But as careers progress and responsibilities grow, these instances of rest and reflection become increasingly infrequent. Add in a child or two and the care of an aging parent, and downtime can soon become the stuff of nostalgia.

Such a lifestyle has become accepted in our society, but is this norm really normal? With work commitments encroaching on our time, what else is being eroded?

Do Australian professionals have a problem with work-life balance?

Research by Beaton in collaboration with Linda Duxbury, a work-life balance expert, and Beyond Blue has found that Australian professionals are working harder than ever – and it’s not necessarily doing them any good. So how sustainable is our ‘workaholism’?

In this 2008 study, close to 12,000 professionals answered questions relating to work-life balance. The results showed that professionals in Australia are particularly time-poor. On average, they spend 9.5 hours at work each day. A large majority (70%) worked an average 6 hours of unpaid overtime each week.

Nearly half (42%) of respondents cited they felt overloaded within their role – that is, their workload was approaching or had surpassed a level with which they were comfortable. Not surprisingly, nearly a third (29%) of respondents felt their work was encroaching on their family life.

So why do we do it? Why would we willingly take on more work when we already feel overloaded? Prior research by Linda Duxbury found it was due to:

1. Downsizing
   • ‘Jackson was made redundant, now I have to do his work as well as mine.’
2. Corporate culture
   • ‘If I don’t work harder than the guy next to me, I won’t advance. If he does overtime, I have to do more, because I’m more committed and more loyal.’
3. Increased use of technology
   • ‘If you need me I’ll be contactable on my iPhone/Blackberry/laptop in the hotel lobby/plane/taxi /restaurant.’
4. Global competition
   • ‘It’s always happy hour somewhere in the world, and Johnson & Co. need their report by 9 am GMT + 10:00.’
5. Wanting to do a good job
   • ‘It’s not perfect yet. If I just spend a little more time on it, it’ll be perfect. Then I can go home.’

What these reasons boil down to are expectations – those of others or of ourselves. Just as opportunities multiply as they are seized, expectations increase as they are met. And to continually meet rising expectations, the relationship between work and life must inevitably be strained. So what effect does this have?

Depressing figures: the impact of work-life imbalance

In 2007, a collaborative study between Beaton and Beyond Blue of over 7,500 professionals in Australia found a significantly higher prevalence of depression within those working in professional service firms as compared to the general population. Lawyers in particular were the most prone to depression and were also more likely to use non-prescription drugs or alcohol to mitigate feelings of sadness.

Such a statistic begs the question of causality: ‘does working in the professions cause depressive symptoms or do the professions attract a typically more morose individual?’ Neither of the above studies intended to answer that question. However, four facts from the work-life study collectively highlight a grave concern for the Australian professional services industry:

1. Those overloaded within their role (49% of Australian professionals) are significantly more likely to express the view that they are not satisfied with their job.
2. Those who feel their work interferes with their family life (29%) are even more likely to be dissatisfied with their job.
3. One in four (25%) miss work due to physical or emotional fatigue.
4. Absenteeism due to physical or emotional fatigue is often a precursor to episodes of burnout.

Is it any surprise lawyers are the most prone to depression, when anecdotally we know they work some of the longest hours in the professions?

The link here is not between depression and hours spent at work per se; rather, it is between depression and a sense of not being in control, something often cited by those experiencing feelings of intense sadness. Growing expectations can make us feel trapped, especially when those expectations are rigidly defined. The work-life study found that, more than anything else, flexibility of work hours and location help Australian professionals balance their lives better. This relatively simple measure may drastically reduce mental health issues, absenteeism and burnout.

So is our ‘workaholism’ sustainable? For the sake of our collective mental health, is it not time to concede that the answer is a clear ‘no’? Surely the question to ask now is ‘how do we change our expectations?’

Phillip Sargeant is an Associate at Beaton, a research and consulting firm that works with professional service firms and has previously collaborated with Beyond Blue.

PLEASE HELP!

