The Good Governance Principles and Guidance for Not-for-Profit Organisations (Principles and Guidance) have been created by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) as part of our commitment to the not-for-profit (NFP) sector and its directors. Designed to assist boards in determining what constitutes good governance practice for their organisations and to achieve better outcomes through good governance.

AICD are committed to promoting world-leading performance of Australian boards and directors. The objective is to share with the NFP community some key principles that we believe are a useful starting point for NFP boards when considering what constitutes good governance practice (with regard to their particular circumstances).

The Principles and Guidance are an extension of our commitment to the NFP sector and demonstrate how we seek to support organisations and their directors to achieve better outcomes through good governance.

Access the document here.

This blog post is written by Amanda Kaiser from Smooth The Path and is sourced directly from her blog here.

We hold our place in conversations with filler words which act as a bridge between coherent thoughts. Most commonly these words are ah, um, er, and, so, you know. We slide in filler words to indicate to others that we’re still talking, hold on, we mean to say, I’m thinking and I’ll be right back with you. Filler words over the course of our lives become a habit and we hardly even know we are using them.

Unfortunately our unconscious use of filler words hurts our ability to make a point, to persuade and to influence.  This habit picks away at our credibility just a bit. Professional public speakers know this and they learn early to curb their use of filler words. Take a look at some of the best TED talks and you’ll see one or two, maybe no filler words. Count filler words in your average conference session and you may find 40 or 50. You’ll find that the speaker without filler words is more persuasive and more captivating.

If people use filler words in their communications do organisations use the equilivant of filler words in their marketing messaging? What little signals are associations unintentionally sending that make them less credible and trustworthy?

Abandoned social media channels hurt our credibility

In a frenzy many associations decide that we are going to do social media. So we open accounts on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Maybe also Instagram, Pinterest and Google+. We work really hard at consistently posting for a month or two and find that it is fairly unrewarding because nearly no one likes, retweets or +1’s our posts and fewer follow. Eventually these channels are abandoned or infrequently used. For members who care about Twitter or another channel, seeing social media lay fallow makes them wonder how credible the organisation is.

Fact-based marketing hurts our credibility

Fact-based marketing follows a 3 step formula. This is who we are. This is what we do. Now that you know who we are and what we do won’t you please purchase, join or attend? Most marketing is fact-based marketing. It doesn’t work because it doesn’t connect our member’s needs with our solutions. Members get the sense from our marketing that our focus is on the association’s bottom line and not them, this hurts our credibility.

Policies can hurt our credibility

Members want to see messaging about what they can do. Not a bunch of language about what they can’t do. Policies are developed to protect the association from its members and members know it. Policies can hurt our credibility.

Written by Tim Mullen originally appeared on LinkedIn Pulse

Leadership requires many different skills; from foresight to reactive thinking, from the ability to deal with a situation from a position of strength to performing under pressure. Being a good leader means you’re comfortable standing out in front, like the lead singer in a musical. You take pressure in your stride and your confidence helps to position you as an authority to those you work with and those you report to.

There’s a unique trait, however, that sets apart the great leaders from the good. It's harder to learn because for many leaders it feels un-natural. Something that makes them more uncomfortable and more likely to hastily exit stage left.

This isn’t something that's just relevant to leadership but more broadly in all parts of life. It makes you authentic, believable, loved, revered and everything else in between. It’s so powerful, in fact, that a study cited by Forbes has shown that these type of leaders are the best for business.

The best leaders are humble leaders

The trait I’m talking about is humility. Why does it make some leaders uncomfortable? Because for many in a leadership position there is an aversion to anything that might make them appear weak. I’m sure you’ve experienced leaders like this at some point - the ones who find it hard to admit to their team that they don’t have the answer, that would choose personal glory rather than praising an individual other than themselves.

However, as Deloitte so beautifully puts it, “Today, organizations live in the Glassdoor era. Every corporate decision is immediately publicly exposed and debated. Once-private issues are now posted online for every employee—and every potential employee—to read." So how long, then, can leaders afford not to be humble?

