Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - The Central Women's Representative

Here you can find the transcript of the panel discussion “Equal Opportunities and Equality in Economics” on November 28, 2023. The discussion took place in the Heilig-Geist Chapel at Spandauer Str. 1 at the School of Business and Economics at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.

The panelists are: Prof. Dr. Monika Huesmann, Prof. Dr. Jeanette Trenkmann, Lisa Ertl, Sandra Subel and Chiponda Chimbelu.

 

Chiponda Chimbelu: So, we are going to get started. And, yeah, good evening, everyone. So, I would just like to point you to the fact that we are of course experiencing an economic slowdown here in Germany and that is obviously something that might be hurting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Because, of course, institutions and companies are shifting their focus to, you know, managing or diminishing the effect of whatever that downturn means on their budgets and also of course, on their bottom lines.

So, I would like to welcome you to this evening’s discussion, podium discussion ‘Equal Opportunities and Equality in Economics’. And my name is Chiponda Chimbelu. I am gonna to moderate the discussion here with these wonderful experts. And this discussion is of course part of the Humboldt University project ‘Equal opportunities intersectional’.

So, welcome. And with me here is Monika Huesmann and she is a professor of human resources, organisational human resources and information management, and she is also in charge of the International Business and Consulting course at the Berlin School of Economics. Thanks for joining us, Monika. And next to her we have Sandra Subel. Sandra Subel is the Global Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Axel Springer AG. And right next to me we have Lisa Ertl. And Lisa Ertl is an organisational consultant and she is also a partner at Diversity Kartell, which is also where I know her from, 'cause we get to work together sometimes there, so welcome, Lisa. And last but not least, we have Jeanette Trenkmann and Jeanette Trenkmann is a professor of General Business Administration and she is also the Dean of the Faculty of Business Management or Business and Management, please correct me if I say that wrong, and she is [inaudible] the Dean of the Business Management at the Business and Law School here in Berlin. So, a warm welcome to all our panellists. So, thank you for being here. So, yeah thank you.

And how this is gonna work is that we're going to discuss the topic with the panellists for the next 40, 45 minutes and then we'll of course invite you to take part because we also want to hear from you when I get questions, of course, also want to get comments if you have any. So, we're gonna to start with the first question, which is of course the current economic environment. How is that affecting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts? Maybe Sandra you could tell us a bit about your work at Axel Springer or just maybe the people you move around, what that means.

Sandra Subel: Well, yes, oh, I got a, the opportunity to start, to set the tone. Definitely from what I observe and what we experience as an organisation, there is an impact. Simply answering, yes, there is an impact and the question is what impact? I think what I've seen in the last three years since I've been in the role is this, I would say, this balance of interest in the topic. When the things are going well, suddenly there's interest in the topic. When the business is good, environment is good and there are topics on the market that are driving the conversation. There is a willingness to do it because it sounds attractive, right?

And especially when the diversity, equity and inclusion are understood on the superficial level, like an event or let's have a- I don't want to diminish the event, but very often D&I ends up being a conversation about events “Let's have a panel discussion” or “it's International Women's Day, let's invite some famous women and then some other women to listen to that other famous woman and that will be our D&I work we're doing”, right? But that also costs money.

And if the D&I is understood on that level, not on the systemic level from the entire employee lifecycle perspective, this is where, which is favoured by the good situation in the business, in the environment, in the economic environment. The moment where the situation is shifting to being more challenging, the business is not as good, the topic is therefore being deprioritised immediately. And that's a situation where the D&I hasn't been embedded into the strategic work the organisation is doing. And when I'm talking about strategic work, I think about people strategy which should be linked to the business strategy. And I can only name or think about few organisations that have done that and in all the other cases you just push it away as in something on top. And saving money, so no events because that costs money, for instance. So, basically, on that superficial level we see those behaviours happening and taking place.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Alright, I’m gonna pass on the same question pretty much to Jeanette. And, basically, we heard two words which also come up. ‘Systemic’ is one word that comes up when you're talking about diversity and inclusion, but also ‘business strategy’ came up and you've been working in this area, as well, for at least over two decade or so. So, have you notice any changes and shifts in terms of the economic environment and how D&I efforts are perceived and what happens to them?

Jeanette Trenkmann: Now, I hope that I, yes, it's working. You can hear me. Okay, cool. Yeah, thank you for the question. I probably could start and never end, or we end tomorrow with this topic and, unfortunately, we must say.

So, I've been doing research for quite a long time and if you mentioned that the two buzzwords ‘systemic’ and ‘strategy’ that's basically also what my observations are. So let me maybe start with the topic of strategy. That's sort of the imbalance or dispel that you mention is if you want to paradox because companies, and that's also what we teach our students, companies must see people strategy really on the same level as business strategy, yes? So, on the same importance. Not like having your strategy and then having a diversity department where someone is sitting and yeah, you know, HR is dealing with this topic, then having some women on board, having some examples and employing people from different ethnic backgrounds and so and then that’s it.

 So, I think that's what at least organisations have, must have been understanding in the past decades that sort of people strategy, including diversity and inclusion strategy, must be on the same level as business strategy. Otherwise, you would not be able to hire and that's from where the paradox comes, the people that you need in the future, or the competence is that you need in the future. And then saying, when there's an economic downturn, not investing money because there's no money, sort of, you know, doesn't come to an end in the end, yeah. You're not able then to have the competences on board if you're not strategically planning on a long term, yeah.  And that’s sort of the paradox I see.

You were talking about systemic or system, the changes or the lack of representation. And we don't only talk women today, yeah, we talk many different diversity dimensions. I don't know, the public’s, let's say free knowledge and in this topic.  I know that we have a very diverse group here as I see, so I don't know what you, what you have been studying, but let's say the topic of diversity is not focusing so much on gender, but on many, many more different dimensions.

And when you look at the economy then you clearly see, okay, there is not the development that we probably in Germany want to see, yeah. There is a slow progress when you look at, for example, of women in leadership positions. If you look at the big, you know, corporations in the DAX, then it's a very sad view that you can see there. The development is very, very slow. There are some companies that have set goals for women on the boards and in management positions, but some have not set any goals and there's no sanctions, so there's a slow, slow progress in these corporations or in in leadership positions.

And when you look at other diversity dimensions, like the education background, social background, ethnic, different ethnic backgrounds, people with disabilities, it's a topic that companies seem to pick up very, very slowly, yeah. And my observation goes in the same direction: once the economy is booming then that's a topic that “Oh yeah, you know we could sort of add a little flavour on our strategy” and like in Germany we would say “Feigenblatt”, yeah. You show it to the outside and you show “Oh, we are such a great diverse company”.  And then if you look into the structures, if you look into organisational culture, it doesn't change anything in the people’s minds and that is sort of what we're really- And I don't want to bring solutions before we don't finish talking about the situation, but there you can see in the organisations that a lot has to happen because women are paid less than men, people with disabilities or people from other ethnic backgrounds are not included or it's sort of some measures. It's not a systematic approach that we can see in many of the companies.

