and News Update. Morning folks, this is Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of sunny Delray Beach, Florida. This year, 11 a.m. update, slightly mixed bag out there, that mix coming from the Adele and the New York Stock Exchange. They're both traded a little bit lower. The Adele's off 73 points, that's two tenths or percent. Flat basically for the New York Stock Exchange, it's down about nine points. The S&P is also flat, it's up two points. NASDAQ 125, that's two tenths or percent. Russell, a quarter of a percent, about five points. The semis are up two and three quarters percent, 69.7 all over the board. Trends are up about a quarter of a percent as well, that's 34 points to the upside. Gold's back a buck. Silver's off a nickel. Light's recruited is up 223. Natural gas's up 15 cents and a 30 year treasury. Trade out 140, 31. Let's go take a look at our nine panel, market update chart. We begin by taking a look at the ES mini up the left-hand corner. Yes, a new profile has formed. It is bearish in structure. So we've got new levels of support and resistance. The resistance level's gonna be at 43, 27, 50. Support down at 41, 77. The area to be watching is 42, 63. The price closes below that. Odds favor that price will make a run for the bottom of that profile, 41, 77. Now the spot ball tonic, still well below it's 50 day, exponential moving average. That is a bullish to a neutral for the S&P 500. The NQ also forming a new profile. Resistance there, 13, 7, 40. 13, 0, 41 is support. It is also a bearish structure profile. That says we really wanna watch that 13, 507 level. Again, a close below that would suggest they move down to the bottom of that profile. US dollar index is breaking out right now above resistance. That's the top of its daily profile. That's at the 106, 58 level. That suggests a run up to 108, 39. Gold holding so far in the support of the bottom of its daily profile, 1775. Silver trading just below the bottom of its daily profile, which is 1974. Price trade out at 1968. Lights recruit is back inside its profile. Looks like it should go target. It's descending trend line. That descending trend line is somewhere in the 87, 50-ish type range out there to 88, 01. Natural gas taking on the resistance of a prior swing point, as well as now the top of a new profile. So it's resistance zone is between 956 and 965. You close above 965, it's off to the races to the upside. The 30 year treasury, trying to get back inside its daily profile to do that with a close today above 140, 31. Right now it is trading out at 140, 31. Gotta love that. Folks, stay tuned for the Trader Zed show. But if you're off to start your Thursday, have a terrific one. Hey, tomorrow I'll be recording a show between eight and nine. So please join me early for tea and crumpets out there. Have a terrific Thursday. Hopefully we'll see you in just a few.


When, you know, you gotta, when did two people come into it? And that's what we knew from the beginning when it was that Mona Scott and that 50 cent that some mess would pursue with it because that's the whole moniker. Yeah, we on boss talk one on one, one on one. Yeah, we gon' talk. I'ma shift gears on y'all. I was very, when I seen the documentary, I love the documentary from an outside perspective. How did you, and I'ma ask it her, because mean you already talked a little bit, but how did you feel about the documentary and how you betrayed your brother and turned out? So I didn't particularly watch it. I've never seen it. As of today, I have no interest in seeing it. Really? I just, for me, I feel like it's a form of betrayal. For me, you don't seek out people who people have said harm them in any way or any form of fashion. You didn't do it for any of the other people. You didn't go get and be a young boy for King Vaughn. You know what I'm saying? You didn't go get Lil Tim for him. I get it. So, you know, to go, I just didn't care for that. But I mean, that's a part of, it's a part of literature. It's a part of journalism. You have to get all sides of the story for it to be equal. Exactly. So, you know, that's cool. I didn't particularly care for some of the people who were added onto the roster. The roster. Money Mike Willis, don't know my brother. You from way on the West Bank. The Fat Fat and all that guy. You wasn't even during that time. It's just, I just felt like the people that they, a lot of the people that they chose were great candidates. But I just felt like some people, they could have replaced them with other people. Yeah. Like who did you wish was on there? I wish they would have got Mack. I wish Mack would have been on there. I wish people like Snoop Dogg who could, you know, really pay that time for him. Snoop was on there, but it was just very, very slim clip. Yeah, clips of what? Very, very slim clip. He didn't talk distinctly, you know, to. About him, yeah. Like people who really like, you know, like when BG come out, like people who have an authentic relationship and grown with him during his time as a entrepreneur. I didn't really care too much about the no limit timeframe because I don't think at that point he was really, he was a great artist, but he was really a phenomenal artist when he went into his own path on music and. Yeah, you gonna say the same thing? I think that should have been capitalized more. And that's what we really saw. It really upset me because I pushed hard for my family to participate in that because I really wanted people, and it really still stood because I wanted people, I asked of them that we let people know who he was, that people could see what he looked like, his face. You know, a lot of people don't know what he looked like. A lot of people don't know who he was besides that name of that day. I didn't know the face to add to that. So that was my whole thing when I went to my family before them to participate in this because it was no from the beginning with them. Wow. So that was my whole thing for it. And I mean, like I said, it did work for that, but when, you know, you gotta, when it two people come into it and that's what we knew from the beginning when it was that Mona Scott and that 50 cent that some mess would pursue with it because that's the whole monica. So when the whole. Yeah, we on boss talk one on one. Here we go.