I’m fed up with these twentysomethings with their tweets and their texts and their three-second attention spans, rocking up late to work every day oblivious to the needs of anyone but themselves. Apparently I’m meant to call these flickr-and-you’ll-miss-it types ‘colleagues’ and interact with them on a professional level. God only knows how. I mean, I turn up to work every day on time and apply myself with the same passion as I did in my first heady days of employment 18 years ago (and for the record, there was a recession on then too). I get paid a decent wage and I go home satisfied (mostly) with a good day’s toil behind me. I am pleased (even lucky) to be employed and I strive in every way possible to make my job a success – for my employer and myself.  So the question I have is: ‘Why is all of that not enough for these so-called millennial babes? What more do they want? What right do they have to complain so much, expect so much, demand so much? And where, oh where, is their loyalty?’

These are just some of the sentiments held by Gen X and baby boomers alike about their fellow cohort, Generation Y (otherwise known as millennials, generation next or the net generation). Indeed, Gen Y is entering the workforce with an entirely different – some might say alien – set of values, attitudes and expectations. As Graham Brown recently wrote for online blog yourLifeWorks, Gen Y ‘are tech-savvy, travel-mad, self-absorbed, peer-pressured, celebrity-obsessed, Facebook-compulsive, iPod-wearing, brand-conscious 20-somethings who live with their parents and show no loyalty to their employer (and that’s the good stuff).’ So how are we expected to work with them? Manage them? Lead them? And when we’ve got over our annoyance and realise that we need them in order to sustain the workforce, how do we attract them? Engage them? Keep them?

Generational differences

An international survey by global workforce solutions leader Kelly Services (the Kelly Global Workforce Index) recently found that communication styles and attitudes toward rewards are key generational differences that affect workplace productivity. Forty per cent of Australian respondents believe that these differences make the workplace more productive; 23 per cent believe they interfere with productivity; and 24 per cent believe they make no difference.

Kelly Services Managing Director, James Bowmer, said that generational differences can sometimes cause friction between employees but, when properly managed, can also be a source of growth. ‘When the differences between the age groups are harnessed effectively, they can provide a powerful stimulus to creativity and productivity. Rather than trying to smother this diversity, good employers are utilising it to generate fresh ideas and new ways of doing business.’

Among the survey’s key findings were:

• Baby boomers believe they understand the generational differences better than Gen Y or Gen X
• Gen Y are the most positive about the productivity benefits flowing from diverse age groups in the workplace
• In communicating with colleagues, all generations prefer face-to-face discussion over written or electronic communication
• Gen Y and Gen X largely opt for traditional cash rewards while many baby boomers lean toward non-cash benefits such as time off and training opportunities
• Almost half (47 per cent) the respondents said they had experienced intergenerational conflicts in their workplace.

It has long been acknowledged that age-related differences do have an impact on the way people go about their work. Indeed, this survey showed that Gen Y and Gen X employees are more likely than baby boomers to adapt their communication style when dealing with colleagues from a different generation.

Mr Bowmer said it is important that employers recognise the key differences between the generations and manage them effectively in order to achieve a harmonious balance and a productive work environment. ‘Juggling these pressures is challenging but by addressing issues such as compensation and internal communications amongst others, it is possible to reap the benefit from a diverse group of people, and generate conditions that can help organisations to flourish.’

Managing Gen Y

So how do we go about managing Gen Y in the workplace? The following tips come courtesy of a number of HR consultants and commentators on the web:

• Provide challenging work that really matters – Gen Y workers need to feel important
• Don’t look for a Gen Y worker to approach work as you did, i.e. eager to please and willing to do ‘scut’ work or put in extra hours to get ahead
• Offer increasing responsibility rather than cash bonuses as a reward for achievements
• Provide immediate feedback and acknowledgment where possible – Gen Y workers have been brought up on immediate gratification
• Provide ongoing training and learning opportunities – it’s very often ‘lack of training’ that Gen Y workers give as a reason for leaving
• Act as mentors rather than managers – Gen Y workers want to be treated as colleagues, not as beginners or kids
• Allow some flexibility in day-to-day scheduling
• Act as a sounding board – Gen Y workers are brimming with ideas and want to feel heard
• Use innovative ideas for creating a more comfortable, low-key, low-stress workplace – relaxed workplaces are a priority for Gen Y workers
• Focus on work outcomes, but be personable and have a sense of humour
• Make it clear when Gen Y workers can have more freedom to be creative and when they should follow strict guidelines.