Sandra Subel: And I think there is this pattern, right? When we, when we are in a good economic situation we are hiring, right. Hiring means attraction, attractions means, being, trying to tap into new targets groups that are interested in topic, right? The moment that the situation or the economy slows down, the first departments that are being cut are obviously HR. Within HR, this is recruitment, right? These two big stops [inaudible] stop recruiting, stop attracting. So, and this is where this vicious circle is being stopped, for a moment at least.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Right. So, it sort of starts in HR and stops in HR, is what you're trying to say.

Sandra Subel: Unfortunately, unfortunately.                      

Chiponda Chimbelu: [laughs] But you, we had a keyword there [inaudible]. Ah, yes, go ahead if you want to just want to-

Lisa Ertl: May I just add something? Because I like, I shared the observation that you've made, but there's one little thing that I also like from a consultancy perspective, so I- I'm the one the companies ask for help or “what can I do?” And in the moment they realise that the budget, the budget are restricted, yes, then the scale is trying to be reduced or the, the amount of money that can be spent on measures. But what I realise is that the awareness that it's a systemic problem is, rose. So, this is not anymore- Like we know that it is, the topic is a process or that the dealing with the topic must be, like is somehow a very profound issue, topic to tackle on, but we, for the moment, we don't have too much money to spend on, what can we do to start on this journey? This is something that has changed, I would say, and not this kind of leaning back and thinking “Oh, we have this event or that”, “We did this little measure here and that that this would be enough”. So, this awareness, I think, is somehow more on the top or rose.

Chiponda Chimbelu: You mentioned there the systemic nature of the problem not being recognised. I don’t know, Monika, if you know or maybe like to add to that or want to say anything else on the general climate that we have right now, as well.

Monika Huesmann: I think many people hope that the shortage of skilled worker, we just tackle diversity, as well. With the idea of ‘they're not enough engineers, so let's take women, migrants, refugees, all we can do, workers, engineer, now we are in the moment”. We are not. It hasn't really changed.

So even if you see now, I think around ten years, five years, three years of this really clear shortage of workers, like- The organisations feel it, but I think if they would look at the whole diversity that's offering their jobs or their skills, you would realise that we still have skilled workers who are not hired or who are not hired and promoted. So, with this, with the hope that with this shortage of skilled workers we tackle diversity because they need to hire them, we don't see this movement at the moment.

I think many of us hoped with the idea ‘now you have to hire women’, hire migrant, hire refugees, you have to hire all of them because you need them. It hasn't happened like that. We still see a lot of organisations who are waiting for the perfect worker that fits into same as everyone system. So still trying to find the fitting white, middle-aged men who are, who belongs to the engineer group or the women with, who are going into care. So, there is still- We don't see that this problem has really had a big impact on this idea of diversity. And that was a bit, I think, a lot of people really hope for that and we don't see a movement like that. And that's, I think something you have to, to act to the problem even with this idea of ‘we need them’, we don't have companies or some of them, but really not all of them, who would-

I think today, I discussed with the recruiter, a consultant who said it is still- “I have a, a women specialised, a baker and she won't get a job in the area because she has blue hair. And we still, we can't put the hair in front of our bakery. We can't stay, give her the job there, selling things to people. People won't accept that.” And I think blue hair is not a big thing. I think we all agree on that, that blue hair is not the diversity category that makes everything difficult. [laughs] But we still have this idea there they have to be like they always had to be. And that's something with the, coming back to the, the problems in economy we have and with nowadays the, the shrinking numbers of recruited people, adding that, we still have, we still see a growing problem for society, as well.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Is this a question of framing? Is it that companies are unable to frame the problem differently? Because obviously they look at diversity and inclusion in a certain way [Monika Huesmann laughs] and they haven't changed the way they perceive it and in order for them to maybe get it right, they need to reframe it. What is it? Perhaps one of you could take that?

[laughter]

Sandra Subel: No, Monika first, Monika first.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Monika? I can see there is a-

[laughter]

Chiponda Chimbelu: Okay, Monika first then.

Monika Huesmann: I think if framing would be the solution, it would have been done. So, it's- Reframing things is not the most difficult thing to do and if that would help companies out of their feeling of shortage of skilled workers, if it would help with diversity, everyone would do it and we are out of the problem. So, it's a very deeply rooted problem in society still, very close to roles, very close to power, very close to dominating, very close to this idea of who gets the money, who gets the better promoted job. And it's about money, power and domination. So, bit bigger, a frame, so.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Yes, Sandra, you wanted to add something.

Sandra Subel: You asked for a problem, and I think the problem is that the organisations do not see the problem. I think, that’s the problem. [laughs] I think, I’m like using a lot of self-explanatory concepts, but what I observe- There is still a willingness to reject that something is, isn't right. And it's hard to start the conversation where your counterparts at the table believe that everything is okay because it is always like that.

Chiponda Chimbelu: I think maybe, Lisa, if I could just pull you in, just because you are also the organisational consultant and I wanted to ask you, how do you get organisations to understand that there is a problem where they do not see one. What do you tell them?

Lisa Ertl: Well. [laughs] The, like all these organisations are different. There is not, there are some, as I already told, that realise that there is a problem and that they are looking for an answer, but this is not too easy to find one. And this is a problem in itself, that the answers are like the measures that can be taken. There is no this plan A, B, C and you tick the box and then it's done, but it's a very complex process of transformation. And I guess that like- the people that are like, in the companies that you mentioned, they, they don't want to see the problem. I think that they don't want to see the problem because it would mean a huge transformational process. And that costs a lot of money, energy, awareness, learning and so on.

And I kind of this- part of this rejection is really that- okay, there is a little bit of, yeah, hesitation because we- I think that the people know already that is a huge task and it's related to a very profound restoration of the way of how we work together and how companies in all these work environments are created and, like, based on.

And so, this is something that we all know somehow. It's not about folkloristic dinners or like coming together in a colourful manner or something. It's about trying to get- like to balance power. It's about like reducing discrimination or abolish discrimination. So, it's really a very, a very intense dealing with the way of how we behave as human beings, as we are in social, like- as we, as individuals, in a specific social context, as a team, within this responsibility of the organisational context, as a context of how we meet, how we live together.

And so, I think this is what we should explain that diversity is not like this easy-going or like what is, what needs to be understood, that it's not this easiness of having this colourful get-together, but that it's really a matter of social justice and of equality or like of equal opportunities and so on. And this is something that when you talk to people, I mean nobody wants to discriminate, no? Nobody wants to kick people out. But we have to understand that this is the way our company or the institutions, the organisations work. There is, it is somehow intrinsic. It is implemented in the way these organisations work and this is part of the task that I feel I need to explain, and I want to explain that this is important.

Sandra Subel: Yeah, I think that I’d, I'd like fully agree and I think you've touched on the important point of change, right? And that is a huge change that organisations have to undergo and we know this popular saying that people are afraid of change or they don't- People, we as humans don't like change. And I think it’s not as much as not liking change or being afraid of change, they are more afraid of loss because the changes bringing some losses. And in case of D&I, it's a loss of privilege. And that's a conversation very difficult to have. Because it's, it's uncomfortable, it's- It's not a win- win.

