A critical reflection of well-intentioned support for Women’s leadership in Defence and national security.

Introduction.

With the abundance of women’s empowerment, ‘Lean-In’ and ‘#metoo’ movements flooding the virtual social world, gender equity and equality across many fields is hotly contested. Yet while public opinion and the conversation continues, gender inequalities remain, including in the National Intelligence Community. In 2019, Lowry reported that significantly fewer women were rising to senior positions in the public sector, with the gender imbalance in the Australian Intelligence Community particularly pronounced.^[1] In 2020-21, women occupied 36.84 percent of senior leadership roles in the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD)^[2], and 35.71 percent in the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC)^[3]. A year on and the reporting period for 2021-22 shows, women occupied only 29.72 percent of senior leadership roles in the ASD,^[4] and only 31.25 percent in the ACIC.^[5] This significant drop of women in leadership, especially for the ASD, is of great concern. Lack of progress suggests in gaining gender equality in national security leadership is perhaps more complex than previously considered.

The complexity of gender inequality in national security implies a need to revisit past assumptions and analytical approaches. Indeed, a key gap in the literature is the perspectives, understandings and roles of men in achieving gender equality in national security. Research must seek to understand the perspective of men on women’s leadership in the national security sector; and how current policy framing and practical language influences continued inequalities. Greater understanding of complex gender dynamics and realities in the national security sector is achievable by focusing on the interaction between framing for gender equality/women’s leadership, the use of language, and gendered systems at play.

The French philosopher, Michel Foucault, encouraged continual improvement through analysing the underpinning assumptions by considering the unconsidered, with critical reflection as an essential component of this process. Likewise, a similar reflectionist, Ludwig Wittgenstein, recognised how the use of language by different actors produced powerful influence over the construct of meaning and truth.^[6] Wittgenstein tried to bring to the world’s attention, the limitations that individuals place upon themselves, in addition to those the world imposes, by thinking in terms of particular social theories or use of language.^[7] The two thinkers theories stimulate engaging critical reflection on gender equality and women’s leadership endeavours in Australia’s national security sector. The research of current systemic practices in Australia’s security sector requires a fresh perspective presenting not only a critical reflection, but also an emphasis on providing clarity through methodological rigour.

Current approaches.

It is plausible the misappropriation of language and empowerment approaches slows progress in normalising women in leadership in the National Intelligence Community. Kim, Fitzsimons and Kay^[8] studied attribution effects^[9] from popular movements such as ‘Lean In’ and like-minded empowerment approaches. Research findings suggest that while such movements as ‘Lean In’ are positively framed and even motivational, concerning unintended consequences of misplaced attribution akin to victim blaming has resulted. This in turn has influenced gender inequality as endemic to a woman’s problem and not that of broader systemic structures.

Acknowledging there may be contextual conceptualisations of empowerment, for the purpose of initial research, empowerment is derived from Rappaport^[10] and Rich et al^[11], who differentiated between intrapersonal empowerment (self-efficacy, confidence, and competence) from that of formal empowerment (structural or societal) whereby larger political decision-making systems provide for meaningful local control.

Such concepts fail to acknowledge unintended consequences of misplaced attributions for women and stigmatisation measured by masculine social norms for men, reinforcing gender hierarchical gender inequity. Stepping back from such concepts creates room for conceptualising the progression of gender-parity collegiately with men. As such, a reframe of previous efforts may address gender inequality by critically reflecting on the gender and security nexus through the perspective of men. This aims to help identify underlying causalities inherent in social constructs and mindsets that inhibit meaningful change.

The gap in approaches.

Sir Mark Sedwill developed Mission Critical;^[12]a report explaining how diversity is a matter of national security and essential to successfully meeting security challenges head on. The report argues to achieve comprehensive understanding of national security threats, diversity of thought from a range of backgrounds and cultures is essential.

A recent Australian study suggests those women who have achieved prominent roles in the security sector are ‘trailblazers’ and not reflective of general gender progress.^[13] The study also revealed that ‘significantly fewer women are rising to the senior positions in this sector compared with the Australian Public Service as a whole’; with a particular gender imbalance in Australia’s intelligence community.^[14] In addition, as of 30 June 2022, women made up less than 20.1 percent of the permanent Australian Defence Force ^[15], despite the availability to serve in all areas in 2016; with no women as yet appointed as head of the Department of Defence. In some areas, the number of women in senior executive roles within one intelligence agency declined to zero; with the limited data, available indicating a correlation with the higher the security clearance required the worse the gender balance.^[16] Gaps remain in sectors that affect the national security agenda and ultimately the lives it represents. If leadership in national security decision-making bodies are not representative of the people they serve, gaps will endure and negatively affect Australia’s national interest.

