates said the consulting firm’s global survey of more than 1300 CEOs showed nearly 80 per cent were optimistic about the short- to medium-term outlook for their companies even as a similar proportion said continued high interest rates could prolong a downturn.

The positive outlook is a big step change from last year’s survey, Yates said.

“People were seriously less optimistic, and I think the change reflects the fact that we’re coming to the end of what’s been a very disrupted three-year period,” he said. “The 18 months since [COVID] lockdowns finished have been really quite unusual in terms of the initial huge demand for products and services, and then the change in the economic environment with interest rates and inflation.”

Yates said Australian chief executives were slightly more bullish about their companies’ growth prospects than their global peers. “It feels like interest rates and inflation are getting to their top points, so that’s giving people more certainty about the future,” he said.

The survey suggests the balance of power is shifting away from employees, as the skills shortage and war for talent are no longer a main concern for chief executives, with 22 per cent of Australian CEOs even seeing potential staff cuts of up to 5 per cent over the next three years.

“Last year, the shortage of talent was front-of-mind for everyone,” Yates said. “Demand has softened since then, and businesses are needing to make adjustment to their cost base, including labour settings.”

Yates said he was taken aback by the view of the majority of CEOs around the world that in three years’ time traditional white-collar roles will be fully based in the office again.

“I think there’s a feeling that over time, things like productivity will suffer and that we’re returning to a more normal environment,” he said. “But I was surprised that there was such clarity around the return to the office. I would have thought … that hybrid and flexible working would be here to stay.”

Despite 70 per cent of CEOs globally seeing AI as the number-one investment priority, Yates said enthusiasm for the technology was slightly lower in Australia, where two-thirds of respondents believed there were ethical challenges in using the technology.

“It’s only been 12 months that generative AI has really been with us … But Australian CEOs feel the payback period around investing in AI is longer than where they could otherwise invest their money.”

Meanwhile, Yates said cybersecurity and environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues remained critical for CEOs, with 80 per cent of Australian CEOs admitting their current ESG progress was not strong enough to withstand the potential scrutiny of stakeholders or shareholders.

“Cybersecurity is always right at the top of mind for CEOs, but there’s been a couple of high-profile issues in the Australian marketplace in the last 12 months, which have made people more anxious and perhaps left a feeling that we’re more exposed than we thought.”