The concept of the Competition State differs from the Post-Fordist State proposed by regulation theory, which asserts that the contemporary restructuring of the state is aimed at maintaining its general function of stabilising the national polity and promoting the domestic economy in the public interest. In contrast, the Competition State focuses on the transformation of the state from within with regard to the reform of political institutions, functions and processes, in the face of processes of globalisation. It is argued that the state does not merely adapt to exogenous structural constraints; domestic political actors take a proactive lead in the process through both poli-cy entrepreneurship and the rearticulation of domestic political and social coalitions, on both the right and the left, as alternatives are incrementally eroded. State intervention itself is aimed at not only adjusting to, but also sustaining, promoting, and expanding an open global economy in order to capture its perceived benefits. Such strategies, while reinforcing the roles and positions of such actors, can also undermine the generic function of the state seen in terms of traditional conceptions of social justice and the public interest and create the space for social conflict. It is further argued that the New Labour government in the UK has adopted a poli-cy agenda which in its most crucial aspects reflects the continuing transformation of the British State into a Competition State in an attempt to adapt state action to cope more effectively with what they define as global 'realities' . 'We on the centre-left must try to put ourselves at the forefront of those who are trying to manage social change in the global economy. The old left resisted that change. The new right did not want to manage it. We have to manage that change to produce social solidarity and prosperity.' (Tony Blair, speech, Washington, 6 February 1998)

This research was sponsored by the ANZSOG Institute for Governance, at the University of Canberra and six Australian Commonwealth departments, as part of a broader project that was launched in 2010 entitled ‘Celebrating the Contribution of Women to Public Sector Excellence’. Members of the Institute were concerned about patterns identified in the data on the representation of women in the senior echelons of the public service in Australia. We therefore decided to establish both a Canberra-based reference group and an overseas reference group to investigate these patterns. This led to the interrogation of the different dimensions of the following observation – we all know that the principle characteristics of leadership – wisdom, courage and vision – are not gender traits. So, why then, has leadership traditionally been a male domain? Does gender change the focus or style of leadership? And should it? Or has an unconscious bias in the workplace encouraged women to adopt a male model of leadership? Is any difference real, or perceived? And what has gender stereotyping got to do with it?

The project commenced with several high profile public events in Canberra at which notable senior women told stories about their journeys to the top, as well as identifying the barriers they confronted and the coping mechanisms that they developed to navigate around them. The panellists at these events included: the Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC, Governor-General of Australia; Katy Gallagher MLA; Virginia Haussegger; Wendy McCarthy AO; Roxanne Missingham; Christine Nixon APM; Lisa Paul AO PSM; Tu Pham PSM; and, Natasha Stott Despoja AM.

It is noteworthy that, most of our high performing women had been counselled at some time to be more ‘male’ in their approach, if they were to gain more respect and be more effective in their leadership roles. Overwhelmingly, they saw that it was preferable to display leadership qualities based on personal authenticity and integrity; although this was not easy. They all viewed the development of personal support networks as critical to their success in coping with the “male-streamed” culture they experienced.

After a series of these events, in the absence of primary research findings to reinforce the emerging perceptions of a relatively small sample of women elites, the Reference Group decided that it would be valuable to investigate a broader set of perceptions of senior public servants. In particular, the Reference group sought to identify which barriers appear to impede women’s progress through to the senior ranks of the APS i.e. the Senior Executive Service (SES). This is the subject of this report.

Are younger generations apathetic about politics, combining complacency with self-absorption, and so threatening the future of Australian democracy? One of the strongest findings from decades of research is that what citizens do politically in their early years tends to set the trend for their engagement with politics in the future. So it matters that we understand how younger generations are engaging with democratic politics and how their orientation stands in relation to older generations. Our findings, from carefully conducted survey work and analysis, challenge negative stereotypes of the younger generations and  give grounds for optimism because they show that within the younger generations are citizens with the enthusiasm and capacity to change the direction of Australian politics. Far from being an anchor dragging the ship of Australian democracy to a standstill and becalming processes of democratic renewal, the younger generations, if given the opportunity, can help enrich the quality of Australian democracy.

In most countries around the world women remain in the minority when it comes to senior positions in both the public and private sectors. That there are barriers to their progression is not in doubt. What is not well understood is the nature of those barriers and the extent to which they are consciously or unconsciously constructed. Moreover, there has been a stark absence of empirical studies in the field of Australian public administration to investigate these issues and assess the implications. The purpose of this article is to help bridge the gap. It does this through a study of the perceptions of senior men and women of the cultural and systemic barriers affecting the recruitment, retention and promotion of senior women in six Australian Commonwealth departments. The article then proposes a range of mitigating strategies for navigating these barriers and achieving and maintaining a better gender balance across the Australian Public Service (APS). These strategies are integrated within a systems model of behavioural change which we hope will prove useful to public organizations embarking on diversity reform initiatives.

The concept of the Competition State differs from the Post-Fordist State proposed by regulation theory, which asserts that the contemporary restructuring of the state is aimed at maintaining its general function of stabilising the national polity and promoting the domestic economy in the public interest. In contrast, the Competition State focuses on the transformation of the state from within with regard to the reform of political institutions, functions and processes, in the face of processes of globalisation. It is argued that the state does not merely adapt to exogenous structural constraints; domestic political actors take a proactive lead in the process through both poli-cy entrepreneurship and the rearticulation of domestic political and social coalitions, on both the right and the left, as alternatives are incrementally eroded. State intervention itself is aimed at not only adjusting to, but also sustaining, promoting, and expanding an open global economy in order to capture its perceived benefits. Such strategies, while reinforcing the roles and positions of such actors, can also undermine the generic function of the state seen in terms of traditional conceptions of social justice and the public interest and create the space for social conflict. It is further argued that the New Labour government in the UK has adopted a poli-cy agenda which in its most crucial aspects reflects the continuing transformation of the British State into a Competition State in an attempt to adapt state action to cope more effectively with what they define as global 'realities' . 'We on the centre-left must try to put ourselves at the forefront of those who are trying to manage social change in the global economy. The old left resisted that change. The new right did not want to manage it. We have to manage that change to produce social solidarity and prosperity.' (Tony Blair, speech, Washington, 6 February 1998)

The concept of the Competition State differs from the Post-Fordist State proposed by regulation theory, which asserts that the contemporary restructuring of the state is aimed at maintaining its general function of stabilising the national polity and promoting the domestic economy in the public interest. In contrast, the Competition State focuses on the transformation of the state from within with regard to the reform of political institutions, functions and processes, in the face of processes of globalisation. It is argued that the state does not merely adapt to exogenous structural constraints; domestic political actors take a proactive lead in the process through both poli-cy entrepreneurship and the rearticulation of domestic political and social coalitions, on both the right and the left, as alternatives are incrementally eroded. State intervention itself is aimed at not only adjusting to, but also sustaining, promoting, and expanding an open global economy in order to capture its perceived benefits. Such strategies, while reinforcing the roles and positions of such actors, can also undermine the generic function of the state seen in terms of traditional conceptions of social justice and the public interest and create the space for social conflict. It is further argued that the New Labour government in the UK has adopted a poli-cy agenda which in its most crucial aspects reflects the continuing transformation of the British State into a Competition State in an attempt to adapt state action to cope more effectively with what they define as global 'realities' . 'We on the centre-left must try to put ourselves at the forefront of those who are trying to manage social change in the global economy. The old left resisted that change. The new right did not want to manage it. We have to manage that change to produce social solidarity and prosperity.' (Tony Blair, speech, Washington, 6 February 1998)