So is it a case of managing the unmanageables? Or just a case of changing our expectations?

About the Kelly Global Workforce Index

The Kelly Global Workforce Index is a survey revealing opinions about work and the workplace from a generational viewpoint. Survey results and comments appear courtesy of Kelly Services.

Candice O’Sullivan is Head of Strategy at WellmarkPerspexa, a marketing communications agency proud to have all generations on its books.

• The capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely.
• Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of definitions but it does give you the picture. ‘Sustainable’ is a word that has established itself in our vocabulary – it’s here to stay and rightly so.

The last few years have seen an extraordinary shift in our perceptions. It wasn’t so long ago that we had little understanding (or desire to understand) the impact of our lifestyle on the environment. Today, climate change is a very real problem staring us right in the face and it’s not going away. There will always be a small minority who continue to deny its existence but, in general, the masses are starting to sit up, take notice and demand action from governments and themselves. The word is spreading quickly and if you haven’t taken heed yet, it will only be a matter of time before you do.

I recently attended the Sustainable Living Festival at Federation Square in Melbourne. Now in its eleventh year, this event raises awareness about the environmental and social challenges we face as a community and offers some potential solutions. As a frequent public transport user, I was pleased to see that sustainable transport was on the agenda.

Speakers for a session hosted by the Metropolitan Transport Forum included economist, Professor Ross Garnaut; Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Water, Greg Hunt MP; and Federal member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson MP. If Professor Garnaut’s name sounds familiar it’s probably because you’ve heard of the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, his independent study about the effects of climate change on the Australian economy.

There was consensus among the speakers that sustainable transport, both public and private, is critical to the functionality of any city. It affects our economy, society and liveability. It affects individuals, businesses and governments. Our transport has to meet the needs of a growing population (which in Melbourne’s case is very rapid), be economically viable and minimise environmental harm.

Professor Garnaut had several interesting points to make. He drew attention to the grim reality that Australia leads all developed countries in total greenhouse gas emissions per capita (yes, we’re even ahead of America). We use more private transport (mainly cars) than most of the developed world and all of our larger cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth) are in the bottom third of developed cities when it comes to using public transport, walking or cycling.

He described how only 27% of Melbournians regularly commute to work via public transport, walking or cycling (and in doing so, lead every other Australian city) compared to 82% of Hong Kong’s population. Astonishing when you consider the fact that Hong Kong has approximately 3 million more people than Melbourne. Clearly, we have a long way to go.

And it may come as a surprise to hear that if we all changed to electric cars tomorrow, this would actually increase our greenhouse gas emissions significantly. The reason, Professor Garnaut explained, is that Melbourne (and most of Australia) still relies heavily on coal for electricity. So electric cars are good but only if they are powered by clean energy such as solar, water or wind.

He also spoke of reviewing the distribution of finance between the states and territories. Funds that could be used to improve infrastructure are often diverted away from our biggest cities, Melbourne and Sydney – the ones that need them most. This is in contrast to well-known international cities like London.

As a proud Melbournian, I feel passionately about the health of this city. I believe that moving people onto public transport is more achievable than a mass switch to electric cars and simultaneous overhaul of our electricity supply to clean energy (at least in the short term anyway). It would also combat the growing congestion on our roads. But encouraging public transport use starts with a reliable and sustainable system that can be used by all. Unfortunately this description does not currently apply.

Governments, at all levels, often overlook long-term planning for the ‘quick fix’ to impress voters. Over time, the lack of investment in Melbourne’s infrastructure has become all too apparent. For example, it’s ludicrous that rail workers may have to hose down the train tracks on hot days because they start to buckle. I only hope it isn’t drinking water they use while the rest of us observe the 155L target set by the government (that would be very ironic indeed). We have seen the subsequent train cancellations bring the city to a grinding halt on more than one occasion.

In short, on hot days our public transport becomes a game of chance and in a city where the mercury often heads north of 35°C, that’s a game we play too often. How long are we prepared to put up with a third-world public transport system?