Good morning. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the panel on Women in Economic Decision-Making. I'm Herminia Ibarra from INSEAD Business School, and I'm very much looking forward to what will most certainly be a very engaging and lively debate. Closing gender gaps at the highest level of economic participation is becoming more and more urgent for more and more people. We all know the statistics, or many of us know the statistics. Let me share some of the most familiar ones. Women on boards, 14 to 16 percent in the developed world. Many countries lower than 5 percent in Europe. Women CEOs and chairman, 3 to 4 percent in the US and Europe. In OECD countries, women on executive committees, 5 percent is the average. In the C-suite, the level right below, the numbers are also quite low, hovering around 15 percent. And the bad news isn't really in those numbers. The bad news is in the slow progress. They really have been flatlining for quite some time, and that's where people have started to ask why so slow? How can we get better progress on these numbers? What's stuck? Particularly given that now women are 60 percent of graduates and are entering occupations and organizations in many places in equal proportions to men. But then something happens, and what we know for sure from the research is that even when men and women enter in equal proportions, the higher up you go, the thinner the numbers get, everywhere you look. And there's a real, what I like to call, cliff at the mid-career level that has been a real barrier to us seeing higher proportions at the more senior level. Now, I think, I hope, by this point the business case is very clear. There's a lot of research that has shown the benefits of having gender diversity in terms of economic growth and sustainability, in terms of better governance and transparency, in terms of better decision making by having more diverse points of view expressed and available for making good decisions, and in terms of inspiring more women to go for it and aspire to those positions. But despite all of that, there are still vast differences of opinion at times with regard to the means. How are we going to get there? Some lively debate. There's many implementation gaps. We mean to do it, but somehow it doesn't get executed as we might hope. And so we have what is the ideal panel, or the best possible panel we can have to really get into these issues and really start to figure out how we shape agendas by increasing the representation of women at the most senior levels. We're going to talk about a few different things. What difference does it make when women are the first in their position? What are the pros and cons of using regulation to move the needle or boost the speed at which this is happening? And what can we do about those intractable mid-career barriers that we see over and over? Our panel is very well known to most of you, managing director Lagarde of the IMF, President Faust from Harvard, Vivian Redding, the European Commission, Kevin Kelly, CEO of Hydric, Lubna Olai and deputy chairperson and CEO of Olai in Finance, and Cheryl Sandberg, COO and member of the Board of Facebook. So I'm quite confident that together we can really talk about this. I'd like to start first by asking you, Christine, a question. And I've changed my question slightly since I got here, having listened to you on Wednesday. But my question to you is going to be what difference does it make when women are at the very top of economic decision-making organizations? And I'll still ask it, but having listened to you, that was a speech that you made on Wednesday that I think marked a lot of people. You opened by talking about women in India, women in Pakistan. Perhaps not the most typical speech that one might have expected at the IMF, but you made it very clear why those stories are incredibly relevant to the economic growth of the world. So let me ask you both the broad and the specific. What difference does it make? Well, first of all, it gives us a chance to speak up for what we care about. And I do care a lot about gender diversity. I do care a lot about inclusiveness. And I care about it because it's important for humanity. I care about it because it's important for economics. And I hope that I've convinced a number of people on Wednesday that it makes economic sense to improve the situation of women, to make sure that they have access to education, that they have access to health, that they have access to jobs, that they have access to financing, and that they can sit at the table with the same and the equal rights and opportunities. It's not the case in many corners of the world, but as, you know, my economists very often at the moment say, they're downside risks. Well, on the gender front, I think that they are huge upside risks about embracing the cause of diversity. Now, in terms of, you know, what difference does it make? I think we all come to whatever we do, whoever we are with our heritage, with how we've been brought up, with how we've seen our parents, our grandparents behave and operate themselves. And very often, as a little girl, then as a young woman, I have suffered my lot of discrimination. I was brought up with brothers. I grew up in a boys' world. And I had to not fight for survival. That was okay. But you have to elbow your way in. And when you come with that sentiment of having been in a minority for a long period of time, then you are much more attentive to minorities. You're much more attentive to what differences can, how can they can improve the understanding, how they can enlarge the horizon. And I think as a result, as far as I'm concerned, I think I listen more. I'm more attentive to those in the back of the room that sit in the dark and don't want to talk and yet have a lot to contribute. So, you know, typically people will say women are more, more inclusive. They're more, they're better team players. I think it's partly because of our history, of our heritage, of what we have ourselves had to face. And as a result, we're just more attentive to those differences. Just a quick follow-up, because you've really talked about the whole bandwidth from women in places where even basic human rights are not respected to equality at the very top of organizations. Sometimes we get stuck in a debate, why should we be worrying about women on boards when there is this other vast universe of problems that are more primal, that are more important? What's the relationship between the two for you? It matters all across the board and whether it's in developing countries, in advanced economies, the degree and level of violence against women is not very different. Whether you're talking, you know, developing world or very advanced economies, despite what people don't want to, the fact that they don't really want to talk about it or face it. Obviously, there are civilizations, there are cultures, there are regions where the situation of women is made worse because they don't have access to education, for instance. Because they don't have access to health because they can't decide on, you know, natality as far as their family is concerned. And for them, a different effort has to be undertaken. But it matters across the board, across the level of development and across cultures, because each and every one of us is a human being entitled to this right to education, health and the right to choose. Thank you. So I'd like to ask you, President Faust, my next question, which is in a way similar.  And I remember that when you were first asked about that, your reaction was, I'm not the first woman president of Harvard, I am the president of Harvard. And that's since you've thought about this a little bit differently. So maybe you couldn't share your views on that and also the more general topic of what difference does it make. Sure. You're referring to a press conference that was held when my appointment was announced. And the first question I got was about being the woman president of Harvard. And I said, I'm not the woman president of Harvard, meaning I don't want to serve with an asterisk next to my name as if I got a special identity or special category.  