How humility gets you from good to great

I’ve worked with a number of great leaders over the years, each who have taught me some amazing things and helped shape where I am today. When I started to think about the greatest leaders I’ve ever been lucky enough to work for, the ones that stood out immediately were those that were humble. As I write this and think back about those experiences, I have seen the power that humility can have on teams:

1. Humble leaders inspire and empower

It's the fact they are willing to give you a go, that they take pride in having their managers single you out for the great work you've done. They're the first to admit when they know there's something they can't do but that you can. They don't go around playing the politician, jostling for position among their peers so they can be seen and recognised. They share openly and they embody a true sense of the word 'team'. They admit when things are difficult, but inspire in how they respond to overcoming those challenges. They show you that as hard as something might be, it can be done, and because they share that with you, you're not just inspired but empowered to help drive action yourself.

2. Humble leaders will listen to you, even if it’s something they may not want to hear

Feedback isn’t always nice. Especially when it's in the form of criticism. If someone in the team raises a fault in the way something has been done, the person responsible isn't automatically going to welcome it with open arms. When that person is a leader, it means that the spotlight very quickly shines bright in their eyes. Many will choose to hide as a result. The greatest leaders, however, recognise that feedback like this is so hugely necessary. They're humble enough to take it on the chin and openly acknowledge it - often in front of the team - and then seek input and consensus on how it can be fixed. These leaders don't just wait for something to happen. They're open to feedback, actively seeking input from their team on how things could be improved because they don't necessarily have all the answers. Then they act, publicly, to show that the feedback is translating into action.

3. Humble leaders command the utmost respect without acting tough

A quote we shared earlier this week was from Simon Sinek - "Great leaders don’t need to act tough. Their confidence and humility serve to underscore their toughness.” How true this is. The greatest leaders I have worked with have always held my respect; we could have a friendly chat, share a joke with each other, talk openly about business challenges, and even confide in each other if we were having a tough time with something outside work. But when an important deadline was looming and the pressure was on, the team immediately knew what had to be done. We didn't wait for instruction, we knew what was expected of us and got on with the job at hand. We were driven by the respect we had for our manager and the confidence they had in us that we would deliver. That manager never approached us with a firm voice, telling us how important something was to complete. Because of their leadership, we already knew.

Humility forms the core foundation of great leadership. Without it, you may be a good leader but chances are you’ll stay just that.

Written by Tim Mullen; can be viewed on the Jobvibe Blog here.

The peak body for Australian surgeons has created a new internal process to handle complains of sexism, harassment and discrimination following recent revelations of a toxic "boys' club" culture. In a statement released on Wednesday, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS)  announced it had commissioned new research into the matter, including a survey and interviews with surgeons across Australia.

It will also look at industries and how they handle complaints and what they do to reduce cases of discrimination and harassment. The new complaints system has been put in place while the college's new independent group continues to investigate a flurry of allegations made by surgeons of being subjected to sexual harassment and bullying.

"We expect there will be a range of short- and long-term actions we will need to take to achieve cultural change," the RACS said. In March, neurosurgeon Caroline Tan revealed her career had been derailed after she spoke out about sexual assault she suffered from a colleague. She has demanded an inquiry into the treatment of whistleblowers to break a toxic culture of silence in Australian hospitals. The industry was rocked last month by allegations of widespread sexism, harassment and discrimination in Australian hospitals and that surgeons who complain to authorities are being persecuted.

In March, a leading Victorian surgeon resigned from The Alfred hospital after multiple allegations were made by at least seven junior surgeons of sexual harassment and poor surgical decision-making. The revelations come amid a furore around harassment in the health system prompted by a senior female Sydney surgeon, who recently said that trainees who reported sexual harassment could ruin their careers.

In response to the claims, the college set up an independent group charged with investigating the profession's culture and providing "fearless and comprehensive" advice. The RACS vowed to weed out any rogue surgeons and support those who make complaints.

This article is sourced directly from the Age website by Alana Schetzer; click here to view.

See the original Media Release and statements from RACS here.

By: Paula Gonzalez 

Engineers Australia needed to do two things: raise the visibility and credibility of the engineering profession in Australia and strengthen and grow its membership.

EA soon realized a new recruitment and retention campaign—called "strENGth"—was the way to get both done.

"Through strENGth, Engineers Australia seeks to remind members of the value a partnership with their professional body provides and empower, encourage, and support members to recruit their peers as members," says Noel Dos Santos, CAE, national manager of member growth. "Ensuring the strENGth message is front of mind is key to the success of this growth journey. strENGth gives voice to our value and relevance to harness the power of member referral."