Professor Garnaut concluded his talk by saying Melbourne must be re-designed in order to move forward. It’s a huge project that will take decades but it needs to happen. Given that our population is projected to grow a further 1.5 million by 2036, it’s clear that Melbourne needs rescuing now. Not tomorrow. Not next year. This great city just won’t cope otherwise.

Say ‘no’ to more roads and to expanding Melbourne’s urban growth boundary.

Say ‘yes’ to better public transport and a more sustainable Melbourne.

I’ve had my say. Now it’s your turn. Complete the Metropolitan Transport Forum’s public transport survey at http://www.pt4me2.org.au/. The results will be presented to the major parties in May ahead of the state elections later this year.

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, specialising in passionate (and sustainable) marketing communications for the B2B, healthcare and corporate sectors.

While the future of Australia’s Emissions Trading Scheme is in some doubt, one thing we can be sure of is that sustainability will remain on the national political agenda for some time to come. But is sustainability a business – as well as a political – issue?

The ‘social licence’ theory of sustainability

The last decade has seen the growth of triple-bottom-line reporting and senior corporate sustainability roles in business. However, many of these initiatives are based on the idea that businesses need a ‘social licence’ to continue to operate in democratic society. The theory is that businesses need to demonstrate their social and environmental responsibility, in order to maintain their social licence.

Sustainability as a way of attracting talent

A second reason why sustainability might be a business issue is that people want to work for organisations that are socially and environmentally responsible. Under this theory, if your firm can build an employer brand which is associated with social and environmental responsibility, then talented employees will flock to you. And as the economy picks up, Australia’s ageing population will mean that the war for talent – notwithstanding the ceasefire of the last 18 months – will be more vicious than ever. So any advantage that firms can create is worth investing in. But the question is: do employees really care about the social and environmental responsibility of their employers?

Sustainability is a second-order issue for employees

Beaton Research & Consulting has been researching attraction and engagement of talent in Australian professional service firms for the past decade. In November 2008, we completed a study that collected the responses from over 6,700 partners and staff working in professional organisations including legal, accounting, patent attorney and engineering firms.

One question we sought to answer was: what is really important to recruits when they are considering joining a firm? To this end, we asked respondents two specific questions:

1. What is MOST IMPORTANT to you when considering a firm as a place to work?
2. If you received similar job offers from two firms, what would make you choose one firm over the other?

Respondents were then provided with a list of 16 attributes, which included ‘social and environmental responsibility’. Respondents could select more than one attribute. The results for ‘social and environmental responsibility’ were surprisingly – and consistently – low. In the legal industry, only 12.1% rated social and environmental responsibility as an important consideration. In order of importance, it was the 14th attribute out of the 16 measured. (See Fig 1. below.)

Fig 1. Drivers of consideration – partners and staff of Australian law firms

When it came down to choosing between two similar employment offers, social and environmental responsibility was cited as important by only 5.8% of those in the legal industry. (See Fig 2. below.)

Fig 2. Critical factors – partners and staff of Australian law firms

Similar results were seen in both the accounting and engineering professions. This was particularly surprising in the engineering sector, as many consulting engineering firms have invested heavily in their green credentials. Only 14.1% of those working in consulting engineering firms rated social and environmental responsibility as an important consideration. In order of importance, this was 13th – only slightly higher than in the legal profession. (See Fig 3. below.)

Fig 3. Drivers of consideration – principals and staff of Australian consulting engineering firms

Whilst these data relate only to professional service employees, I see no reason why the results would be different in other sectors. If anything, I would expect professionals to care more about social and environmental responsibility than those in lower-paid jobs, where pay and conditions are more immediate concerns.