I found that I received really dozens, maybe hundreds of letters after I was appointed from women around the world and particularly from young women and sometimes the parents of young women saying how much it meant to them to see a president of Harvard be a woman and how it opened for them a sense of possibility and what education could be and could yield. And that gave me a tremendous sense of responsibility for figuring out, I thought, how I could use the platform of Harvard and my identity as a woman to try to advance education in particular as an important field in which women could excel and which could enhance their lives, but also to enhance women's status generally. So when I travel, I always go to girls' schools and meet with young women and talk to them about their aspirations. And it has made me very aware of how conversation, discussion, highlighting this very session, the existence of this session where we're talking about this, focuses us on thinking hard and articulating the issues before us. And so I think that conversation, highlighting, underlining, you're getting up and giving that speech. All of that, I think, makes everyone recognize that it's all of our agenda to undertake these kinds of changes and it's something that we all must be committed to. Now, you asked me a second part of the question which was, what difference does it make? I think you've said quite a bit about that. I just want to say how resonant I found your comments about growing up with brothers and boys. I also grew up in this world of boys and I think it made me so aware of difference and the opportunity in that difference of interacting in ways that could change a dynamic or use the different socialization I had to be attentive to a room, to a group, to a community. In a positive way, in a variety of contexts later on. And so I think I would just underscore what you said. I think we bring those different kinds of training that girls had to bear on how we interact in a way that I think has been said sometimes in relation to the developing world. When you give microfinance to women or you empower women, they're going to think about their families. They're going to think about a broader community. I think that's part of, yeah, and I think it's part of the kind of upbringing that you were describing, the values that women are often instilled with. Thank you. Commissioner Redding, my next question is to you. You also have made some famous words. The ones that I remember are, I don't like quotas, but I like what they do. So in November, you passed a law mandating 40% women on corporate boards in Europe.  And so tell us about that. How did you become convinced this was the way to go? And what's the very strong opposition and disagreement about this still all about? What convinced me to go to this way? Well, first, the facts and the figures. We are an aging, I'm speaking about Europe, of course, because that is what I'm responsible for. We are an aging continent, not having enough new talent growing. And then we have 65% of our university graduates, which are females. So at a certain moment, we leave those in a corner. We train them, we don't utilize them. We do have the talent, we do have the competence, and we don't make use of it in our societies. Now all the studies which have been made, not by universities only, but also by Goldman Sachs, by Deutsche Bank, by McKinsey and so on and so forth, they all show that more women you have in top management, the better economic results you are doing. Now when you are in a time where you lose your talent and when you need to have more income, what do you do? Well, you push your talent upwards. And that is exactly what I tried to do first with asking the companies to do it by themselves. You know what was the result? Nothing. It went forward 0.5 percentage point per year. And I calculated again. If we continue like this, we are in 2060 before things are really in equilibrium. Now I don't want to wait until 2060. I think it is now the moment. And that is one I started to think about something which generally speaking I don't like. I don't like to intervene very strongly, but I thought it was the only way. Because I had also good examples. France, for example, and you agree with me. France was standing at 12% women on board of the listed companies. France made an obligatory quarter and now France is standing at 25%. And that makes me to say, well, quarters might not be the right thing. They are a tool, but they do things and we like the things they do. And so I proposed to bring together two things in our European law. Not to have a rigid quarter. You must have so much women on board.  No. If you are talent, you are on board. And that is why I wrote in the law that at equal talent, at equal competence, if there is a man and a woman to choose from, as long as you do not have 40% on board, you choose the woman then to give the position to. It is about quality. It is about not losing out our talent. And I think the best are good enough in order to lead our companies and women are part of the best. Very short follow-up. How long do you think quarters will have to be in place in Europe before we can go to natural selection? Well, I do believe that we need to break through the glass ceiling. And once we have broken through the glass ceiling, things will become natural. So also, this law has an expiry date because it is not meant to last. It is meant just to do its job to break through. And we have so many women. I think that is also a message I would like to give because I hear very often that, yes, we would like to put women on boards, but we don't find them. So I pass this message to the business schools. And there were the business schools in France and in Great Britain who joined forces because they had become very upset. They had seen that women were doing the best MBAs and got the worst positions after the MBAs. So they made a searchable database. They started Britain and France. Now it is a worldwide initiative. INSEAD has been driving force. Your university, your business school is on board too. There is now a searchable database with 8,000 CVs of women who have done their MBAs, who have year-long management experience and who are board ready, who can be put on the boards at once. So please do it. Since the moment I put the legislation in the pipeline, you know what has happened? The movement which wasn't there before has started. In one year now, we had 3% forward going, 3% more women as a European average. Compare that with the 0.5% growing in the years before. Sometimes you need political leadership in order to change the business world. