Companies under a woman's watch cop a much harder time

And the hypocritical reactions to leadership mistakes, failures and scandals when the CEO is a female hasn't improved since.

Holgate was forced to resign as the CEO of Australia Post after it was revealed that she had rewarded four senior employees with Cartier watches, valued collectively at $20,000, in recognition of their exceptional work in securing a banking deal that significantly benefited Australia Post.

This act of acknowledgment was thrust into the national spotlight, drawing fierce criticism from the public and political figures alike due to Australia Post's status as a government-owned entity.

At the heart of this controversy was not a catastrophic failure of leadership or strategy, but rather an issue of optics - the rewarding of key staff (executives) for exemplary performance with Cartier watches, after they helped bring on board some of Australia's leading banks to distribute their products via the Australia Post branch network.

This development added anywhere between $80-$100m to the Australia Post bottom line. Under her watch (no pun intended) she had authority to give bonuses up to $150,000 - and provided four $5000 Cartier watches as a bonus, a move she says was approved by the board.

If the rewards were provisioned as cash payments at a higher value I doubt this would have even raised an eyebrow. Instead, Christine became a political football, and the impact on her was devastating.

While one could argue this gesture is pretty standard in the corporate world, on this occasion it was magnified into a scandal, primarily because the company is publicly owned; it means the organisation needs to conform to quasi-public service/government expectations.

Critics quickly overlooked Holgate's myriad accomplishments, such as saving branches across the country and enhancing contracts to keep them viable, resulting in people remaining employed in communities across the country, and those communities continuing to have facilities and services in their towns.

Instead, they focused on the superficial - the cost of the watches and the optics of rewarding employees in such a manner.

This skewed perception led to a public outcry, culminating in a statement from then prime minister Scott Morrison that the CEO should lose her job, a suggestion devoid of the context or her contributions.

The punishment, in this case, seemed disproportionate to the so-called crime. Hence the question: had a male CEO made the same decision, would the reaction have been as severe?

It appears to me that female leaders face harsher scrutiny and are subjected to a narrower margin of error. What Holgate experienced is this enhanced, extreme scrutiny whereby female leaders are apparently being held to a higher standard than their male counterparts.

Across the world, female leaders are resigning in huge numbers from some of the world's leading roles: Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and New Zealand prime minister Jacinta Ardern to name just a few.

According to a McKinsey survey in the US, as of 2022 women leaders were leaving roles at a faster rate than any time since it began collecting data in 2017, with reasons ranging from unequal pay to aggression and sexism which increase stress and lead to burnout.

In other words, women in the workforce, and in leadership, are subject things that most men have the luxury of not having to deal with.

Sometimes they're even pushed out, having done nothing wrong. Recently, an inquiry into the consulting industry heard PwC International removed Australia acting CEO Kristin Stubbins despite her desire to stay in the role.

Members of the parliamentary joint committee suggested the treatment of Stubbins was another example of a woman being elevated to a position of power during a male-created crisis, only to be replaced when they had cleaned up the mess.

"Sadly, that's how often that's the way women often get to the top - when the boys have made a big mess of it, the women come in to clean up and then exit somewhat unduly hastily," Labor senator Deborah O'Neill said at the inquiry.

But perhaps the starkest illustration of this gender-based double standard that I can think of might be in the global criticism of Sanna Marin (Finland's prime minister 2019-2023), who led Finland through the pandemic in her mid-30s.

Marin was filmed dancing at a private party with friends in late 2022, and had to respond to speculation that she had taken illicit drugs by taking a drug test to prove her innocence (she tested negative).

Did then-UK PM Boris Johnson have to undertake a test after it was revealed he held a similar private party amid lockdowns?

The broader implications of this heightened scrutiny on female leadership are significant, affecting not only the individuals in question but also the perception and treatment of female leaders in general.

READ MORE:

The narrative around female leadership needs to shift towards a more balanced and fair assessment of capabilities and achievements. It sounds ridiculous to have to make such an obvious statement in 2024, but given it seems that society's treatment of female leaders hasn't changed much since Holgate resigned, it's a statement that still needs to be said.

And to finish on the Cartier watches: what was lost amid Holgate's scandal is that I believe the gift would have been more meaningful to the recipients as a reminder of the teamwork, the accomplishment and the effort that went into the project they were a reward for.

But that has been forgotten in the rush to bury the career - based on optics and not economics - of an exceptional female leader.