Fifteen years ago, I thought that the diversity stuff was not something I had to worry about. It was something an older generation had to fight for. In my university, we were 50-50, male-female, and we women often had better grades. So while not everything was perfect, diversity and leadership decisions was something that would happen naturally over time, right?
Prije petnaest godina mislila sam da raznolikost nije nešto oko čega moram brinuti. To je nešto za što se morala boriti starija generacija. Na mojem fakultetu, omjer muškaraca i žena bio je 50:50 i često smo mi žene imale bolje ocjene. Iako nije sve bilo savršeno, odluke vezane za raznolikost i vodstvo bilo je nešto što bi se s vremenom prirodno dogodilo, zar ne?
Well, not quite. While moving up the ladder working as a management consultant across Europe and the US, I started to realize how often I was the only woman in the room and how homogenous leadership still is. Many leaders I met saw diversity as something to comply with out of political correctness, or, best case, the right thing to do, but not as a business priority. They just did not have a reason to believe that diversity would help them achieve their most immediate, pressing goals: hitting the numbers, delivering the new product, the real goals they are measured by.
Pa, ne baš posve. Uspinjući se ljestvicom, radeći kao konzultantica za menadžment po Europi i SAD-u, počela sam uviđati koliko često sam bila jedina žena u prostoriji i koliko je vodstvo i dalje homogeno. Mnoge vodeće osobe koje sam upoznala gledali su na prihvaćanje raznolikosti zbog političke korektnosti, ili, u najboljem slučaju, kao na nešto što je ispravno, no ne i kao na prioritet u poslovanju. Jednostavno nisu imali razloga vjerovati da bi im raznolikost pomogla ostvariti njihove trenutno najhitnije ciljeve: ostvariti zadane rezultate, pokrenuti novi proizvod, stvarne ciljeve po kojima im se mjeri rezultat.
My personal experience working with diverse teams had been that while they require a little bit more effort at the beginning, they did bring fresher, more creative ideas. So I wanted to know: Are diverse organizations really more innovative, and can diversity be more than something to comply with? Can it be a real competitive advantage?
Moje iskustvo u radu s raznolikim timovima govori da, iako u početku traže nešto više truda, na kraju donose svježije, kreativnije ideje. Stoga sam željela znati: Jesu li raznolikije organizacije zaista i inovativnije te može li raznolikost biti nešto više od zadovoljavanja forme? Može li ona biti prava kompetitivna prednost?
So to find out, we set up a study with the Technical University of Munich. We surveyed 171 companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and as we speak, we're expanding the study to 1,600 companies in five additional countries around the world. We asked those companies basically two things: how innovative they are and how diverse they are.
Zato smo pokrenuli istraživanje s Tehničkim sveučilištem u Münchenu. Imali smo istraživanje među 171 kompanijom u Njemačkoj, Austriji i Švicarskoj, i dok ovo pričam, istraživanje proširujemo na 1600 kompanija u još pet zemalja svijeta. Pitali smo te kompanije doslovno dvije stvari: koliko su inovativni i koliko su raznoliki.
To measure the first one, we asked them about innovation revenue. Innovation revenue is the share of revenues they've made from new products and services in the last three years, meaning we did not ask them how many creative ideas they have, but rather if these ideas translate into products and services that really make the company more successful today and tomorrow. To measure diversity, we looked at six different factors: country of origin, age and gender, amongst others.
Kako bismo izmjerili prvo, pitali smo ih o prihodu kroz inovacije. Prihod kroz inovacije dio je prometa koji su ostvarili kroz nove proizvode i usluge u zadnje tri godine, što znači da ih nismo pitali koliko kreativnih ideja imaju, već primjenjuju li se te ideje na proizvode i usluge koje kompaniju čine uspješnom danas i za budućnost. Kod mjerenja raznolikosti gledali smo šest čimbenika: zemlju porijekla, dob i spol, među ostalima.
While preparing to go in the field with those questions, I sat down with my team and we discussed what we would expect as a result. To put it mildly, we were not optimistic. The most skeptical person on the team thought, or saw a real possibility, that we would find nothing at all. Most of the team was rather on the cautious side, so we landed all together at "only if," meaning that we might find some kind of link between innovation and diversity, but not across the board -- rather only if certain criteria are met, for example leadership style, very open leadership style that allowed people to speak up freely and safely and contribute.
Pripremajući se za izlazak na teren s tim pitanjima, sjela sam sa svojim timom i popričali smo kakav rezultat bismo mogli očekivati. Blago rečeno, nismo bili optimistični. Najskeptičnija osoba u timu vidjela je realnu mogućnost da nećemo naći baš ništa. Većina tima bila je oprezna, pa smo se svi složili oko "samo ako", što znači da ćemo možda naći neku poveznicu između inovacija i raznolikosti, ali ne u svemu, već samo ako su ispunjeni neki kriteriji, poput vrlo otvorenog načina vodstva koji ljudima omogućuje da slobodno i sigurno govore te doprinose timu.