Research indicates there may be a disconnect between the understanding of well-meaning notions of ‘empowerment’ and ‘Lean-In’ and their practical effect. Indeed, even three decades ago, Riger asserted, ‘in the context of empowerment, if the focus of enquiry becomes not actual power but rather the sense of empowerment, then the political is made personal and, ironically, the status quo may be supported’.^[17] That is, while empowerment may provide an enhanced sense of self-efficacy, it does little more that create an illusion of power with no actual redistribution of power.^[18] Moreover, although individual self-efficacy may be ‘empowered’, the conditions and constraints in which individual choices must be made affords little accountability. That is, ‘decisions are made within a social context that is constrained by personal psychology, social ideology, and structural factors’^[19]. Arguably, this constraint can be as impacting upon women’s progression to leadership as it is to those men advocating for women. Yet there remains little knowledge of this impact.

The empowerment ideology or ‘Lean In’ advice, when conversely considered, can also reveal negative framings. Firstly, it suggests a neoliberal agenda where women are the cause of their inequality based upon their lack of confidence, assertive engagement, or hard work in progressing their own careers of which, it is their individual responsibility to address. It suggests, women are responsible for the problem (not overcoming their internal barriers) and therefore responsible for the solution (demonstrating self-efficacy). As one study demonstrated, ‘cultural messages apparently aiming to empower women to take charge of their careers may ultimately result in negative attributions about women’s responsibility for gender inequality’^[20]. This engenders those women must change rather than the overall system. This indicates there is a necessity to acknowledge and better comprehend nuanced differences between empowerment intent, empowering approaches, and empowered outcomes.^[21]

It is important to acknowledge the difference between the ‘problem’ and the ‘problem representation’. The framing of any problem reveals the implicit or explicit problem representations. For example, how we discuss a problem and who is doing the talking, shape the problem construct presenting the path, often singular, to resolving it. The language used to define and determine the problem also presupposes possible solutions. One empirical study within the Australian context examined how the lives of young Australian women have changed by identifying the role of choice and how this may have disguised socially generated inequality. Baker’s study discussed how agendas disguised in women’s rights discourse permitted continuation of the subordination of women ‘covertly within a framework of ostensible commitment to equality, the valorisation of choice and through seductive incitements to individual responsibility’^[22]. The use of seductive language and framing, compounded by enticing optimistic movements towards social change, risk applying overly simplistic solutions to complex challenges which enable the continuance of the status quo.

The use of positively framed or sensitive and inclusive language may seem beneficial, but can have further reaching unintended consequences. To illustrate, a recent study^[23] suggests replacement language intended to be sensitive to non-binary people has lacked critical deliberation as to their actual overall impact. The study^[24] revealed that the seemingly simple replacement of ‘women’ to ‘bodies with vaginas’ or from ‘breastfeeding’ to ‘chestfeeding’ has had deleterious consequences in effective communication of essential information during maternity and birthing practices. The use of language, no matter how well meaning the intent, must be afforded due consideration and critical reflection to ensure ethical applications in practice causes no further harm.

A well-intentioned patriarchal obligation to empower supports attempts to increase women in leadership in Australia’s national security sector. Unfortunately, this has reinforced helplessness and assumes females require assistance to gain agency because they do not have the skills or knowledge to do so themselves. Realising women in leadership roles as a norm in national security sectors means reframing the ‘empowerment’ approach that has been undertaken to date. The production of knowledge, as asserted by Foucault, necessitates greater understanding of the knowledge that drives slow (in)action in this area. Normalising women in leadership in the National Intelligence Community will require a fundamental shift in the way we conceptualise, frame, and implement change. This shift, however, must be evidence-based and reflect the unique characteristics of each situation in order to integrate a tailored, sustainable, ethical solution.