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin, I would like to ask you next. So you're looking at this from a very privileged standpoint in the search business where many boards and CEOs come to you to identify candidates. Now, you know, everybody has seen the research. It does seem to make sense to have more women on boards for all the reasons that have been stated. What are you seeing from your vantage point? Are you being asked more to identify women candidates? Are you able to find them? Have you had any difficulty finding the quality candidates? What are you hearing from your CEOs and your boards of directors on this topic? Sure. First of all, it's great to be on this very diverse panel. Secondly, there's a line that has resonated with me for the last six years, and that is we hire people because they're different, and then we fire them because they're not the same. And so that's what we see when it comes to diversity overall. So we just did a survey, actually. We talk about gender diversity. It's not about adding one or two females to a board. For me, it's about increasing the overall quality of a board, and I think many times that's overlooked. We recently did a survey which was fascinating because it talked about our 2012 Board of Directors survey where 51% of women actually believe there should be quotas, and I think that's due to the frustration, as you pointed out, of how long it will take to actually catch up with the number of males on boards, and only 25% of males believed in quota systems. The remarkable thing for me is that, to the point that was made earlier, women viewed the male-dominated, nominating in governance committees and relationships at the senior executive level as one reason there weren't getting promoted in organizations, whereas men, as you pointed out, said there's a lack of talents. And I'll give you a real-life story that happened yesterday, and I think this is the crux of the issue. I met a fantastic senior executive yesterday here. She's in a FTSE 50 organization, ran many divisions, international background, great credentials. She was approached for a board position in the UK, and she said to me, it's as if this job specification was written for me. And as she met the committee, they said, I'm sorry you don't have a seat on a FTSE 100 board already, so therefore we can't count you as a candidate. And I found that quite frankly just appalling, and I think this is one of the issues that we're running into when we look for board candidates across the globe. But if you think about it, out of the Fortune 500, roughly 300, out of the 5,500 board seats of the Fortune 500, only 300 turn over a year. And out of those 320% of females are placed in these positions, which even if we waved a magic wand and said, okay let's increase that number to 50% or 70%, it only moves the dial by 2.5%. So again, it would take a long time to get this in place. So what I'm saying is that overall there's a lot of debate on whether it's governments, whether it's the organizations, whether it's individuals that are responsible for creating more opportunity to have gender diversity on boards. I actually believe one of the best things we can do is adhere to term limits because we're not seeing as much turn over on boards and they don't have the accountability for pushing gender diversity on boards because number one, they're not held accountable for talent management, for performance of themselves, they're held accountable for performance of the organization. So I think by having this focus more on the board of directors and their role in promoting gender diversity we'll be able to move the dial at a much faster pace. So you're saying better governance will lead to greater diversity on boards. And we know it goes the other way around as well. More diversity leads to better governance. Very interesting. Lubna, also very much a woman first in your role in Saudi Arabia. I want to ask you about the region a little bit more broadly. A place where the gender gap in terms of education is very much closed and closing depending on country but where economic participation still has been quite low for women. It seems though that things have been changing fast. There's a lot of recent news from the region so maybe you can give us an update as to what's going on. Yes. Women education, as you have mentioned, has been quite high for a while but opportunities for women working in sectors have not been as open. Now the first thing I have to say on the Arab world is we really can't generalize. It's different in different countries and I'm going to speak a little bit about my country because a lot of people view it as the most conservative of the countries in the Arab world. What is very important is that there has to be a change from leadership, from the top, that there has to be change and that is when we can move in that. And prior, when I first moved to Saudi Arabia to work there in 1981, really the only fields available for women was medical or teachers. That's the area of medicine or teachers and so the area of business wasn't that too much available. Then women banking came along but women in the business world wasn't much available. However, there has been a sign from the Ministry of Labor of Women how the unemployment of women has been increasing is to increase women participation in the workforce and this has taken place. But the most important signal that came to the country was this month actually, when everyone was waiting to see a sign coming in from the king about women participation in our Shura Council which is our consultative council or the parliament. It was made a law that 30 women were appointed which is 20% of our consultative council. The statistics, the number is phenomenal for quota. We are among the highest in the whole region in terms of parliament and I actually checked it with the US government and that's equal to US women participation in the US government. So the signal is very much there. Now the qualifications of women in there because it's very important and I totally agree that it should not be lip service. We should put quality women in there and if you read the qualifications of each of these women and they were all printed, their CVs printed were really phenomenal women in their areas. So that is a great signal. Now the challenge comes for us, the private sector is the government led the trend, the government put it out there, we have to follow and we have to catch up fast. And for this, it was an interesting thing. I asked our team, our analyst team, and by the way, the head of our public equity in our group is a woman. And so I asked her, can you survey for me because it wasn't available. Number of women on boards of Arab companies and number of CEO publicly listed companies. And I thought the numbers were a dismal but then when I looked at the West actually as you all have said it wasn't that much better. So there is a change. The only thing and I love the idea of having a pipeline of it and I think the idea of universities using that is a great idea as well. But that is something we have to work and we have to get the CEO of the major Arab companies to be convinced of this idea and try to hire women, promote women, mentor women during that because that is what we need. Until our education gets right, until we have the right qualification we have to take whatever population of women and get them trained but it can only happen is when there is focus in terms of CEOs and board and chairmanship. In our group we have really given this recently a lot of effort and a lot of thinking has been going and we are, I am also not sure how I feel about quota but we're putting a pressure on a lot of our operating companies now to reach and it's part of the KPIs of the general managers and part of their performance is to make sure that women are moving, women are assigned and I have to say that is the way to go. We need the sponsorship from the top and we need CEOs to believe in it. We need to change some mindset because a lot of them play lip service. Yes, it's good, it's the right thing that we all talk about it but do they really believe in it? Are they truly committed? That is one of our challenges. Just to build a little bit on what you said one of the great things about where we are now is how much research now exists to help us guide our next actions and what you've mentioned about CEO leadership and commitment comes up over and over again in the studies is a very critical factor in making sure this happens as well as some of the private public partnerships. And then it gets to the how on the ground and I hope we'll have a chance to talk about that because what the research is showing as well is that in many places the will is there, the motivation is there, but there are implementation gaps on how you do it, how you mentor, how you identify, how you decide what's qualified that really need to be tackled to get to the next level. Cheryl, and that's a good segue to you. You have spoken a lot about the mid-career hurdles that women face in that account for the dwindling numbers at the top and you've been very passionate in challenging women and inspiring them and encouraging them to lean in and to go with their ambition and to ask for it and I'd love to hear your more recent thoughts on that and as well is if you have also some things to say about what organizations can do to also help fill that ambition gap and to also work with these women who are leaning in to break those important barriers at the mid-level. Yeah, I think organizations play a critical role. Organizations need to address the institutional barriers we all know about, the overt discrimination, the non-overt discrimination, the lack of flexibility, but I think what the situation really calls for right now in addition to that is a much more open dialogue about gender because we are all determined and we are all judged and held back by very gender determined stereotypes and this is a conversation people rarely have and no one has in companies. So the following is true.  