Initial Elements of the Campaign

The strENGth campaign had two main objectives:

• Lead the way in creating a generation of chartered (i.e., certified) engineers.
  
• Grow EA's membership.
  

In order to accomplish these goals, EA knew it would need the buy-in and participation of key stakeholders, as well as a way to engage all members in the campaign. But the group also knew that to bring out true change it would need more than a member-get-a-member campaign.

EA began by test piloting its campaign in Victoria. It featured high-profile, local members (including the 2012 Young Australian of the Year) in videos calling on members to grow their profession and become leaders of the "Chartered Generation of Engineers."

"This cultural change drive challenged our members to embrace and celebrate their professionalism—their commitment to competency, currency, and ethics by becoming Chartered and broadcasting their Chartered Status … and empowers our young engineers to not wait to be told, but to be the creators of their profession," says Dos Santos.

EA also encouraged members to show their strENGth by

• wearing their membership pins
  
• including their membership in their email signature and business cards
  
• utilizing LinkedIn to show their membership status and spread the word
  
• introducing themselves as Chartered Engineers when meeting new people.
  

In addition to engaging the members in the campaign, EA also utilized a variety of marketing and communications channels, including social media, postcards, newsletters, articles, and a website.

Next Steps

After seeing success in Victoria, EA decided to take the strENGth campaign national.

This time, Engineers Australia featured senior Chartered leaders and CEOs of global organizations to act as official ambassadors of strENGth.

"These leaders stared down the barrel of a camera lens and shared their thoughts on what it means to be a member, and the importance of being Chartered, from both an individual and business perspective," says Dos Santos. "Our goal was for these ambassadors to inspire others to follow in their footsteps. The aim is for our members to tell this story."

The Results Are In

And tell it they did. Based on the strENGth campaign, Engineers Australia saw the following results:

• growth in new members, readmitting members, and renewing members
  
• more members working on becoming Chartered
  
• wide exposure of member videos, thanks to the ambassador organizations both sharing these videos and hosting them on their own websites, providing a collective reach of more than 300,000 customers
  
• an increase in members promoting their membership status in their email signatures and through social media platforms
  
• members wearing their member pin and proclaiming their membership status at industry meetings
  
• engagement of the profession's top leaders, who all accepted their invitation to be featured in the strENGth campaign within 24 hours
  
• becoming first-ever international recipient of the ASAE Gold Circle Award, in the member retention campaign category in 2014, as well as winning the President's Prize at Engineers Australia's 2013 National Excellence Awards, marking the first time in the award's history that a staff- and member-driven initiative has won the prize
  

According to Dos Santos, engaging the members and the profession's leaders was key to the campaign's success because it sparked many membership-related discussions within the engineering profession.

Paula Gonzalez is the director of member relations at the Produce Marketing Association. Email: pgonzalez@pma.com

Reprinted with permission. Copyright, ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership, April 2015, Washington, DC. 

by Laurence Minsky and Julia Tang Peters

Conventional thinking has suggested that leadership positions go to those who aggressively plan their careers with a keen eye for building the right skills to reach top jobs. Others believe that leaders are born, not made. But according to research one of us (Julia) conducted for her book Pivot Points, the key differentiator between the career arc of someone who becomes a successful business leader and the average person is consistency in how the person makes major decisions.

In-depth one-on-one interviews with five recognized leaders who have been operating CEOs in five different industries—PR (Al Golin), health care (Glen Tullman), finance (John Rogers), social enterprise (Dale Dawson), and marketing (Bud Frankel)—revealed that their leadership development occurred in a process far more organic than career planning. Each one made a number of pivotal decisions with unwaveringly strong accountability and ingenuity that triggered learning and growth.

A further survey of 500 college-educated individuals in professional careers supported this finding and identified inclusiveness in the decision-making process as the key differentiator of leadership. Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement on a five-point scale with 40 statements of various decision-making behaviors they used at different career decision points. A variable cluster analysis found strong agreement with the following three statements as the behaviors that distinguished decision making with leader-like accountability and ingenuity:

• Before making a decision at a critical time, I invested time and effort to explore multiple perspectives, needs, and ideas through a proactive dialogue with experts and stakeholders.
• During the decision-making act, I weighed a variety of options.
• Then, after making the decision, I explained it fully to all stakeholders to reduce the stress of change among those affected.

