When Julianne Schultz was told "it's not your turn" for a significant government board chairmanship, the phrase transported her straight back to the schoolyard. This personal anecdote underscores a persistent tension in Australian – and arguably global – corporate and public governance: the clash between genuine meritocracy and a culture of favours for familiar faces.
The Schoolyard Echo in the Boardroom
Schultz recalls being encouraged to apply for the role despite feeling it was a long shot. The surprise came not in being rejected, but in the reason given by the selection committee chair. The explanation, "Sorry Julianne, it's just not your turn," felt arbitrary, dismissing any consideration of skill, knowledge, or what the organisation itself needed. The experience highlighted a pattern where, too often, it was "less likely to be a girl's turn."
This memory resurfaced for Schultz with the recent release of Lynelle Briggs' review into public sector board appointments, which found evidence of a "jobs for mates" culture. The report suggests that despite processes designed to ensure transparency, an old-world expectation of "turnism" can still prevail.
Beyond the Skills Matrix: The Human Dynamic of Effective Boards
Schultz, who has since chaired multiple boards, argues that while process is vital, it is insufficient. Skills matrices ensuring expertise in law, finance, and governance are necessary but not the complete picture. The most effective boards, she writes, become more than the sum of their parts through a human dynamic built on respect, trust, and wisdom.
She has witnessed boards "at war with themselves" and others where a "generosity of spirit" has been transformative. The worst, in her experience, are those stacked with political appointees treating the organisation as a proxy battleground. Conversely, some of the best members have been former politicians who left party allegiance behind.
Meritocracy vs. Mates in a Modern, Diverse Australia
The tension is perennial: mates can also be meritorious. Prior professional relationships provide valuable insight. However, the risk is that an over-reliance on familiar networks recreates the old world in new clothes. Schultz notes that in the late 1970s, a small, graduate elite in Australia often did know everyone who mattered.
Today, Australia is larger, more diverse, and more bound by process. Yet, with declining political party membership and shrinking shared community spaces, it is harder to ensure people from different worlds interact. This makes the recommendations of the Briggs report crucial for deepening and broadening the talent pool.
If a pervasive expectation of "turnism" is allowed to continue, Schultz warns, the new meritocracy may simply mirror the old world of mates. The result leaves countless talented individuals, often from underrepresented groups, wondering what it truly takes to crack the system. True governance excellence requires looking beyond the tick-box and recognising the transformative power of diverse perspectives and genuine, scrutinised merit.