The ones for boys said smart like daddy. The ones for girls said pretty like mommy. I wish I could say that was 1951 but that was last year in the United States. Now why does that matter for companies? It matters a great deal because what the research shows us more than anything else is that the main difference between men and women in the workplace is that success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women which means that as a woman becomes more successful she is less liked, very importantly by women and men and as a man becomes more successful he is more liked and that starts with those t-shirts which were printed for one-year-olds. So how does this transform in companies? I've watched this a thousand times.  They go to each person on the team and they say what their strengths and weaknesses are. They go to the man, they say the strengths and weaknesses. They go to the woman, the next man, they say the strengths and weaknesses. If it's a senior team they get to the one or two women and they say the same thing. She's really good at her job. She's just not as well-liked by her peers or I think she's doing a good job but she's a little aggressive and they say that with no understanding that this is the penalty women face based on gender-specific stereotypes and so what I think is that if we actually need to talk about that at the company level because I've seen in my own experience on places I've been, boards I sit on, the companies I work and I talk about that really openly and the next time there's a performance review the conversation changes because they might still say oh she's not as liked but they then have an appreciation for why that's happening. The other conversation we need to have in the corporation is the different pressures men and women feel at home. We have totally different expectations and totally different things that women do in the home. Women still have two jobs in the most developed countries throughout the world and men have two. Men have one. So you know, think of a career as a marathon. We know more women graduate from college so the men and the women they get to the starting line equally fit and trained. What happens? Gun goes off, men and women run. Everyone's cheering the men on. You can do this, this is your life, this is your career. From the moment they leave school the messages for the women are different. Are you sure you want to run? Don't you want kids one day? Should you start this marathon knowing you're not going to finish? And as you get more senior, those voices get louder. Should you be working when you have kids at home? How many women in this audience who work have been asked that? How many men in this audience have been asked should you work because you have kids at home? We have to talk about this and these are... This is a different kind of conversation. I've read a book, it's called Lean In, it's coming out in March. Others are working on this as well but I think what's happened is that we wanted to be equal, all of us. I grew up never talking about a woman. I never spoke about being a woman in business until just a few years ago because I was doing what everyone else was doing. Earning it, fitting in, not sticking out but I think we are held back by these gender stereotypes and they're the kinds of things, they're the soft stuff that organizations don't talk about. Dean Netinoria is here from Harvard Business School. It's an amazing case study. Over the last three years Harvard Business School has closed a very serious performance gap that existed between male and female students and actually American students and international students by basically addressing the soft stuff. By going into classrooms and saying there's this gap, here's why we have it and we want to close it. No big structural changes were made but actually starting to have the conversation about why gender was holding people back made a huge difference and our companies are set up, our legal teams tell us not to say that, so how many people in this audience have had the conversation at work? We know women, the child-bearing years are a challenge for women to keep them, we know that. How many managers in this audience have sat down with a woman who has not mentioned it to you and said, you may want to have a child one day, I want to talk to you about that. Are you thinking about having children? Who's done that? How many men have done that? How many HR departments have told you to do that? Every HR department tells you not to do that but how are we going to get women through that frame if we can't have that conversation? And so I think we need to talk about gender openly and honestly, understand that the stereotypes that start in childhood hold us back in the professional world and start having a much more open conversation. Is it happening already enough? You gave one great example. No, it's only an example. Why isn't it happening? I mean look, I published a thing, I published something in Fortune that said don't leave before you leave which talked about head-on with women who are not yet in the child-bearing age, how they should lean in before they have children. And when I wrote that piece, my general counsel told me I couldn't publish it. And I spent 24 hours thinking, oh, it's too bad I can't publish my piece and then I was like, wait a second, he works for me.  And I published it but most people don't have that choice and so I would say I want to be honest about this. Even for me, I've been doing this publicly for two years. That is it. No one talks about this and companies don't talk about this and at least in the United States our legal structures are set up that actually they don't do it on purpose but they backfire and prevent fee-for from having open conversations and I think we need to see the cost of that and change this so we can start changing the situation. Can I just put an add-on to what Cheryl's saying which is I think that the women are seen as aggressive when men are seen as ambitious, this differentiation that you've framed so well. I think everybody in organizations needs to think about it but we've got to hold the media to task on this too because I think that these stereotypes are perpetuated so powerfully in the way women's actions are covered in the press and the kinds of messaging that is transmitted to our children and to all of us as well as almost control... No, it's a great point. I did this research for my book and I looked for representations in the media, movies, TV, anything, this was in the United States of a woman with kids who was happy. Just one. Just one woman who had a job and kids who was not frazzled, she can't do it, breaking down, getting divorced and there are none. You cannot find one movie, one TV show that has that character. Now, how many men with kids have jobs and are portrayed in any of these things? All over the case and that is the