What this means

The inevitable conclusion is that building a reputation for social and environmental responsibility is not going to help firms win the war for talent. What people really want from employers is to be treated well, be assisted with professional and career development, and have a life outside work. Essentially, employees want to know ‘what’s in it for me’. And the WIIFM needs to be direct and tangible. This gels with my own experience. In my previous career as a lawyer, one of our clients was, for a time, a big tobacco company. What surprised me was that without exception, all the people I met from the company raved about it as an employer. The pay, benefits and opportunities for employees were substantial. And I’ve got to admit that, for a moment, I even considered working for them. This just shows that a relatively intangible, remote benefit – like working for an organisation that is socially and environmentally responsible – can be trumped by more immediate, direct benefits. Even if the contrast is stark, as with a tobacco company. So does this mean that employers should ignore sustainability? The answer is not a simple yes or no. The crux of the issue probably lies in understanding where sustainability is – and is clearly not – an issue. I think that businesses do need to maintain their social licence to operate, and this is where providing evidence of sustainable practices is critical. But if your aim is to recruit talented people in a competitive market, there are other important things that require attention. [Ed: To read more about how employees perceive firms who adopt socially responsible practices, see Maia Gould's article: 'Social Responsibility: an innovative idea'.]

Tristan Forrester is a Managing Consultant at Beaton Research & Consulting, a leading global research and consulting firm. As a former lawyer, he maintains a key interest in how firms retain their talent.

So where does brand fit in relation to CSR and sustainability reporting? Dr Stephen Downes, Principal of market research and brand strategy firm, QBrand Consulting, recently shared his views on this topic at a corporate reporting open-day event organised by WellmarkPerspexa.

Firstly, what is a brand? According to Dr Downes, what he described as the neuro-psycho-cultural brand paradigm views a brand as:

• a network of associations in the mind of the customer
• a cultural icon with symbolic social meaning
• having specific structural and biochemical correlates in the brain.

Under each of these conceptualisations, brands shape customer attitudes, perceptions, expectations and behaviour – whether rational or irrational, tangible or intangible, conscious or unconscious, he said. ‘And it’s important to realise that customers can’t, and often won’t, separate what’s happening with CSR and sustainability reporting from everything else they see, hear and know about a brand.’

Dr Downes explained that CSR reporting has often been used inappropriately, and even cynically, as disposable packaging, a cost of doing business, brand ‘insurance’ or economic self-interest. ‘The concepts of “greenwashing” and “necessary evil” are self-evidently insincere and can’t build sustainable brand resonance. Viewing CSR as brand “insurance” positions it as a grudge purchase to counter future problems. And, while economic self-interest at least recognises that CSR is positive for business, it fails to understand the leverage that comes from doing things that are good for the bottom line and good for the brand in the long run,’ he said. These usages, Dr Downes continued, do not lend themselves to making the brand look authentic or credible. ‘CSR reports provide a real opportunity to capture more about the brand, but many companies don’t recognise this.’

CSR has the most to offer, in terms of brand building, when it reflects something deep about the brand’s character and its values, according to Dr Downes. ‘The reporting should genuinely reflect what the brand believes in, what it stands for, what it will fight for. Brand values can’t simply be conjured up, created by a brand consultant or borrowed from a celebrity endorser. You can’t just add a new logo with a new set of values attached, as some companies mistakenly try to do.

‘Authentic brand values have to be about life, about society, about big-picture issues, about the world. They shouldn’t just be about the company,’ said Dr Downes. ‘But that’s the problem with many global corporations – it’s all about them. They should be telling people what they think is important. Values have to come from the heart and soul of the brand.’ He emphasised that input and support for CSR and sustainability must come from all levels of the company, top-down and bottom-up.

That begs the question: how do you find the values that are true to a brand? Many methods are available but Dr Downes particularly likes the ‘tombstone’ exercise. ‘If the brand disappeared today, what would people write on its tombstone? What would they miss about the brand?’ he asked. ‘What kind of brand-related behaviours are most highly regarded and rewarded in the company?’ In fact, we can start even further back with brand vision and thinking about how the brand will make the world a better place, he said. ‘A lot of good-quality, really successful brand strategy has started from this perspective.’

When companies are integrating brand and CSR/sustainability reporting, they need to know what’s in the hearts and minds of customers, Dr Downes said. ‘Not just consumers but also business buyers, business partners, shareholders and analysts – this is a two-way dialogue where corporations look for values they have in common with their target audiences. However, it’s not realistic for them to say they care about exactly everything their audiences care about.’