Australian government strategic documents and white papers, supported by intelligence, academic analysis and think tanks,^[25] acknowledge the geopolitical environment is evolving and increasingly uncertain.^[26] Studies^[27] also explain how diversity is a matter of national security and essential to successfully meeting security challenges head on. Yet, Australia has a culture of complacency in creating momentum to increase women in leadership roles in national security. Despite the attention, energy and research dedicated to gender-parity initiatives, the risk of not achieving gender-parity is becoming increasingly detrimental to Australia’s national security. Research must aim to change this. The time for this is now.

Why a new approach.

Often, lived-experience recounts of gender inequality are from the women’s perspective. Women-focussed conferences and events are awash with such narratives. Unfortunately, such conferences and events risk reinforcing gender-parity challenges as women’s issues.^[28] Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala argue that while women-focused conferences provided community and support, women-focused events without engaging men little is accomplished.^[29] Yet, men willing to attend these women-focused events receive titles such as ‘Manbassadors’ or ‘Male Champions’; a label describing their unique efforts as men advocating for women. The use of language framing men in this way elevates the status of these representatives, risking the reinforcement of the hierarchical gender inequity.^[30]

Despite the attention, support, and well-intentioned advocacy approaches, there is still more to understand about the strategy to engage men in diversity and gender-parity initiatives in the national security sector. Gender inequality is a systemic issue but we must acknowledge that this same system also dictates masculinity and how men ought to behave in the national security sector. We cannot begin to understand this complexity if we do not comprehend how men perceive the role of women in leadership in Australia’s national security and their own situatedness in this nexus.

To illustrate, men who advocate for gender-parity are not immune to stigmatisation. In 2010, the Male Champions of Change initiative brought together a range of men in influential leadership roles throughout the private and public sectors committed to elevating women’s representation in leadership roles. While there has been little reporting on this initiative past March 2016,^[31] the United Nations has initiated a similar movement, #heforshe, recognising the importance of ‘mobilising all sectors of society in order to achieve the goal of gender equality’.^[32] However, studies^[33] are beginning to indicate that men who advocate for gender-parity in this way also face potential social and professional consequences for failing to conform to socially constructed masculine norms.^[34] More research needs to unpack how men view women in national security leadership roles. Likewise, research needs to enhance understanding of how the framing constructs in which men are situated undermine men’s relevance in advocating current women empowerment attempts. Essentially, not only must social constructs create room for women in leadership as a norm, social constructs must also create room for men to support it.

New approach contribution

Women’s leadership in Australia’s security sector demands greater understanding of the barriers to career progression if timely and significant change is to bring about female leadership as a norm, not an obligation or resulting from individual trailblazers. Inadequate understanding leads to claims and strategies that reinforce women as a minority in need of empowerment, slowing progress through ‘empowerment fatigue’ and misappropriated attribution.

The premise suggest gendered constraints and imbalances persist due to social constructs borne of behavioural interaction, use of language, and the frames that reinforce those constructs. Social performances, interactions, and exchanges can nudge, reinforce, or disrupt constructs. The strength or influence of the actors, language or frames can give meaning and truth to the practices Australian society accepts. Australia must focus on both what men think as well as what Australians actually do. Challenging the cognitive and behavioural underpinnings that lead people to deal with the social world is essential if meaningful change is to be realised.

Challenging the unchallenged will drive debate and stimulate nuanced understanding of the structural boundaries that influence meaningful female participation in Australia’s security-related sectors. The aim is to generate a knowledge transfer towards enhancing acknowledgment of the gap evidenced by gender balance constraint and action towards accepting real change in closing that gap. The results of which will serve Australian national security interests by normalising increased diversity in decision-making bodies and policy-setting activities at all levels, and across all departments in the National Intelligence Community producing successful mitigations and outcomes against national security threats

Conclusion.

Times occasionally punctuated by momentum, the progression towards gender equity and equality in the national security field continues to be elusive. Critical reflection suggests revisiting the conceptual framework upon which approaches to this challenge have tried and somewhat failed to make meaningful and sustainable progress. Australia must find a framework of precisely defined core concepts and research heuristics that can sustain disciplined knowledge accumulation towards achieving meaningful equity of women in Australia's national security sector.

Essentially, Australia must provide an alternate course of action to a strategic framework for national security actors preparing to adapt and deciding to reshape current practices into evidence-based strategies; leveraging the outcomes to capitalise on the ‘smart power’ this insight offers.