issue. Even beyond that, there was a recent article about Hillary Clinton that also spoke to this and it was her press team that was saying, we'd like there to be more coverage of what she's saying but it's never about what she has to say. It's always about what she was saying or how she said it or how she looked when she said it. Her hair? Yeah. She's talked about this. That's a real lever. One of the things that's coming out of these conversations is how many different parties and stakeholders can contribute to moving the needle, whether it's business schools, the media. There's lots of us who can contribute to changing those stereotypes. These things, this focus maybe not on the substance for a while is an initial thing and we women shouldn't be distracted by it. And we shouldn't even play to the media in that. What do I mean by that? I gave a speech in Jeddah early on and my veil dropped and I never spoke. The focus was never on the content of the speech, never. It was always about that the head cover fell. But the reason I'm citing this example is we should not even look at these or make an issue. We should focus on what we have to do and we should not be distracted by things that will take away from what we're trying to accomplish. So I would say we shouldn't pay it. We have objectives. We have goals. We've set targets for ourselves and we have to sponsor this, I mean this platform here is the focus is how can we get women at the top? How can we get women on boards? And that is a great objective and I really admire what Vivian had said. I wish we can have in our part of the world a commissioned position for you. The whole world needs this because that will do a great thing for us. But that is what we have to focus. I mean, Christine has led an example for all of us and I think that is what we need is not to be distracted by what is said about us. Yes, I would like to say exactly the same. We need the role models, the female role models. What you have done for women in finance and in world leadership is extraordinary. I mean... So many what Hillary Clinton has done for women in top leader politics as Angela Merkel. The same thing we need women to show. And I think that when you are a top leader as a female it is not about anymore how you are looking. It is about what you are doing. But it is also how you are bringing up other women.  And I think we have an enormous responsibility. Role models are essential. But I tell you something also, it is not enough. It is not enough that women play their role model role. We need men to help us to do this. Men are the ones who are the CEOs, who are the presidents of big companies. And I have seen all the big companies really managed to have women promoted. It was because the CEO wanted it and has imposed it to the middle management. Because in the middle management is the biggest break for women to get up. And here we have really to have the will of the top management so that women get a chance to grow through a company. I was going to add to that being the male up here. I said imagine next year in a panel like this there was five male CEOs talking about how they drove gender diversity not only in the boardroom but through the organizations. And I have had the great fortune of being in a lot of diversity panels. And it is myself maybe one other male and 100 women or 200 women. And by the way that is fairly daunting when you are two men in a room of 200 women. But I keep saying over and over to your point, you need to embrace the CEOs. They are helping make the decisions that side of the equation work too. Yeah. Thanks. I would just like to follow up on what Cheryl Lubna and Drew were saying. Because I believe that in our leadership positions us but you all we have to dare the difference and we have to speak about it. I will give you one example that really shocked me in the last few months when I was travelling around the world and particularly in developing countries and I will not name the country and I will not name the leader. She is a very, very brave woman. She has a tough job to turn the economy around and make sure that there is growth and it is a very tough job. Incidentally women generally get the job when it is a basket case when it is a lost cause when it is really tough or when it is bankrupt. And they turn it around. Look at the women head of banks at the moment. Iceland. They are still holding firm and they have turned around the two most hopeless banks in the country. Anyway, that leader who is a very, very brave woman was explaining to me that she is facing a very tough moment because she is taking all those hard decisions and she has to travel around the country and she has decided to do so with small entourage only about five cars following hers. The doctor's car, the security cars. And she was saying to me it is terrible because when I go around the country in small cities and villages the women in those villages and cities think and say to me well, men before you had about 25 cars why do you only have five?  It is terrible because she wants to be different. She knows that it is needed to cut the deficit and she has to set standards yet because, and that goes to your stereotypes point, because the stereotypes the measurements, the yardsticks have been set and often cast in stones by others before them they feel that in order to compare and compete they have to use the same measurements they have to use the same attributes and I have spoken to her on the basis now to say hang on to that, keep your five cars don't go beyond, explain, dare stand up, speak about it and I am going to continue doing so and I am going to speak for her and support her and I think that when you say you leave you job at 5.30 Cheryl you do the same thing you dare the difference when I was raising my kids I was not going to work at my law firm on Wednesday afternoons and I was taking my risk at the time of not filling up my time sheets on that Wednesday afternoon who cared, I did the job I followed clients business I delivered on the files so I think we have to dare the difference and we have to talk about it so the conversation is absolutely appropriate and we need to use the voice we have the positions we are in to actually support that yardsticks, measurements stereotypes they have to be adjusted they have to be different and sometimes our five cars are better than their 25 cars so very very inspirational note in which to turn it over to our audience for some questions our rapporteur who will ask the first question is Laura Tyson from Berkeley maybe you can get us started and I am going to apologize because we are going to have a very short question and answer period but please I think rather than ask the question I will just give tremendous credit to the women here and to the World Economic Forum because this panel and all of the work that has gone on on the gender gap the gender gap index raising the profile of this issue so it really is now linked to global competitiveness think about the World Economic Forum it's about competitiveness it's about economic success and for the longest time the issue of gender diversity was not part of the discussion and here we are with leaders of major institutions in the world talking about diversity in the most serious possible way and bringing academic research in the most serious possible way another thing that's happened here in the past 10 years is an amazing explosion of serious research on this issue and that's helped the business schools train the Board of Red Army members and it's helped the businesses make the case and finally I will just say that I learned a wonderful sort of the notion of discussing the difference daring the difference discussing the difference and linking it to how much this contributes to the competitiveness and success of national economies global international institutions major companies and it's been wonderful to celebrate this panel with all of you thank