Dr Downes also highlighted some common pitfalls. ‘Not acknowledging issues of concern is a real risk because it’s so easy for people to find out the truth. Companies need to honestly address concerns to defuse cynicism and counter-arguments,’ he said. Not using plain, easy-to-understand language is another no-no. Some reports really take on their own language and the whole message of CSR and sustainability gets lost, he said.

‘CSR and sustainability reporting is a huge opportunity for companies to emphasise authentic, meaningful and differentiating brand values. Let the brand show its character and be real,’ Dr Downes advised.

So brands build corporate value … but values build brands. Food for thought.

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, one of the first agencies to design and produce sustainability reports for some of Australia’s largest corporate entities.

As Harris Interactive, a global market research firm, pointed out back in 2007: ‘The huge and growing numbers of “cyberchondriacs” who use the internet to look for health information and to help them have better conversations with their doctors has surely had a big impact on the knowledge of patients, the questions they ask their doctors and is therefore changing the doctor-patient relationship and the practice of medicine. There is every reason to believe the impact of the internet on medical practice will continue to grow.’

What then is the best way to provide accurate, unbiased information about health and illness to the general public, particularly in the often unfiltered and uncensored environment that is the World Wide Web? Do online patient communities provide a valued source of support for individuals with chronic illness, or do they fuel the circulation of myths and misconceptions by allowing patients’ fears and ignorance to rule conversations? The ferocious dialogue about childhood immunisation that often appears in mother-baby forums immediately comes to mind.

At the other end of the spectrum, how should patients assess the merits of information provided by drug companies? While direct-to-consumer advertising is banned here in Australia, it is allowed in the US. Does this form of information-sharing facilitate the doctor-patient relationship by reducing the traditional asymmetrical knowledge gap (and the resulting balance of power)? Or does it unfairly bias the patient who cannot appreciate the intricate nuances of clinical decision-making? Here in Australia, at least, these messages are regulated and restricted to patients that have already been prescribed a particular medication by their doctor. In this context, materials provided by a pharmaceutical company serve an important educational role rather than a promotional one.

Like any individual, the patient is a consumer of knowledge. They won’t always be able to judge what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ information or a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ source. Perhaps the answer is for healthcare professionals and related organisations (including drug companies that also have a duty of care) to seek to better understand patients’ information needs and to satisfy them. If answers and support are readily available via these professional channels, patients won’t need to search elsewhere.

And as for that drug company leaflet: how should we judge it? My rule of thumb? If a piece of information acts as a stimulus to get patients asking their doctor the right questions – whether it be a blog, advert, information brochure or otherwise – it has done its job. Knowledge, in anyone’s hands, is power. And what should we have power over if not our own health and wellbeing?

Candice O’Sullivan is Head of Strategy at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency with a focus on ethical and effective healthcare communications.

Advertising, especially, is a powerful educational tool capable of reaching and motivating large audiences. Howard Gossage – thought of by many as advertising’s greatest defender – is famous for saying that ‘advertising justifies its existence when used in the public interest – it is much too powerful a tool to use solely for commercial purposes’.

However, there is now a greater focus on seeking a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanisms through which counter-marketing campaigns achieve their effects. You’ll recognise some of the following approaches from Australia’s most successful campaigns such as the National Tobacco Campaign’s Quit, the TAC’s Wipe off 5, the Cancer Council’s Slip Slop Slap, and the Go for2&5® fruit and vegetable campaign:

• Agenda setting: giving a focus and direction to the intended behaviour change, e.g. moving the decision to quit smoking from the point of quitting ‘some time in the future’ to quitting ‘now’
• Norm reinforcement: depicting behaviours as unfavourable in the media to reduce their perceived social acceptability, e.g. convincing smokers that being a non/ex smoker is the social norm, and that smokers are quitting
• Aligning campaign activity with ‘stages of change’: focusing a campaign’s efforts on shifting an individual who is thinking about performing a behaviour, such as quitting smoking, to actually attempting it, e.g. stimulating negative thoughts about the consequences of their action – in this example, smoking – in order to galvanise their progression toward effective action
• Leveraging dose-response: managing advertising exposure to take advantage of the relationship between message frequency and taking action, e.g. evidence suggests that anti-smoking campaigns can potentially maximise their impact by buying advertising in heavy pulses or bursts, rather than as a continuous lower-weight stream of advertising activity.