Monika Huesmann: [laughs] Yes. There is no win-win.

Sandra Subel: It's not. It's not. And losing privilege and fighting to keep it. This is invisible dynamic that is taking place and it's not even about organisation. We're talking about individuals that are composing that organisation. So we are talking about Peters, Franks, Mathiases, or Thomas, you name it. Christian, all of that or also probably Bettinas quite often and so on. [laughter from the panellists] Sandras or you name it, but it's, it's difficult.  

Chiponda Chimbelu: I think Jeanette, you wanted to say something before we move on, but-

Jeanette Trenkmann: That's a good observation, yes. [laughs] Sorry, I look a little impatient probably. Yeah no, I want to make it, maybe make also the, the picture a little bigger because we were mentioning the organisations that are trying hard to find people for certain positions and functions and then the other hand, if you look at the job market. I mean it's you looking for a job, going in a job market, you are in the most comfortable situation that you can probably find because you can look for the job that you really want.

And the question is why don't people want to work in big corporations? Because they don't find what they are looking for, they don't find diversity, they find Thomas and Hans and Christian and that's really, there are studies, there is research on- In Germany we call it the ‘Thomas-Kreislauf’, the circle of Thomas recruiting Thomas, yeah. If you are on the board of management, if you- If your name is Christian for example, you have good chance to become a member of the Board of Management in a start-up, yeah. That's, that's also what research says. So, there's more people called Thomas on boards of managements than women on boards of managements. And if Thomas recruits Thomas, what happens is that if individuals recruit individuals that are similar age, similar social background, similar educational background, then of course these people shape these organisations and as long as there is not, maybe-

There's also research on how many women we need on these boards and often the number of 30% is sort of what, yeah, people agree in research. As long as we don't have a certain number of, for example, women or people with different colour, people with the different backgrounds in the, in the decisioning positions, they won't, there won't be a circle recruiting these people, yeah? So, that's it. It's not going to work for itself as long as we don't have these people in this organisation.

So, then the question would be, what makes organisations so attractive that you say “Oh yeah, that's a great workplace for me and I choose this organisation”? And so, there's the topic of change again, yeah? Change is pain. No one wants change, but if you look at the job market and you say there is so many skilled people and education is, you know- I mean the academic level, academic quote, is growing with education, so organisations have this big potential and if people don't want, are hesitant to work in big corporations because they don't see, you know, how they can use their skills and really see diversity, inclusion,  they see their representation, then that's also problematic, yeah, that people don't want to work there. Corporate culture is a thing, yeah. Organisations are not attractive enough because people's minds don't fit with probably what would you look for at a job market or at an organisation.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Sorry, yeah. [inaudible]

A Panellist: Monika, yeah.                                                                                                     

[inaudible]

Monika Huesmann: I would like to add for this also the point that- It's not like you- Someone is coming, maybe with a different gender or background or sexual orientation and they get the job and they're happy. The moment you start with inclusion, they want the same money, they want the same position, they want the same career.  So, it's not inclusion, is not we are in big harmony and we all are singing in the same rhythm. It's about fighting because we want the same things. We want career, we want money, we want promotion and you fight against people that you maybe would have liked to, to avoid. So, it's not that inclusion is harmony, inclusion is fight.

It's also the idea, if people come in an organisation, start there and they're just happy to have the job, that's not inclusion. That's maybe a start, but inclusion would be “We don't want to be just in the same room, we want the same table, we want the same cake and we want the cherry on top” and that's also seeing diversity is not something that's peaceful and everyone is happy with it. It's about fight, it’s about wanting the thing you have and it's about changing things.

And the same with women on boards we have had some women go up, quite a big range of women, going into board of directors, seeing that, experiencing the topic atmosphere in this many boards of directors and leaving. So, we have had quite a growing number of women starting to go there and just want to drop out again. [chuckles]

So, it's not just about recruiting, give you the chance to start, it's about options. It's about career, it's about money, it's about power and it's about more. So, it's not a peaceful stop when you recruit people. It's about things are happening and that's something you can be tired sometimes. I think, yes, we have to go through this thing because at the moment you still think ‘why should this woman get my job?’ It should be like ‘I don't want her and him to get my job because it's mine and I'm better’, but we still try to find the, identify the women, the gay one, the lesbian one, the everything, all characteristics, and I think we sometimes make mix up diversity with this happy multicultural harmony and we all sing together and I- We have to get rid of this picture in our mind, as well.

Chiponda Chimbelu: I mean, a couple of keywords came out there. It was “uncomfortable”, not, “not her”, “not harmonic” or it doesn't, you know, it's not about people. There's a lot of fighting as well. How can you convince organisations to do all this work? Like, where do you start because it sounds like a whole lot of work, because, of course is not work that just organisations should be doing it, it sounds like entire societies should be doing this work. So where should they start? And to make it at least easier and simpler for them to get into it? Where do you start? Either? Sandra?

Jeanette Trenkmann: If we had an easy answer to that then we probably would not need to sit here, right? [laughs]

Chiponda Chimbelu: Well, I mean- I am sure you have some experience, or things that you can use and maybe you can help us, some tips and some solutions. You mentioned some solutions before, so yeah.

Sandra Subel: So how I understand your question is, basically Monika drew a picture for us of diversity coming with a luggage of benefits and disadvantages, right? And it's about comparing which side has more, so to say. And I think that for me the starting point is on realising the benefits of doing that and seeing the benefits of getting on board for that constructive disharmony because I think we need to realise that not every work will benefit from that diversity, right?

I mean, diversity is a fact, right? But when it comes to routinous tasks, I don't know, folding boxes, pizza boxes, the diversity want, want improve that process, right? The outcome of that work is the sum of the hours spent of each individual. But there are jobs, which are not routine, is not repetitive but complex, especially in the context of solving so-called wicked problems, which are really requiring a knowledge from different fields and knowledge that cannot be gained by one person, right? Because we all have limits. It's not like we can- The times of those people who could study all the books probably finished around 15th century and now we would need different capabilities, different lived experiences, right.

We talk about cognitive on the one side on the cognitive diversity which can be fuelled by the identity diversity. So, when the companies realise the benefit and they see the connection of what they are producing, offering to the market, being a digital product, being a service could benefit from having diverse set of employees who are delivering that, I think this is a starting point to decide, yeah, it's worth getting on that journey of discomfort, disharmony.

 I'm not a big fan of a fan of the word ‘fight’ because it's, I mean- Maybe that's better describing the reality, but it's also polarising. And polarisation, sometimes it's beneficial, but I think the word is polarised enough. So, I would- Maybe a constructive disagreement, Monika. [laughs]

Chiponda Chimbelu: I want to throw this to Monika because you have, sorry, you have some research, as well, when it comes to competencies and what different groups can bring. And maybe just tell us a bit about that and what that means for diversity and equity and inclusion.