you we'll have time for a couple of questions perhaps yes Laura Lizwood yes Laura Liswood Senior Advisor Goldman Sachs I also want to echo the other Laura, Laura Tyson about congratulating the forum on having this happen I agree this challenge of the double bind you're talking about Cheryl which you can't be nice and respected kind of thing and the assertiveness assertive men invade small countries assertive women put you on hold on the telephone so you've got this sort of double bind kind of thing that goes on one of the things that I'm fascinated with though is what Laura was talking about this explosion of research that we're out there and I don't normally quote Donald Rumsfeld but he talked about the known knowns and the known unknowns the known knowns is that which we know and we act upon the known unknowns are that which we know and we don't act upon and we have a number of those things and the other thing that strikes me in this is the parallel universe of what men think is happening and what women think is happening Kevin I bet you if you talk to a number of your CEOs how are you doing on this issue of women advancement they'd probably say we're doing very well and if you talk to the women in the organization how are you doing in this well we're not really doing very well so I'm wondering how we get these parallel universes to align better given all of the information we now know we did a great job Laura in your book in what I find and I know we've had this discussion before is and I have to be careful I think behind closed doors with executives and CEOs it's about ticking a box and you mentioned in your book you can't have the knowns arc version of we have two of these and we have two of these and we're okay in an organization so there is a disconnect because the perception among executives when it comes to diversity is what are you talking about we have a female on the board so I've ticked the box it's not as I mentioned earlier about making the board more effective it's about ticking a box so there is a huge disconnect in organizations yes the woman who has her hand raised towards yes thank you very much I'm Suleyma Gurani and I'm from Denmark and what you should believe is that Denmark should probably be on the highest level of but we are not and you know that Christine you know that everyone what I've done last year was that I was tired of listening to all these young women talking about that we are not in the top positions in this environment so what I did was after several meetings in the government I got tired you know talking talking talking so what I did was that I invited 700 girls age 14 to 16 and it is called global dignity girls it's a new concept that I've made simply by collecting the most brilliant young women and then we just do road trip around in Denmark all the small cities and we are there for two hours and we talk about how fantastic it is actually to do business and you can be both a mom and be really good at your business at the same time so instead of talking we can actually take your car go out in the cities and start talking to the young girls and we even have a motto called don't buy new breasts buy books you know because if you educate yourself spend time on silly boys and stupid commercials and silly soap operas go and give yourself an education and more importantly bring in the role models that they look up to let them hear their story because mostly they work really hard on their career it's not easy this is not a reality show it's about hard work and supporting each other so if every one of us and helped her to show her the way because women we need more support and mentors so that was just my you know go out road show is the way to do it I am unfortunately going to need to wrap up in the interest of time an observation is I've sat in many of these rooms seeing most of the hands go up being male as you have pointed out Cheryl and it's I was as I was scanning who to ask I was looking for some male hands as well so that it could be a diverse slay so it's many things are changing and they change when people do dare the difference I will also retain that as a message for us to go forward because when you dare the difference you also open up the conversation and you open up the possibilities to notice what isn't notice and to say what's not said and so I would have liked to have had the time to ask each of you for your take away from the panel but I know that this is an ongoing discussion and there's certainly a sense that we're at a point of no turning back sometimes we're slower than we would like to be but it is gathering speed and it's gathering involvement and so stay tuned because it is very much a time of change thank you very much and thank you to our wonderful panelists


Hello, you're watching People's Dispatch and today we're going to be talking about the first round of the elections in Colombia, which got over on Sunday, that's May 29th. In the first round, Gustavo Petro, the historic PAC coalition at Francia Marquez, his vice presidential candidate, together they have about 40% of the vote. The second candidate who came second, a bit of a surprise is Rudolf Hernandez, who got just more than about 28%. Now this means that there will be a second round of elections, which will take place in about June 19th and about 20 days or so. This is really a historic election as far as Colombia is concerned. And to talk more about this, we have Zoe of People's Dispatch. Zoe, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks so much for having me. So Zoe, first of all, first impressions regarding this election, there was a lot of anticipation across the world. People were watching to see what might happen. So what is your first take as the results have come out? Well, as you said, it was a bit of a surprise. The, you know, second place jury of Rolfo Hernandez was not expected by many, most expected that Federico Gutierrez, Fico, who's the favorite of the far right, former president Alvaro Uribe, was going to clinch this spot. There was a lot of momentum behind him, but he did not even get second, not even third, Rolfo Hernandez, who's a 77 year old businessman. His main kind of platform has been about corruption, anti-corruption. He's used a lot of different social forms to spread his message. That being said, he is a very divisive figure just because he wasn't the favorite of the far right. Doesn't mean he's not dangerous. So it's a really interesting result that came out. Petro and Francia, of course, clinched 40% of the vote, which was very impressive, unfortunately, not enough for them to win in the first round elections. And so as a first impression, many people of the progressive camp are expressing concern about what will happen in the second round because many were hoping for first round victory. Now they're going to against this anti-corruption candidate. It's going to be a very, very tough battle from now until the end of June, when the second round will be held. Quite an interesting result. There were also several allegations of electoral fraud. And as we've said on People's Dispatch before, we don't see electoral fraud as part of something that only happens on the voting date, of course, has to do with a structural impeding people from voting. But on the day of, there were registered cases of voters being pressured, different irregularities, over 500 officials that were registered. And so this was, again, not really unexpected, but it's definitely something to keep in account. In the March elections, there were numerous denouncements that were made about the counting process itself about many votes that were disqualified. We're going to see this play out in the coming days. The quick count result is what people are relying on at this point, but the official results will be released in the coming days. So this is kind of the first impressions, first response to this historic electoral process. Right, so in