Note that this inclusive process is not decision-making by committee or by consensus. It’s the process of constant connection with respected experts and stakeholders, which enables them to recognize business opportunities and threats, and figure out how to adapt or take advantage of them. Habitual outreach prevents insular thinking, opens doors to ideas and collaborative relationships, expands problem-solving perspectives, and increases the range of resources for implementation. Most importantly, it enables real-time adjustments that improve outcomes. This inclusive approach takes 360 degrees of context into account, thereby ensuring better decisions and a higher chance of successful implementation.

In its full context, the study asserts that, over time, leaders who follow this inclusive process progressively stand out from the crowd. Consider the story of Bud Frankel, the founder of Frankel, a firm that created the marketing services industry (where both of us eventually worked) that gained a national reputation and attracted clients across both the consumer and healthcare areas.

As a leader in his company, Bud used what he called “Management by Wandering Around” (MBWA), where he’d stop into offices and ask the opinions of employees, clients, and others to gather insights about his organization and clients. He made it comfortable for people to give him contradictory advice and bad news. In doing so, he discovered major flaws in the company that called for radical change. One such issue was years of growing discord between himself and his partner, Marv Abelson, and its divisive impact on the organization. “We were an ‘us’ team when we started out. Then competition between us brought out insidious kind of stuff—that’s my designer, that’s my copywriter, why isn’t your guy billing as much as my guy, all kinds of stuff,” Bud recalled while being interviewed for the book. “We were Abelson-Frankel, yet operated as two separate agencies.”

Bud sought outside counsel on the fairest way to fix the issue, namely, to break up the partnership. Various perspectives he obtained helped him clarify his options and enabled rational decisions for all parties to focus on moving forward. He came up with two workable options: to buy or sell. Bud’s partner decided to sell and got cash, as well as the opportunity to hire any employee for his new agency.

With the purchase of Abelson’s shares, Bud invested all of his efforts to galvanize clients and employees around one vision and one leader. He took full ownership for the implementation of the decision, explaining his thinking and the implications to those affected. He encouraged feedback—even if the subordinate and clients disagreed with him—monitored the company’s progress and the results, and changed course when necessary. “Mostly I looked at the people and saw how they were doing and feeling,” Bud said told us in conversation. “I based a lot of decisions on the staff. If the staff were uncomfortable with a decision, I’d look at it.” What’s more, he would openly admit his mistakes, even apologizing at times to employees who expressed disagreement with his decisions when they did not turn out as hoped.

As the agency grew, Bud appointed an agency leadership team and focused his energies on scaling up the company’s unique value proposition. Bud continued to use MBWA to randomly drop in on meetings and pepper others with questions and stories, prodding them to create the breakthrough ideas that actually worked in the marketplace. He also formalized an outside advisory board of business leaders, thus ensuring that future leaders of the company would also get feedback on important leadership decisions.

Bud’s inclusive approach kept him constantly connected with the pulse of his clients, employees, and the marketplace, and helped him decide on the ways to professionalize the marketing services industry and start his agency. Near the end of his career, it also helped him decide to sell Frankel. Through his ever-broadening perspective, he led Frankel to develop many firsts, including the first worthy cause promotion and the first to use computer graphics in advertising. It helped his own career to grow from a commission-based salesperson to a global, industry-changing business leader, marketing legend, and later, philanthropist.

In today’s fast-paced environment of dramatically changing technologies and global forces, leaders need to understand how to make the right decisions the right way. By making use of those around you in understanding the situation, weighing a variety of options, and explaining the decision to stakeholders, leaders can make better decisions and set themselves up for future success.

Laurence Minsky is Associate Professor in the Marketing Communication Department at Columbia College Chicago; his most recent book isThe Get a Job Workshop.

Julia Tang Peters is a leadership adviser to C-level executives and the author of Pivot Points: Five Decisions Every Successful Leader Must Make.

This article is directly sourced from HBR: https://hbr.org/2015/04/how-you-make-decisions-is-as-important-as-what-you-decide

The cyber security (CS) debacles faced by Target, Sony Pictures and others may seem far afield from the concerns of nonprofit directors, except for the giants in the area, like AARP. However, think about this hypothetical scenario.

A group of high school students hacked into the computer system of a local nonprofit offering mental health services and gain access to records of clients, perhaps even placing some of the records of other teenagers on the internet.