Monika Huesmann: I did some, or, I'm at the very moment I'm finishing my research on competences of people with a non-academic background with an own academic degree. So, if you come from a family where no one has studied and you are the first studying, so that's describing the group I'm looking at. And I realised because I belong to that group, so I'm reading other research and, and ideas. And sometimes I was a bit annoyed when I always read “We have to be trained like that”, “We need to add some more knowledge”, “We have to learn how to behave in a certain surrounding”. I think yes, they, they-some some of it is true but still people with a non-academic background bring other competences to the table, where they, what they can offer.

So, looking into my research, I did long biographical interviews with 27 people from this background and they, they told me about their whole career, some of them until to retirement, thinking about the idea “What did you gain from your background?” So, and they added things like resilience. “So I had to fall and I had a lot of disappointment, a lot of failure in my life, but I always had to get up again because there was never a family I could go to because- And they are rich and I can start, just stay there”. They did talk about things like “I can talk, I'm now a manager, but I can talk with every person in this company because I come from a background. My mother herself was a cleaning woman, I can talk with the cleaning woman just from spot in a respectful and supportive way”.

So it's-So they are competences like, like this resilience, empathy, ability to communicate on certain levels that you can find from, with people with a social background like that. It's not that everyone is bringing that, and it's not for sure and it's not something other ones couldn't gain, but it still is the idea there are also competence is you have to see and not only shortages. Things they miss, things they have done, things they haven't experienced in family.

So, if you look for a competence-oriented approach, it would be also to open in a company the mind for other competences like empathy, like working with people from different backgrounds, talking with people in a very direct way, being able to deal with money and a day-to-day level, that was also something they said “I had to count my money, over all studies, over all time because it was always showed and I never had this idea of running to my parents and telling them I need 2000 Euros because they would start laughing and talking about something else”.

And so this idea of a competence-oriented human resource policy is something I'm talking about and it's not only people with a non-academic background, it's also about what bring women, what bring men to the table, what bring people with a migrant history, their family, what are different experience, how they form your life style, your competences, as well. And if you start to respect them more with an idea of ‘we need a composition of all these competences’ is that would be, from my position, a very important thing, because then you just don't- You don't only focus on “you miss this or that” or “your German is not as perfect” or you, you don't have in mind that there is one set of competences that is important for all. It's the composition of different competences is like Sandra said, you can't have all of them in one person is not possible and you can't read as many books to know everything. So, you need this composition more and more. From my position, it would be a good position to integrate and invite more people with a different set of competences.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Right. Do any of you want to add to that because we're talking about solutions now, so we just-

Jeanette Trenkmann: I’m, I am nodding all the time, so it’s like, I can sign everything. [laughs]

Chiponda Chimbelu: Resource-oriented approach in human resources, yeah? That’s another approach? [inaudible due to several panellists speaking at the same time]

Jeanette Trenkmann: Yeah, definitely, that’s definitely, yeah. And I just made up my mind. I just was thinking also while Monika was talking and you said, Chiponda, you mentioned also for us, that not organisations must bring but also society, politicians. Yeah, I think so, It’s a, it's a joint effort. And I mean companies have been trying to install diversity I think for the last 40 years. So, it's 1980s where the first diversity managers popped up and, and where you know companies had suddenly departments that that took care for nice websites with, you know, people with different colours on it. And that was sort of the beginnings and, and organisations were thinking “Oh, you know, our website looks nice and diverse and maybe we also attract people”, but it didn't change anything in, within the organisation. Yeah, that was the point. So last 40 years: voluntary measures, nothing happened and that's why organisations have been forced to install quotas and so on.

And I think, I mean, probably when you ask yourself are you a fan of quotas of like fixed, measurable, or numbers that lead to measurable outcomes? And maybe your mind changes when you see, okay, there have been no results. If there is, if this is all voluntary, so probably you have to force companies. And I think, I'm a big fan of quotas because I think they can bring some results and probably you need them for some time and then you can sort of skip them again.

So, and you were also asking for is there anything like low hanging fruit, yeah. What can companies do to, to really bring measurable results and because we are, we come from economics, we come from business administration, we really like to measure everything, yeah? [laughs] That's, that's maybe also- I can't do anything about it and I think that when you, for example, take- I just have two points maybe for low hanging fruits and then also two more for like the long term sustainable results.

So, if you take the gender pay gap that still exists, women earn less than men and it's, it's a very consistent of- Now it's less than 20%, but it's still 18%, yeah. So, if you are a woman and someone is doing the same job and he's a man, then you can, then you know that this guy earns 20% more than you or you earn 20% less, however you want. So, and research has shown that to, that transparency can bring really results, yeah. So, if organisations reveal their job, their salaries connected to the jobs then something like that is, has no basis anymore, yeah. So that could help to overcome the gender pay gap and really taking care of that and making, making that transparent that is, that is, but will be something that is relatively easy to install.

And then the second thing is, that is, I think more the individual level that you could also do something about: talking about biases. Yeah, everyone has a bias. Everyone is biased in- When you see someone you have a clear or maybe not so clear idea of how this person would probably behave, yeah. If this person is white colour, has a certain age, has a certain habitus, a certain way of behaving, or is, has blue hair, yeah. And you sort of- The machinery starts, and you have stereotypes and making yourself aware of “Okay, I am also biased, would I maybe employ this person?” Maybe not because of blue hair. So, what happens in my mind, yeah. So talk about biases and then really seeing “Okay, how can I overcome this bias?”

First of all, being aware I'm also biased and, and then trying to overcome this can help a lot to make objective judgements about persons, about, you know, things that are really important in a strategic- So, that is something that I would say you can just like this [snaps her fingers] I can't do it yet. [laughs] What you can really do in an organisation that is more, that is more low hanging fruit.

And then, in the long run, I think it's not the individual, everybody, it's the structures, yeah. So organisations really have to look at how they can build structures that would attract diverse people. How they can, really go away from this individual focus, yeah. Someone needs certain, to be in in a certain function, you just have to be this and this and this and then this is your position, yeah, but  also the competencies approach and then organisational structures can change and, and the organisation itself will change, yeah.

So organisations do the effort together, politicians that have to take care for the framework conditions of you know, childcare, eldercare, your job, your family life, yeah. All of that is, I think, also where politicians can do something about. And then society itself is also I think requested to yeah to, to be open and also I mean if you think about biases on an individual level that that also would change society if that would be something that everyone would do, yeah. So that's probably my two cents for [laughs] maybe looking at a solution or seeing something, you know. I could go on with corporate culture and, yeah, so there's, there's so many I think points where we could start.

Chiponda Chimbelu: I am sure there is a very long list. I mean dissertations have been written about this. Lisa, if you wanted to, maybe just tell us what your quick fix would be or quick fixes would be [laughs] Exactly.

Lisa Ertl: I have been thinking like ‘Could jump in there, could jump in there’. Microphone, sorry, so there were many, many like words, I or ideas, I could, could easily connect to. I think that like from this consultancy perspective, I think that we somehow have the tasks to translate this very complex idea of organisational change or transformation into a way that can be adopted by companies.