this context, of course, a lot of attention on the Gustavo Petro-Francia Marcus, candidate here, of course. And could you maybe tell us also in terms of what are some of the key aspects, what are some of the key plans of the agenda that have really resonated with voters, because this is the lead at least, first 12%. So it is a remarkable achievement. Definitely. I think the reason their ticket, their campaign, their platform was so appealing to voters is that in the past four years under the presence of Iván Duque, there have been numerous waves of people's mobilization from across sectors. The students were a very strong sector that were on the streets. A lot of informal workers who were hit hard by the economic crisis provoked by the pandemic. The peasants who have been demanding fundamental rights and recognition of their status as peasants in Colombia. And then, of course, the uprising that happened in April, May and June of last year were across the country. Tens of thousands of people were on the streets demanding an end to the neoliberal reforms, primarily the tax reform. And so in many senses, a lot of these people who had taken to the streets in the past four years saw their demands against the government of Iván Duque reflected in the platform of Gustavo Petro and Francia Marquez. These include, on one hand, for example, the easier access to higher education. Colombia has a very restrictive higher education in the country. There's a large student debt industry that has started with a state entity, many students in Colombia now have large amounts of student debt. A lot of them are unable to access the cheaper subsidized private universities, public universities, sorry. And so they have to take out debt with this program. The response of Iván Duque was to create a very selective process where if you had high enough grades, you could get scholarships, but everyone else had to get, for example, large amounts of student debt. Gustavo Petro and Francia Marquez are calling for the ending of the student debt and also making education more accessible. They're calling for land reform to give peasants access to the land. They're calling for the peace agreements signed in 2016 with the Colombian government for these peace agreements to be respected. During the government in Iván Duque, these have been systematically undermined, programs underfunded, demobilized fighters that have been targeted. And so in addition, they want to increase access to public transportation, increase social programs. This was a huge cornerstone of Petro's program when he was mayor of Bogotá. We saw a huge increase in social programs towards vulnerable populations, LGBTQ population, people living in states of homelessness, drug users. He was really active in working with these communities and getting them into a better place, structurally educational programs. And this has been reflected in their platform for the nation. And this is really needed as Colombia has been one of the most hard hit countries by neoliberal policies by the COVID-19 induced economic crisis. You know, millions of people in a state of unemployment in informal sector of labor without access to healthcare. So this platform of theirs really appealed to all of those people who were on the streets, who have been suffering over the past four years and really saw that they needed a change. The slogan of theirs was change in first. There needs to be a change in the country. And that was really what brought them. Right. So in this context, the big question is the other candidate who will be opposing them that is a little for Hernandez, a bit of a wildcard candidate. It seems like his positions seem a bit unclear. He's taken positions across the spectrum, it looks like. So could he give us a bit of a background on who this person is and what really he stands for? Yeah, he's a very interesting figure and maybe one that we're seeing emerge more and more across the political spectrum in the region and across the world. He's sort of one of these anti-establishment candidates that talks a lot about combating corruption, combating the status quo politicians and all that they stand for. He, as I mentioned before, he used TikTok a lot to spread his messages. One of his key policy platforms is recovering the money of the state that's lost from corruption. He also announced a series of reforms of the institutionality of Columbia, reducing, for example, the number of parliamentarians, cutting the amount of ministries, ending some of the offices that exist in the country, such as the High Commissioner for Peace. These are some of his more polemical grammar because he seems to want to cut the public sector, not strengthen it. This is clearly not in the favor of the people. However, for example, he does have some interesting proposals like he wants to reestablish diplomatic relations with Venezuela, continue the peace process with the National Liberation Army, implement the Havana peace agreements. So he is, as you said, a bit of a wild card, but I think looking at who he is and what he has done in the past is really important. He is a businessman. He was the mayor of Bucaramanga, the city in the east of Columbia from 2016 to 2019. He has had some polemics in the past in 2016, which this has been circulating very widely on social media. He said that he was a follower of the great German thinker, Adolf Hitler. He later retracted the statement and apologized, but he did say this on live news. He's mentioned that he thinks women should be in the house. A lot of different things that have really gotten people worried. He said that women can support from the house about his first lady. So there's a lot to be concerned about. Right now, the key concern of progressive sectors in the country is that it doesn't necessarily matter what he stated to be his campaign platform, but the right wing sectors in Columbia are most likely going to unite behind this candidate. They will put in the policy request that they will need to, and they essentially many people think that they're going to unite behind this candidacy in attempt to defeat the progressive ticket, to defeat these progressive proposals for change. And if Rodolfo Hernandez receives support from these sectors, he will need to win because he only got, as you mentioned, 28% of the vote. That's not enough to carry him to a victory. He'll have to make some negotiations. He'll have to concede some of his terms. So even these maybe more progressive proposals that he has, which people have pointed out as somewhat interesting, might even be conceded when he makes these negotiations going into the next round. I think what we've seen leading up to this round of the elections threats a campaign of fear, of hatred, of defamation on social media. This is all going to increase in the coming weeks. Right. And we do know, of course, that even last time Gustavo Petro lost by a very narrow margin. So definitely there is a possibility of a very difficult and controversial next 20 days ahead as far as the campaign is concerned. That's exactly right. I think we're going to see a very similar situation playing out. It's going to be an uphill battle. The far right in Colombia is not used to losing. It has every resource at its disposal, really, to wield this, to create the unity of the right, to impose its will in many different ways. The denouncements of electoral fraud that were officially registered are only a sliver of what has happened on the ground. And so it's very important to make sure to keep watching Colombia to keep seeing what's happening. There's going to be campaigns of defamation, of spreading fake news. And we'll definitely be keeping watch and be following this case. Right. Thank you so much, Zoe. As she said, we'll definitely be following the elections very closely and do follow some of the important outlets from Latin America as well. We should be covering this very closely. See you next time.