A couple of months later, the data came in, and the results convinced the most skeptical amongst us. The answer was a clear yes, no ifs, no buts. The data in our sample showed that more diverse companies are simply more innovative, period.
Nakon par mjeseci stigli su podaci i rezultati su razuvjerili i najveće skeptike među nama. Odgovor je bio jednoznačno potvrdan, bez "ako", bez "ali". Podaci iz uzorka su pokazali da su raznolikije kompanije jednostavno i inovativnije.
Now, a fair question to ask is the chicken or the egg question, meaning, are companies really more innovative because they have a more diverse leadership, or the other way around? Which way is it? Now, we do not know how much is correlation versus causation, but what we do know is that clearly, in our sample, companies that are more diverse are more innovative, and that companies that are more innovative have more diverse leadership, too. So it's fair to assume that it works both ways, diversity driving innovation and innovation driving diversity.
Možemo se ovdje pitati je li prvo kokoš ili jaje, odnosno, jesu li kompanije zaista inovativnije jer imaju raznolikije vodstvo, ili obrnuto. Što je od toga točno? Ne znamo koliko je tu povezanosti naspram uzroka, no, jasno znamo da u našem uzorku, kompanije koje njeguju raznolikost ujedno su i inovativnije, a kompanije koje su inovativnije, isto tako imaju i raznolikije vodstvo. Zato možemo zaključiti da ovo vrijedi u oba smjera, raznolikost pokreće inovaciju, a inovacija raznolikost.
Now, once we published the results, we were surprised about the reactions in the media. We got quite some attention. And it went from quite factual, like "Higher Female Share Boosts Innovation" to a little bit more sensationalist.
Kada smo objavili rezultate, bili smo iznenađeni reakcijom u medijima. Zaista smo privukli pažnju. A naslovi su bili poput onih činjeničnih, "Veći udio žena potiče inovacije", do onih više senzacionalističkih.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
As you can see, "Stay-at-home Women Cost Trillions," and, my personal favorite, "Housewives Kill Innovation." Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
Kao što možete vidjeti, "Kućanice koštaju bilijune" i moj omiljeni naslov, "Kućanice ubijaju inovaciju." No, ne postoji loša reklama, zar ne?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
On the back of that coverage, we started to get calls from senior executives wanting to understand more, especially -- surprise, surprise -- about gender diversity. I tend to open up those discussions by asking, "Well, what do you think of the situation in your organization today?" And a frequent reaction to that is, "Well, we're not yet there, but we're not that bad." One executive told me, for example, "Oh, we're not that bad. We have one member in our board who is a woman."
Nakon tih objava počeli smo dobivati pozive od viših menadžera koji su željeli saznati više, naročito - kojeg li iznenađenja - o raznolikosti na bazi spola. Ovakve rasprave obično započinjem pitanjem, "Što mislite o stanju u vašoj organizaciji danas?" A tu je česta reakcija, "Pa, nismo još posve uspjeli u tome, ali nismo ni tako loši." Jedan voditelj, na primjer, rekao mi je "Pa nismo tako loši. U našem odboru imamo jednog ženskog člana."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And you laugh --
Vi se smijete --
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Now, you laugh, but he had a point in being proud about it, because in Germany, if you have a company and it has one member on the board who is a woman, you are part of a select group of 30 out of the 100 largest publicly listed companies. The other 70 companies have an all-male board, and not even one of these hundred largest publicly listed companies have, as of today, a female CEO. But here's the critically important insight. Those few female board members alone, they won't make a difference. Our data shows that for gender diversity to have an impact on innovation, you need to have more than 20 percent women in leadership. Let's have a look at the numbers. As you can see, we divided the sample into three groups, and the results are quite dramatic. Only in the group where you have more than 20 percent women in leadership, only then you see a clear jump in innovation revenue to above-average levels. So experience and data shows that you do need critical mass to move the needle, and companies like Alibaba, JP Morgan or Apple have as of today already achieved that threshold.
Vi se smijete, ali on je bio u pravu što se ponosio time, jer u Njemačkoj, ako imate kompaniju u kojoj je samo jedna žena u odboru, dio ste odabrane grupe od 30 od ukupno 100 najvećih javno izlistanih kompanija. Ostalih 70 kompanija ima sve muške članove u odboru, a niti jedna od tih 100 najvećih javno izlistanih kompanija do danas nema ženu na poziciji izvršnog direktora. No, evo ključne stvari. Tih nekoliko žena članica u odborima neće ništa promijeniti. Naši podaci pokazuju, da bi spolna raznolikost imala utjecaja na inovacije, morate imati više od 20 posto žena na vodećim pozicijama. Pogledajmo brojke. Kao što možete vidjeti, uzorak smo podijelili u tri grupe, a rezultati su prilično dramatični. Samo u grupi gdje je više od 20 posto žena na vodećim pozicijama, samo tada vidite jasan skok u prihodima od inovacija na iznadprosječne razine. Dakle, iskustvo i podaci pokazuju da trebate kritičnu masu za vidljivu promjenu i kompanije poput Alibabe, JP Morgana ili Applea danas su već na tom pragu.