So, this very difficult issue of wow this organisational change, but we need this organisational change and it's like there is this individual level aspect, there is a team like collaboration level and the structure level, this organisational culture that is touched on the basis. So, when this is from my perspective, it's a task to translate this very complex concepts of systemic changes into a very practical manner that would be- And this is something that we're at Diversity Kartell are kind of engaged in doing so. So, finding a programme, finding a model that translates these complex transformational tasks into a kind of a tangible version of “What should we answer on this question? What can we do now to bring it down?”

And maybe one thing for, like because it connects to the very beginning of the discussion-  You know that thing think that we shouldn't trap into that, like, tap into the trap of? Tap into the trap? Of, like separating this challenges of demographics, of climate change, of racism and so on like or not like just separating, or like slicing it in different pieces, but thinking it together, like having all these challenges and taking the potential that goes within diversity, or having the different perspective, having various approaches on how to solve problems, like taking really this, the D, E and I potential into the, like to solve all these very complex challenges we have, we're facing now. So, not to separate this idea of “Ah, we need to prioritise this or that”, but not putting it, thinking it together maybe. As a big solution?

Chiponda: [laughs] I don’t know how quick it is, but I think it definitely might be more effective. That's another story, of course. Quick and effective are not always the same. But we've come to the part of the discussion where we're going to invite you to take part. So, the audience has the opportunity now to ask your questions to anyone on the panel discussion or just to say what you think. And I'll just remind you that your voice will be recorded if you ask your question by the microphone. However, if you choose to not to want to you have your voice recorded, that's perfectly fine, you can still ask your question, but you may have to- Then we'll do it differently without the microphone or something like that and someone repeat the question on your behalf if that’s what you prefer. That’s also fine, so, and you are also welcome to ask your question in German as well. Most of us here do understand German, but we will also interpret it, like, translate it directly to English so that everybody in the room gets to know what’s being asked or said. Anyone? Oh, yeah, we do have one.

Jeanette Trenkmann: Otherwise we start asking you questions.

[laughter]

Audience Member One: Thank you very much for your insights. I guess, I have two questions that maybe relate a bit, mostly to what you said earlier, but I'm sure you can all answer both questions. One is what you mentioned- I really like the picture painted with the cherry on top of the cake. Like, you know, it doesn't stop at just, you know, hiring people and I thought immediately that you could also phrase this as with it comes responsibility to, you know, once you hired someone. For instance, you know, someone from abroad who moved here, whose visa depends on the job, you know. Maybe you also have a kind of different sense of responsibility once the company faces difficulties, like a massive layoff, you know. You probably should include in your equation of like who to layoff first, also, these things. Or, like, shouldn’t you? That’s one question.

And then another question is how would you translate this, because we are in a university and we also discussed a lot of this in the context of being employed at the university and how- And I think the organisation and the structures here very, very different to the private sector and a lot of the concepts or things you studied are, I think, taking place most like, or considering the structures of the private sector and how would you differ in like in what you recommend to universities?

Monika Huesmann: Not easy. [laughs] I think if you compare universities and private organisation there are big differences but still it is in a structure and thinking of the structure and we have the same need for diversity and we have the-I think you could force universities more into reflecting what they're doing, or it should be possible to, to force them more to reflect and to realise their biases. But we still have in university a lack of quite many groups of our society who are not represented here and that is a big problem because our-

I think we're still ignoring that German, Germany is not a dominant White German country or culture in that regard. We are a growing, diverse country and we need that and we should invite that, as well. So, we need representation on all areas in politics, in universities, in education and in economics. So, I think it's addressed to more stakeholders in that area than just universities and it's addressed to politics, as well, to, for example, get rid of these, these short time contracts in universities, that you can get more security, that you can be also as found a family when you're young and in university that don't really fits together, and even not for women and not for many, they want to take responsibility in that area because no one is-

We don't discuss that openly, but no one is really accepting that you have a pause and maybe coming back without this “I commit my whole life to my research” There, if there are children or people you care about, you can't do that, or you wouldn't want, or you can't do that, as well. So, universities need to reflect on their way of thinking about work, thinking about contracts and thinking about their responsibility to represent society as well in research and in lecturing.

Sandra Subel: I can pick up on the other question, [inaudible] and I mean the quick answer is yes, it should be taken into consideration. Why? Because there is a problem. We see it a lot in the data from the time of Covid and how women and members of non-dominant groups have been impacted, especially in layoffs, and the consequences of, especially of so unpaid work of women in the household and how women were impacted by the time where the work was shifted or, not shifted-The work entered our households, right? Before Covid it was optional. During Covid it was a new, new reality. And the same applies to the other diversity dimensions and members of non-dominant groups were impacted. And how to do it?

I think particularly in Germany I see a big role, that a well or future oriented Betriebsrat could have a role to play in that. I'm not German and I haven’t, I don't have the full grasp of the role of Betriebsrat.

Monika Huesmann: Works council.

Sandra Subel: Works council? Yeah, that's one of the first word I've learned in German just after Steuerberater and Steuererklärung. But at the end of the day, I think this is something that- It's a very important tool that those entities have in the organisation and can step in to support, right? Especially when it comes to massive layoffs. Of course the social factors are taken into account, the topic of race or gender, it's not part of that. But I can imagine that there are tools to be leveraged for that because there is a problem.

Chiponda: Yeah, would either of you…?

[inaudible]

Lisa Ertl: Yeah, it was just, like, yeah, thinking about this very related to or in comparison very traditional conservative field of university and these strong hierarchies. I mean, there is this very good article of [name inaudible] like about this sexual harassment case here at this university. I really appreciate the way she kind of pulled out and everything and connected the situation at universities to the hierarchies or the strong power imbalance that easily leads to abuse of power, also.

So, especially in universities or in this context of these hierarchies, it's in, like, extremely visible in how far these power relations are important to look at. So, this would be- And, yes, lik-. This would be like- I would say, I didn't have only private, the private sector in mind when talking, so is really like having this organisational change process, also, is absolutely necessary. And I come from a public administration context, so I know quite well the, the, the, yeah. So, yes, fits quite well. Yeah, you also said-

Jeanette Trenkmann: I couldn't agree more with what you said Monika and Lisa, yeah. So it's true, right? The strong hierarchical organisation, such as all state universities are, that doesn't make it or makes it easier, as you said, to have this power imbalance abused in a way, yeah. And also these, the problem of these limited short term contracts. I mean, who in the economy would accept a contract that is just limited to six months and then it's getting extended again and again and again and then, you know, salary doesn't change, you don't have any other benefits. So who would work for such an, for any in the private economy, for an organisation, yeah? So, and I also agree to Monika saying universities must change the understanding of work, yeah? It can't just be top down approach, you have the stronger hierarchy and you as a, you know, young researcher are at least smallest point in the system, doing all the work, and then sort of, yeah, being not able to design your work or design your, your way of understanding of work. Yeah, that's, that's also the conditions that must change, definitely.