In short, it’s a heady mix of principles from marketing 101, psychology 101 and sociology 101. But the overarching principle is still the same as any other marketing communications campaign: make sure you reach the right person at the right time with the right message. Then hit them again and again and again … (that’s the unsophisticated part).

Candice O’Sullivan is Head of Strategy at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency with specialist expertise in healthcare and pharmaceutical marketing.

In October, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency published the 2010 Census of Women in Leadership, revealing that women hold only 8.4 per cent of board positions and 8 per cent of key management positions. There are just six female CEOs and five female chairs in the top 200 Australian companies. Adding to this, the proportion of companies with no female board directors has increased from 51 per cent in 2008 to 54 per cent in 2010.

In the same month, the World Economic Forum released its 2010 Global Gender Gap Report. The report measures the scope of gender-based disparities in business, politics, academia and civil society. Indicators used include labour force participation, wage equality for similar work, professionals in senior positions, and women in parliament. You can watch a video interview with report co-author, Saadia Zahidi, here.

Australia has slipped three spots down to number 23. Other developed countries with similar profiles have generally fared better than us, with New Zealand ranked at number 5, the UK at 15, the US at 19 and Canada at 20.

So why is gender on the agenda? And why does it matter?

The social context of women’s lives mean that they tend to have less financial security than men, due to reduced work force participation and access to education, and the need to interrupt paid work because of pregnancy, childbirth and the care of children or other family members.

In the post-war era, women have increased their participation in the workforce, but they also remain the primary caregivers for children and other family members.

Women are often placed in a financially disadvantaged position because of their caring responsibilities. Reduced work hours and limited benefits mean that over a lifetime, women who raise children and/or care for the sick and elderly are economically worse off than those who do not have these responsibilities.

Many women able to participate in the work force do so on a part-time or casual basis, often to prioritise the needs of family. This type of employment can have a negative impact on overall financial security, with reduced job stability, less accumulated superannuation and fewer savings for retirement.

Part-time work can reduce a woman’s likelihood of promotion, participation in training and development opportunities that relate to the profession, inclusion in the social culture of the work environment, ability to establish networks, and access to quality work.

But how do these differences relate to health?

Economic insecurity is linked to poor health outcomes. Faced with the knowledge that financial independence is not likely in post-retirement or later years, many women experience anxiety about their futures. In some instances, social isolation and depression arising as a consequence of poverty can negatively affect women’s capacity to pursue educational opportunities and thus improve their financial circumstances. The impact of poverty and financial uncertainty upon women, coupled with gender-specific inequities that are greater for marginalised and minority women, increases the likelihood of poorer health outcomes and a lower quality of life.

What’s more, women in Australia generally live longer than men. In 2005, there were 97,000 more women than men in Australia, and in 2006 there were twice as many women as men aged over 85. Employment, leave, pay inequity and other financial conditions for women are not congruent with these figures or with the fact that women are the primary carers of children and family members and are earlier retirees than men. With the life expectancy at birth for Australian women now at 83, versus 79 for men, conditions must change if women are to have financial security and independence in later years.

This is why there has been a push for paid maternity leave, which will be effective as of next year, along with mentoring schemes and quotas for women occupying senior positions in management roles.

Without considering the context of women’s and men’s lives, it may seem that these incentives are unfair to men. However, evidence tells us that things are not equal between the genders. Policies and protocols that are ‘one size fits all’ assume that everyone is on an equal footing, when in reality this is not the case. There are various gender differences that make women’s financial security more tenuous than that of men. Recent government and corporate initiatives are a step toward increasing women’s ability to achieve financial security, but will require systemic and cultural change at many levels to ensure equity for women.

Pam Rugkhla is a Health Promotion Officer at Women’s Health Victoria. As part of her role, Pam delivers training to professionals on gender-sensitive project planning and evaluation. She also works with organisations in developing equitable policies and practices.

Having spent some time in various remote Aboriginal communities, I am not surprised that Ms Khan was shocked by what she saw in the community she visited. Appalling living conditions and a sense of hopelessness are the impressions that most people would take from a first visit to such a community.