Another reaction I got quite a lot was, "Well, it will get solved over time." And I have all the sympathy in the world for that point of view, because I used to think like that, too. Now, let's have a look here again and look at the numbers, taking Germany as an example. Let me first give you the good news. So the share of women who are college graduates and have at least 10 years of professional experience has grown nicely over the last 20 years, which means the pool in which to fish for female leaders has increased over time, and that's great. Now, according to my old theory, the share of women in leadership would have grown more or less in parallel, right? Now, let's have a look at what happened in reality. It's not even close, which means I was so wrong and which means that my generation, your generation, the best-educated female generation in history, we have just not made it. We have failed to achieve leadership in significant numbers. Education just did not translate into leadership.
Druga reakcija koju sam često dobivala je, "Pa, riješit će se to kroz neko vrijeme." I posve suosjećam s takvim gledištem, jer sam i ja tako razmišljala. Pogledajmo sada ponovo ovdje, i to brojke, uzmimo Njemačku kao primjer. Prvo dobra vijest. Udio žena koje su diplomirale i imaju barem 10 godina profesionalnog iskustva lijepo je narastao u zadnjih 20 godina, što znači da je masa iz koje se mogu birati žene lideri s vremenom porasla, što je odlično. Prema mojoj staroj teoriji, udio žena na vodećim pozicijama trebao bi manje-više paralelno narasti, zar ne? Pogledajmo sada što se stvarno dogodilo. Nije još ni blizu, što znači da nisam bila u pravu i da je moja generacija, vaša generacija, najbolje obrazovana ženska generacija u povijesti, samo što još nismo uspjele. Nismo uspjele doći na vodeće pozicije u značajnijem broju. Obrazovanje se jednostavno nije preslikalo na vodeće pozicije.
Now, that was a painful realization for me and made me realize, if we want to change this, we need to engage, and we need to do better. Now, what to do? Achieving more than 20 percent women in leadership seems like a daunting task to many, understandably, given the track record. But it's doable, and there are many companies today that are making progress there and doing it successfully. Let's take SAP, the software company, as an example. They had, in 2011, 19 percent women in leadership, yet they decided to do better, and they did what you do in any other area of business where you want to improve. They set themselves a measurable target. So they set themselves a target of 25 percent for 2017, which they have just achieved. The goals made them think more creatively about developing leaders and tapping new recruiting pools. They now even set a target of 30 percent women in leadership for 2022.
Bila je to za mene bolna spoznaja uz koju sam shvatila, da ako to želimo promijeniti, moramo se uključiti i biti bolje. I što nam je činiti? Osvojiti više od 20 posto vodećih pozicija kao žene mnogima se čini kao obeshrabrujući zadatak, što je i razumljivo, obzirom na prijašnje brojke. No, izvedivo je i mnogo je kompanija danas koje u tome ostvaruju napredak i čine to uspješno. Uzmimo kao primjer softversku kompaniju SAP. 2011. imali su 19 posto žena na vodećim pozicijama, ipak, odlučili su biti još bolji i učinili ono što biste vi napravili u onom dijelu poslovanja gdje želite poboljšanje. Postavili su sebi mjerljiv cilj. Zadali su si cilj od 25 posto za 2017. koji su upravo ostvarili. Pomoću ciljeva su kreativnije razmišljali o razvijanju vodećih pozicija te korištenju novih izvora zapošljavanja. Već sad su postavili cilj od 30 posto žena na vodećim pozicijama za 2022.
So experience shows it's doable, and at the end of the day, it all boils down to two decisions that are taken every day in every organization by many of us: who to hire and who to develop and promote. Now, nothing against women's programs, networks, mentoring, trainings. All is good. But it is these two decisions that at the end of the day send the most powerful change signal in any organization.
Dakle, iskustvo pokazuje da je to izvedivo i na kraju sve se svodi na dvije odluke koje svakodnevno poduzimaju mnogi od nas u svakoj organizaciji: koga zapošljavamo, koga razvijamo te kome omogućujemo napredovanje. Nemam ništa protiv programa za žene, povezivanja, mentorstva, treninga. Sve je to u redu. No, radi se o te dvije odluke koje na kraju šalju najjaču poruku o promjeni u svakoj organizaciji.
Now, I never set out to be a diversity advocate. I am a business advisor. But now my goal is to change the face of leadership, to make it more diverse -- and not so that leaders can check a box and feel like they have complied with something or they have been politically correct. But because they understand, they understand that diversity is making their organization more innovative, better. And by embracing diversity, by embracing diverse talent, we are providing true opportunity for everyone.
Nikada se nisam postavila kao zagovaratelj raznolikosti. Radim kao poslovna savjetnica. No, sada je moj cilj promijeniti lice vodstva, da bude raznolikije ali ne na način da vodeće osobe samo označe polja u upitniku i misle da su time nešto usvojili, ili da su bili politički korektni, već zato što razumiju da raznolikost njihovu organizaciju čini inovativnijom, boljom. Prihvaćajući raznolikost i raznolike talente, osiguravamo istinsku priliku za svakoga.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Hvala. Velika vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)