Audience Member Two: Thank you very much, all terribly interesting. I have a question about quotas, but this is a more general point about supply and demands of, you know, we are economists here, so supply and demand- Labour markets are, have the result of some equilibrium and that is where supply and demand meet. But when we discussed regulations, we all almost always discuss demand side regulations and never supply side regulations. So, you know, when you say quota to everyone here in the room understands that this is a demand quote, like a company has to hire at least such and such percent. Hire and not supply, not offer, right?

So, now we're in the university system. So my question then is should we- Why is there no pressure on the universities or on companies to say at least such percentage had that you offer to the market has to be of a minority group, right? And that's not just for universities, it's also for companies like, you know, every company has some kind of training or mentoring programmes. But I never hear of any of that of that discussion although it's you know it's just the other side of the market and you know if demand is short, are we sure that it's always demand that is short? I don't think so. I think, you know, many of the times supply is short so why don't we you know work there?

Jeanette Trenkmann: That's a very good question. Do you know of any, do you have research on that, that you have read or? Because I think that would, be would be at least a good point to start researching on that as long as there is-

Audience Member Two: No, but I mean many of the research you know, I'm sure, sort of touches on it. So, for example, we had last week, we had a seminar, or was it two weeks ago? It was talking about the different willingness of women and men to go into group leadership positions, okay? So, then you can say, you know, I don't know whose fault it is, but clearly there is a supply aspect to that, right? That and then you know, we were talking about the geographic mobility of people. So, you know, in connection with the university employment laws, if you have to change your geographic location at the age of 35 or 40, that's maybe differently hard for men and women, right?  And that's also a supply issue. So, you know, maybe we should make sure that, you know, at the right age we supply enough people of the right kind to the market, right? So, so many of these things, but the pressure is always on the higher hiring of the recruiting team, is never on the, on the training team.

Sandra Subel: Isn’t it a bit of a cheek in the neck problem? Because I have heard this statement on “Oh, there is not enough women willing to take up the position of leadership”. And I think this is a difference of a lack of interest versus understanding the reality where the role operates in, right? And as also was mentioned before, there is enough stories of people who try to enter the, the battlefield. I think it's the right words in this case. [Monika Huesmann laughs] And step back from it. Because that the rules of the game are not prepared for those players. And it's not only about women, but it's also for people with disabilities, neuro- divergent people, right? So, the battlefield is prepared for a certain prototype. And society, it's not built out of prototypes. I think we have to also not only supply demand, but we also need to work on the, the playing field and the rules of the game.

And I think what resonated with me from your question is, is the point of the pipeline, right? Because it is another common argument, especially in technology, that there is not enough women that we can recruit and I think Germany has the highest ever female participation in the STEM environment. I think this last year it was 37% of the third year students of STEM subjects were women. So it is improving, right? It's not 50/50, it’s not balanced yet, but it's interesting topic.

And now I will space, speak for the space of partial knowledge, right? Because we're talking about the regulators coming in, we know the corporate sustainable, sustainability reporting directive that will force businesses, and I'm not sure, Marta, will business or academia also be forced or public sector will be forced to report on a CSDR? [inaudible reply from her team colleague in the audience] Maybe that's a gap, maybe there you should also expect the public sector to report on that and that could provide something, that could be a lever for more transparency.

Chiponda Chimbelu: [difficult to understand due to lack of microphone] Monika, you want to ask?

Monika Huesmann: Yeah, I want to add something. [laughs] I think we, we saw that in the seventies that there was always the idea of women are not qualified enough for this labour market. Women have picked up this idea. We have seen a lot of qualification at the moment. The share of students, female students, are bigger than men in most areas. We see that if you take the 10% of the best ones, the best great ones, we find at the moment two or three percent men. So the dominating group with the best grades in education system are women. We don't really see that this development has changed a lot in the hiring process. We still see that men even with worse grades, with a lower level of academic knowledge or things like that, still start in organisation with a higher income. We have this idea seeing, looking at other groups we see that things are changing and I think this argument towards women “you need more qualification, you need to study more, you have to be more prepared for the labour market today”. That was not always- That didn't really change in the idea of women getting a better start into organisations. We see other effects if you look at veter- Now you have to help with it the English word.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Veterinarian.

Monika Huesmann: Veterinarian. That was in Germany a long time protected by the grades of the people starting to study it. So, we had a change in the 80s. So, nowadays around 70% of the ones studying this, that-

Other panellists: Veterinarian.

Monika Huesmann: This, that's really like are women and then-

Sandra Subel: Animal doctor.

Monika Huesmann: Animal doctor, thank you. [laughs] I can handle that word. So, we have on the labour market and a growing number of women highly qualified in the area and what we see at the same moment that the income is dropping. So, we see with a growing number of female animal doctors, we have a dropping income in the same area. We saw the same with IT. We were dominant female group when it was a very technical thing and with a very low income. With the ID, the personal computer started, we had the take over of men in that area at a really running income in that area.

So, we don't see the, we change- We can't change it everywhere and we don't have number for everything, but we have number for the animal doctors and we have number for the IT with the idea of a gendered profession and that if you go with the change in the gendered profession we see that women still earn less than men still earn more. Or the other way, if they leaving, we see a drop in income. So, there was always, always and I- Not in all areas for sure, but there was an eye on this idea with especially women, you need more qualification, that hasn't changed. The entrance barriers for women and in the end not- I think we can't stop with recruiting. We don't see them in the high position, in the percentage where they start with qualification. So, we see that it was tackled in that area, but we don't see the changes. We see really resistant-to-change system that we have to tackle at many, many levels and this will be a tackling point for all the time for sure, but it's not the one for my position.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Alright, any further questions? More questions? Yes.

Audience Member Three: Hi, my name is Rajiv Desai. My pronouns are he/him.  I’ve been in the diversity, equity and inclusion space for about 8 years now and I think this is the first time I'm doing an event in the Chapel. So, thank you for making that happen. I'll give all of you a little bit of a break and I'll just add to all the amazing things you've shared and not ask you a question, which is- You know, we started the afternoon, the evening with the focus on the economic downturn, on the expenses and you know, working with a lot of smaller organisations who already have lower budgets. One of the things we found is that there needs to be a shift from what I call expensive programmatic efforts to more behaviour and process change, right?

It's very easy to buy a membership to a gym. It's very hard to go to the gym, right? It's very hard to go workout. And I think we have to have a shift in our organisations around behaviours and processes. You know, a lot of you mentioned recruiting as a process. That latest research shows that 40% of candidates don't even apply to a company if they don't see enough evidence of DEI, right? So you can change your process all you want inside the company, but these folks are not even coming into your process. So, I would really encourage all organisations to really audit, each and every process within the organisation to look at it from the DEI lens and say ‘Okay, where can we make small incremental changes so that the entire process improves for a better outcome at the end of the year?’ And that's an easier sell to the executive committees than large DEI budgets. So, thank you.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Alright, thank you.