What due care obligations did the board need to forestall the above situation? A move to recruit directors with special expertise in information technology or cyber security would be nonproductive. A nonprofit director has broader responsibilities such as the overview of management, approval of budgets, fostering management and staff growth etc. Similarly, when social media became a prominent issue a few years ago, boards debated the advisability of seeking directors with that specific kind of background. Today, a consult with management is likely to provide guidance to directors on these issues.

After listening to a group of cyber security experts discuss for-profit challenges in this area, I have the following suggestions on how nonprofit boards might respond to similar types of challenges.

1. Carefully "wall off" all confidential information -- Have management be certain that private information such as health records, are encrypted and separated from operating data that may be considered public in a nonprofit environment.
   
2. Review D&O and other liability policies -- Determine whether or not the D&O policy protects directors and managers from CS intrusions. (It likely does not, but I understand that some carriers may offer some protection along with smaller policies.) It is clear that most general liability policies do not protect the organization against CS.
   
3. Board Encouragement -- Devote some meeting time, perhaps 10 minutes, to a discussion of the CS topics so that management and staff are aware of the board's concerns on the subject and will take action when necessary. Appropriate due care actions like frequent password changes should become routine. Some checklists are available online, suggesting questions directors might pose to raise awareness on the topic and avoid potential CS breaches.
   
4. Can third party payer help? -- Many nonprofits deal with third party payers with sophisticated CS systems and may offer the nonprofit some advice or assistance.
   
5. Education and training of employers -- Many CS crimes have been successful because employees have violated or forget to effectively protect their working accounts and information. Proper education and training can help reduce these types of lapses.
   
6. Finance & Audit Committees -- Current data indicate that only 24% of nonprofits have a standalone audit committee and 47 percent have a combined finance/audit committee. * In my opinion, neither of these committees have time or expertise to help the nonprofit board stay on message in regard to CS problems.
   

If a nonprofit, like the one described, is attacked, not only will records be compromised, but also the reputation of the agency will be destroyed, probably along with the nonprofit organization itself. Sony and Target may be able to survive such an attack, but the typical nonprofit may not.

*BoardSource (2015) "Leading With Intent: A national Index of Nonprofit Board Practices," January.

This article first appeared on the HuffPost Blog and was written by Eugene Fram

Follow Eugene Fram on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@eugenefram

Today the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) announced that, for the very first time, the financial information of over 23,000 registered charities is available to the public. Members of the public can access the financial information registered charities have provided to the ACNC as part of their 2014 Annual Information Statement on the Charity Register – Australia’s first free, searchable, online database of charities.

As part of the 2014 Annual Information Statement, charities of all sizes were required to provide financial information, with medium and large charities also providing reviewed or audited financial reports. ACNC Commissioner, Susan Pascoe AM, stated that the purpose of publishing charities’ financial information on the Charity Register was to increase transparency. 

“To date, the Charity Register has received over half-a-million views, highlighting that it is indeed a useful and popular resource amongst donors,” Ms Pascoe said. “For the first time members of the public have been able to search a register to see if a charity is indeed registered, and then find out what it does, where it operates, the people who run it, the rules it needs to follow, and now, its financial information."

“While we encourage the public and donors to use the Charity Register as a resource to help them make informed giving decisions, it is also important to understand how to interpret the information available. With this in mind, our team has published a new factsheet on interpreting the financial information on the Charity Register."

"The factsheet, available at acnc.gov.au/understandingfinancialinfo, discusses the different financial elements we collect, the factors to consider when interpreting financial information, and also why we collect and publish this information. Comparing charities’ financial information will be of interest to some donors and members of the public, however there are a number of factors that need to be considered, and the factsheet covers a number of these."

The understanding financial information factsheet builds on earlier work by the ACNC in conjunction with the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and social impact analyst Emma Tomkinson.

“Administration costs have always been a point of interest for donors and researchers,” Ms Pascoe said. “Our work with QUT’s Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies aims to explain administration costs and why they are not a comprehensive or reliable measure of a charity’s work and its outcomes. Instead we encourage members of the public and donors to consider charity impact – the changes the charity has produced in an individual or community through its work – alongside an assessment of its governance and financial management. All three factsheets are available on the ACNC website, acnc.gov.au, and I encourage donors to consider this information when giving.”