My first experience with Aboriginal communities was on a cultural tour organised for ten students from my medical school. It changed my perspective on Australia; I had no idea that such poverty existed in this country.

It was also the first taste of a tapestry of indigenous culture of which I had previously been unaware. During all of my contacts with Aboriginal communities, including working for Aboriginal-controlled health organisations in the Kimberley and now in Melbourne’s inner north, I have experienced warmth, loyalty and selflessness that is rare in the society in which I was raised. From the Karajarri people of the Kimberley to the Koori in Melbourne, these traits seem to be part of the fabric of Aboriginal Australia.

Nonetheless, it is not hard to see that a sense of despair links many Aboriginal Australians. Nor is it hard to find reasons for this sentiment – reasons beyond the effects of extreme poverty.

Modern Australia has existed for about 200 years – a period in which a penal colony has grown into a wealthy society with a sense of ownership of this vast and remote island. If all the millennia of Aboriginal life in Australia were condensed to one day, the arrival of Europeans occurred with less than ten minutes remaining until midnight. Through the eyes of a culture that have revered and worshipped this land for so long, would our sense of belonging not be justly regarded as precocious and arrogant?

The origins of the gap

Our censure of Aboriginal history has deepened the rift between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia. In Perth, I grew up surrounded by concrete evidence of prosperity, but not a trace of the culture of the original custodians of the land on which the town was so recently built.

Australia’s failure to improve the life expectancy of its indigenous people sets it apart among modern countries. To this day, Aboriginal people are expected to die twenty years younger than the average Australian. This infamous ‘gap’ is not only a tangible target for welfare programs, but also a reminder to us that there is profound social injustice here in Australia.

In the face of such alarming statistics, recent governments have made poorly researched gestures of ‘charity’ towards indigenous Australians.

Yet it is clear that welfare is not the answer to the problems of Aboriginal people. If Noel Pearson is correct, injudicious welfare may indeed have caused the persistence of the gap and all of its associated ills. It has even been suggested that welfare has served as a form of bribery of the dispossessed.

It’s not hard to see that welfare dependence could lead to high rates of unemployment, a loss of purpose in people’s lives and ultimately to poor health. That is, a pervasive sense of futility undermines people’s instinct to take care of themselves, leading to lifestyles associated with high rates of preventable illnesses such as diabetes, kidney failure and heart disease.

Tinkering at the edges: the limitations of health services

While working on a program to tackle diabetes in a remote community, I realised quickly that although some gains can be made by health services, we could do little to address the most important causes of disease. Rather, our role was to manage problems that had taken root in a void of hope and purpose.

While it is true that poor health is a significant handicap for children to carry through life, early-intervention health programs do not alone offer an escape from a life of poverty. It is hard for most of us to imagine attending a barely staffed school where few students are expected to graduate, or being raised in a community where employment opportunities are scarce. It is not reasonable to expect young people – even those whose health is good – to generate motivation or confidence to participate in the wider community on these foundations.

I have had the chance to ask senior Aboriginal people about what they believe can be done to help their people. The most common answer has been education. Most of my colleagues in Aboriginal Health Services share this view. If the clock could be wound back those 10 minutes, the answer may be different. But many Aboriginal people have accepted that a return to traditional life is no longer feasible.

This being the case, the challenge for government and industry is to empower Aboriginal people to pursue careers befitting the modern world and its evolving economy.

It’s time for us to look for lasting solutions

Australia is home to the oldest surviving culture on earth; the living conditions of many of its people are unacceptable. We should all be exposed to the sobering realities of remote community life. We should also be aware of the hardships for urban-dwelling Aboriginal people, who face not only generational poverty, but also the negative racial stereotypes that have yet to die out of mainstream Australia.

It is clear that the plight of Aboriginal people is unacceptable. Irene Khan is right that our approach to the problems needs to be ‘grounded in genuine respect for traditional cultures’. But before we can expect lasting gains to be made, equity in education needs to be given urgent priority. And, from those of us not directly involved with Aboriginal people, a simple gift of empathy and respect may help to overcome a great Australian injustice.

Dr James Beetson is a Melbourne-based GP who works in the field of Indigenous Health.