Audience Member Four: I would just be in- Oh God, I would be interested in how useful the discussion about diversity in politics is? Because when we're talking about diversity in politics, there's a lot of regulations. There's laws around for people with disabilities, there's certain laws around it. I'm just wondering if these measurements are useful in any way because pushing companies into having a more diverse hiring, if you already mentioned that having a diverse company and getting to that point where people with disabilities are welcome or are feeling safe in that environment, are able to work properly. Does it make sense to push legal regulations on these companies, even though they're far away from having a company which is able to properly give a good employment  to a person with a disability or from a different background or whatever? So do these political measurements make- or that political discussion. Does that make any sense or is it more counterproductive?

Chiponda Chimbelu: I don’t know if you want to address your question directly to a particular panellist? Right, so for everyone here. Oh, Sandra, will you go first? Because I can see you’re already- [laughs]

Sandra Subel: As the data shows, it's not very effective. As you brought up the example of people with disabilities, where do we know the threshold for the organisations are, at least in Germany, for those who hire above 20 people, it's 5%, right? And the World Health Organisation estimates the number of people in the world to have a disability for about 15%. So, the threshold is set quite low, 5 percent, 15%. For those who don't know, if the organisation do not hire the 5%, then there are penalties. The problem is that they are too low, so it's easier to pay than solve the problem.

And so the problem, it’s on many levels. Sometimes it might be about physical accessibility to the building, sometimes it's about provision of accommodation, sometimes it's about transparency of the process and- But at the end of the day, it's easier to pay the penalty and keep things as they are. I think this is quite the example of people who are bringing diversity, they are also disrupting the harmony which I think is a great thing, but in the eyes of many it might not be such a good thing. So, I think the current regulations are not enough. And I think there is a lot that can be fixed with regulation and I think regulations, regulatory actions are a strong lever for change, but it has to come with other, let's say, efforts including empathy and other perspectives, yeah.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Are there any further- Okay, I think this one question there and there.

Audience Member Five: It’s more of a comment rather than a question.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Oh, okay. Then you go ahead. We’ll see if we can get the mic to you.

Audience Member Five: I want to build on what Sandra said because I'm involved in the introduction- I'm part of the task force that in our group is introducing- I also work for Axel Springer. And I'm part of the task force that is introducing then new EU directives, CSRD, which is a new also reporting standards for the companies that makes equally important sustainability data and financial data and they are being expected to be reported together at the same time. There can't be any delay. And not all in answering your question, I think not all the KPIs that are described in this standard are useful. Not all of them will bring a lot because there is a lot about the equal wages and person with disabilities, diversity metrics and I saw them. Sometimes I look at them, I'm like ‘Well, this is such a poor KPI’.

But the fact that there is such a big directive and such a big push that you need to report on so many points in the area of governance, in the area of social and in the area of climate makes the leaders, the top leaders aware that they have to spend money on it because there's a big requirement coming from the European Union, it will be audited and it can be penalised. So, they at least start to noticing  “Oh, we need to hire a sustainability manager” or “We have to introduce some reporting procedures”. So it's not perfect. Often it's as Sandra mentioned with the very low penalties for the number of people, people with disabilities. But I think, it is sometimes there's a stick that big business needs to actually look at least at those things.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Alright, Monika.

Monika Huesmann: I would like something to the protection for people with disabilities. I think we often concentrate on the fact if they hire them or not, but mostly it's about keeping them in the company where they gained their disability. So around 90% of all disabled people gain their disability during their life. And very often during their work life, maybe not always connected to the work life, but they gain it over the time. So it's about your work, somewhere you get disabled and then you are protected by laws in in many regards in Germany, so you can keep, still stay in the company.

And it's- We discuss very often thinking about the disability laws in Germany, thinking about recruitment and that you have to talk about it or allowed to ask or things like that. And they are still- It's quite some disadvantages around it, but the biggest dupe that's directed or that tackled by this law is about people gaining the big disability during the working life. And there if you think about that you get - the most of them get it between 20 and 80, at the biggest group between 40 and 60.

And that's very often closely connected to what you are working and how hard you are working physically. And they- You can't get rid of them as easy in Germany. And that's something I think we have to be aware of when we talk about this kind of legislation, as well. So it's not enough, I would agree immediately with Sandra, but it's something at the moment which, I think, people can very often stay at the place where they are working. And in a public institution it's even more difficult to get rid of them. So it's a bit more protection because of the public situation how to hire and fire there in Germany. And that's something I think we just need to be conscious of. [pause]I’ll quiet down, yeah.

Audience Member Six: Okay, so first of all, thank you for all your insights, it was very interesting. And my question is a bit longer, so I hope I can express it correctly. But yeah, I was wondering about parental leave and child penalty and because from what I heard and read in papers, it's still very significant that women take longer parental leave and have disadvantage disadvantages because of that. And from what I heard from like personal stories of people that I know, it's still also very stigmatised for men to take parental leave for, to take longer parental leave. So I was wondering if this is changing or like the mindset is changing and companies that it's also eligible from them to take the same amount of parental leave as their wife, for example, or if that's still a problem because I would imagine if like maybe men and women would take the same amount of parental leave, the child penalty could also be lower for women.

Sandra Subel: It's a great cheek in the neck topic because as we've heard many times, there is a gender pay gap. Women earn less. In Germany, the law is quite clear about the financial benefits during the parental leave, right? There is a threshold which for many families is not enough to sustain the group, right. So the choice is usually quite, quite binary: either we have money to live or not. And if a woman earns less and the choices it's- I want to, I'm tempted to say the choice is obvious. We see the reverse and, at least in my circle, just on a slower, slower scale in my circle in the couples where a woman earns more you see women coming back to work earlier and men staying at home.

And I think talking about different regulations that can be helpful. We see a good example of I believe Norway that work on the topic from the taxes perspective. And it's encouraging families to equally split the parental leave between both parents because, I think, here is not only the binary gender thinking. Pro-penalisation of taxation. So, like it's not convenient from the financial perspective, it's only one person takes that time off. So, that those are a couple of thoughts from my side.

Jeanette Trenkmann: Yeah, that’s true. It's of course taxation issue, if you compare because it's, it's sort of easier as long as we have Ehegatten-Splitting, yeah. That sort of, the wife is the model for “Okay, you stay at home because you earn less and that's beneficial for everyone”, instead of taxing families and not just taxing couples, you know? Because if you have kids then it's getting worse even, yeah, with the taxation issues. So, there is- Because you were asking is there any change? I think it, it really depends. That's also the question that I- The answer that I also suggest to my students always “it depends”. It's always a good answer that you give.

It depends really on the size of the corporation that you look at. What larger corporations and probably, I don't know if you- how you experience that with Springer, but larger corporations often have a stronger, a process that is institutionalised, that really looks after if someone is leaving the company for parental time, for taking care of parents or whatever care tasks there are, then there is a process in place and it's institutionalised in bigger corporations, how to really make this leaving the company and coming back smooth for everyone, yeah? It's in terms of training, in terms of further education, in terms of when the woman wants to come back then there's no gap in “Okay, I have to restart all over again”, where in that time when I was at home taking care of the kids or the parents, men were sort of taking the lead and there are in far superior positions now, yeah?