To search the ACNC Charity Register, visit acnc.gov.au/findacharity.

-ends-

Links:

• Understanding financial information on the Register.
• Charities and administration costs, produced jointly by the ACNC and the Queensland University of Technology.
• Understanding Charity Impact, produced jointly by the ACNC and Emma Tomkinson.

ACNC Media Contact: 
media@acnc.gov.au

External resources

• CPA Australia: A guide to understanding financial reports of not-for-profit entities
• CPA Australia: Charities - A guide to financial reporting and assurance requirements
• Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand guidance: Enhancing not-for-profit annual and financial reporting, which includes a supplementary guide for charities reporting under the ACNC Act 2012 (last item in Related Links on the same page).

AuSAE have received the following request from a member. If you can assist in any way or if you would like to find out more please contact our office on 07 3394 8381 or email info@ausae.org.au

I just want to put a call out to any Brisbane-based AuSAE members who may have some spare office space they would like to let out, or if they are aware of any that could be suitable.

We are a DGR Charity with about 280+ volunteers supporting people suffering from long-term mental illness across SE Queensland. We have grown exponentially in the last 2 years and are really feeling the squeeze where we are now. A potential new project slated to commence in July this year will have us bursting at the seams. We will need 25-30 square metres, ideally no more than 10km from the CBD, we are looking at an initial 12 month lease.

Any help in assisting us to find a new location would be greatly appreciated.

PwC recently released its 18th Annual Global CEO Survey, which interviewed 71 New Zealand CEOs amongst its global participants.

Confidences and concerns

Of the New Zealand based CEOs surveyed, 88% said they felt confident in their company’s growth prospects this year.

However, the report found that 84% of CEOs were concerned about the availability of key skills in New Zealand. Compared to their international counterparts, Kiwi CEOs had more confidence in the recovery of the global economy, with 47% of them saying that they predicted an improvement.

In China, 46% of CEOs agreed, while 41% in the UK, 38% in Australia and 29% in the US said that they thought the global economy would improve. Globally, 37% of CEOs predicted economic improvement.

Growth

According to the report, the majority of New Zealand based CEOs identified Australia as the place they considered most important for overall growth prospects. This was followed by China and the US. Globally, CEOs chose the US, which overtook China for the first time in five years as the top location for growth opportunities.

Technology

The following technologies were deemed the most strategically important by CEOs in New Zealand:

• Mobile (84%)
  
• Cyber security (81%)
  
• Data mining (77%)
  

“With real time analytics, we know every day how well everyone is doing, rather than grinding through performance reviews because it’s the HR process,” said Barbara Chapman, CEO of ASB Bank. “We need to get data analytics into the HR space.”

Almost 70% of CEOs said that digital technologies are creating value in finding, developing and retaining talent. This put New Zealand as a leading user of such technologies – globally, 59% of CEOs said the same. A further 26% said that they use technology to analyse how skills are being deployed in their organisation, which set New Zealanders behind the global proportion of 46%.

“With more than half of New Zealand CEOs looking to increase headcounts this year and 84% of them worried about the availability of key skills, it’s clear that technology and the use of data analytics in people strategies will be key to unlocking an organisation’s potential in coming years,” the report said.

Diversity

PwC found that New Zealand’s organisations are lagging behind when it comes to workplace diversity. When it came to the promotion of diversity and inclusion, just 32% of CEOs said that their company had a strategy in place to do so. Of the remaining participants, 26% said that they intended to implement one, while 35% said that they did not have a strategy in place or plans to adopt one.

Globally, 64% of CEOs said that their organisation had such a strategy in place, while 13% said that they were planning to implement one. Just 17% said that they had neither a strategy nor a plan for one. “We have recently established our first diversity committee,” said Adrian Littlewood, CEO of Auckland Airport. “One of the trickiest things early on was that we didn't actually know how diverse our organisation was.” Of the reports Kiwi participants who had a diversity and inclusion strategy in place, 85% said that it has enhanced customer satisfaction, while 80% said that it enhances business performance.

“Our approach to people and diversity is initiative based, initiative driven from the bottom up by people who want to make a difference, do better,” said Chapman. “In my mind, diversity is about being able to think about decisions from lots of different angles and being brave enough to speak up.”

- HRM Online, Chloe Taylor