In smaller companies who don't, you don't see that and you see a growing number of fathers taking this parental leave, that's at least some observation. And what is also interesting in the gender pay gap is almost non-existent, when you look at the age distribution. So, up to the age of 29, women and men almost earn the same and then the gap starts and that's of course you can guess why because that's the 29/30 is the age when women have the first child and then the gap starts. And bigger companies are at least in the trend able at least to take more care of not making the gap too large or not making the time of leave too different from when people then want to come back, yeah, and are probably able to give more incentives and, you know, staying in closer contact, that’s, that’s at least my observation.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Yes, Monika.

Monika Huesmann: And I think you also should look at society, as well. This idea that mothers who give their child in a very young age to some, to even the partner, the father, the public education system. We still judge on them in a various societal way. So I think we still have a society that tries to keep this, this mother idea, in a, not on an individual decision level and it's still something we have. With I, even with the pandemic. Yeah, we rolled back into quite some conservative role model, still thinking here, looking at couples, looking at couples with children. We had a change with the idea of care work distribution in couples or with couples during the pandemic. Women took much more responsibility for children compared to men and, I think, we have to deal with this idea of this rollback into this kind of women are there for the children, men are, can go and play soccer with them, something like that.

We still have a societal that is pressing men and women into certain roles. And I think we have to see this societal background as well, because the pandemic has really sharpened this pressure towards both gender, or even if you don't see it as a gender thing, or if you see that the couples can be diverse, as well. You see that very often one of the two is pressured into being more into a mum role, the other one more into a father role and that’s always combined with a certain expectation of societies. And I think that's something we need to be aware of, as well, that there was a rollback and within wait to get this space more open again, we have to find that, as well.

Sandra Subel: A picture came to my mind that is quite viral on Instagram currently of social roles Monika just mentioned. When the father brings fast food home, he is label as a fun dad. When mum does it, it's a bad mother. And that goes with other examples. I think it kind, of kind of builds on that.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Lisa, do you want to say something? I thought.

Lisa Ertl: It's a little bit the same. Like, it's worth questioning one’s own, one’s own biases and stereotypes and so on. It's really something very crucial. We see that at this point. I don't know if it's really a rollback or if it has always been like that and got clear during the pandemic that these roles have never been kind of, yeah, that liquid, would have, would be good, would be nice for realising life chances, so, but it isn't the case. Maybe it's a rollback, maybe that’s never been like that, but looking at that quite clearly: What is in our mind and what is it? What combines roles? And this kind of restricts the- I already found that word in my- This, the opportunities to realise this life chances of so many people and this is what we should, like, really think of as much as possible. What is already in our minds? What restricts us and others while doing our things?

[inaudible]

Audience Member Seven: So, you talked a bunch about this gender pay gap and we also talked about issues, what we have implemented to make it easier, for example, for female persons to get, have childcares and in child education and all these issues. And you also said that we a have shortage of labour supply that we- And we don't see that still female woman get hired for higher positions and you also said that even if female woman are hired in high positions, they often drop because they feel uncomfortable. And isn't this also an issue because as some stage of for making a career, it is important this networking. So, not only the skills, that I can do some qualified work, but networking.

And this networking, in my view, it, if-  That's why Thomas hires Thomas, because Thomas likes to talk to Thomas and not to somebody else who is not the person he can talk about his hobbies or things like that and, so, how can we solve that? Because this networking issues, I think, it's very, very important and I don't see how we can break it in such a way that female persons feel comfortable in positions that are male dominated. I even could imagine in a shortage of labour supply, the female persons who are very, very smart and attractive, they go to female companies where they can make a career in female dominated company and that's why we will never be able to break that up.

Jeanette Trenkmann: That's very good, yeah. Thank you for your comment. Definitely, I would totally agree that networking is, is a big issue. And, as you say, in companies that are male-dominated in leadership positions, it's an issue that the effect of not having to leave your comfort zone, but looking for your, you know, for exactly your counterparts. So Thomas would then hire Thomas because it's, it's nice, you know this guy that has the same background. It's, it's great working with this guy. So why should I, you know, hire someone where I'm not sure about the outcome?

It's a, how did you call it? I have to look it up. It's constructed disharmony that I suddenly have when I have more diversity on board. That's, that's certainly true and what can be observed is that exactly what you were saying. Women tend then to look really for DEI and how is it represented and how are women networks probably already established at companies and go there and decide not to go into these big corporations, yeah? And because they just don't want to do such jobs when they have no support and when there's no network.

So, I think, there's a lot of great initiatives that take these issues of women that should be networking. Probably there's no one, you know, global initiative that stands for all the needs of all the different women, but there are networks and that is also an increasing number. And I think, it's something that you see that women also understand that networks are important and that's why they're organised more and more also in these networks. Now, I think about Panda, if you, if you probably know, it's a big network that has more than 3000 women connected and if a company looks for someone in management positions then they could actively go and search this network and women, you know. They organise events and they support each other. So, I think that's a, that's a very important point. Yeah, definitely.

Sandra Subel: I think we also need to think about the definition and the format of networking, right? Because if you take it, take it in the traditional form: What is networking? After-work drinks? Golf over the weekend? And, as we already discussed, in the social norms and responsibilities are different of different genders. So if by definition we know that there are tasks that are handled by woman at home. She simply cannot afford attending the golf with colleagues on Saturday. Where socially it would be more accepted for the father to do that or staying long hours, right?

I always recall this moment from my workplace, where we had one of the leaders becoming the father. And when he was leaving on time work, everyone was praising him for being a good dad, for picking up the son. But then when a woman was doing that, like the label was “Oh, we cannot rely on her, she's leaving on time”, right? So, we see a lot of that and if we want to create- We need to think about more inclusive networking, right? And to doing that during the work time, for instance, and enabling people with- And it's not only gender because there are men with caregiving responsibilities. It doesn't have to be a child that can be elderly parent, a disabled sister or brother, right? So we all have responsibilities that we don't see. And the formats, again, are created for an ideal prototype.

Chiponda Chimbelu: Alright. It’s eight o’clock and [laughs] and if we are gonna be very strict, which I have to be because normally I work in TV and there is no time and the show just goes over and there’s no way you can do that. You run into a bumper and that doesn't work, so we're going to have to end it now, the discussion. I think you should join me in thanking our panellists, Monika, and of course, Sandra, Lisa and Jeanette for joining us this evening and sharing their insights. Maybe a warm hand of applause for all of you. [applause]  But that also goes for you, the audience. Thank you for your participation and for staying, for the ones who are here until now, 90 minutes, you know, which is a long time. And you do have an opportunity to network with everyone who is present and who decides to stay for the reception, so I hope, I see you over the drinks at the reception. So, see you there, I hope. Cheers.

[applause]