Why Angus Aitken’s Jablko note touched a nerve at ANZ

Angus Aitken, pictured in Sydney earlier this week, doesn’t mind throwing the odd expletive into his notes to clients. John Feder/The Australian.

It is curious how, a week and a half after Bell Potter stockbroker Angus Aitken penned the response to Michelle Jablko’s appointment as ANZ Bank’s chief financial officer, debate about the merits of the actions of the bank, his employer and Aitken himself rages on. There’s hardly a corporate conversation or event where it isn’t raised.

Aitken, of course, lost his job and, having settled with Bell Potter, is now taking legal action against ANZ, alleging he was defamed when its head of corporate communications, tweeted that “Sexisim is alive + well in stockbroking?” in response to an Aitken note to clients on the appointment.

The note, which was typically boorish — Aitken is well known for his crude and aggressive commentaries — recommended his clients sell ANZ shares after describing Jablko’s appointment was “one of the dumber appointments I have seen.”

The ‘basis’ of his criticism was Jablko’s background. She’s had a long and very successful career in investment banking.

“Former investment bankers tend to be crap at most things in the listed world,” Aitken wrote, dismissing favourable comparisons between Jablko’s elevation and the successful tenure of Craig Drummond as National Australia Bank’s CFO because of Drummond’s lengthy stint as a top-rated banking analyst.

The Aitken note might have been, as a piece of advice, remarkably shallow but there was nothing overtly sexist in anything he wrote.

Yet, after a conversation between ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott (who had very quickly “liked” Edwards’ tweet) and Bell Potter management, Aitken cleared his desk and left the firm. ANZ is the firm’s banker.

An interesting aspect of the dispute between Aitken and the bank is that, despite a general consensus within the business community that the Aitken note wasn’t sexist, and despite the threat (and now the apparent reality) of litigation, the bank hasn’t backed down.

Edwards, one of the most experienced and sophisticated internal corporate communications managers in the country, and one with a deep understanding of the power and reach of social media, has justified labelling the note sexist — and maintaining that position — because it was a “classic” example of “unconscious bias” and wouldn’t have been written about a man with equivalent qualifications.

The concept of unconscious bias dates back at least two decades and came out of research into the lack of diversity within workplaces.

The classic example of unconscious bias is where men who regard themselves as champions of diversity in the workplace are presented with two identical resumes for an executive role. One is ostensibly from a male applicant and the other from a female. Invariably the male applicant is chosen.

The theory behind the concept of unconscious bias is that there are biases that we are unaware of and over which we have no control. They represent unconscious judgments and assessments of people and situations that are influenced by our backgrounds and experiences.

It could explain why, despite the significant efforts being made within the corporate community, the proportion of women in boardrooms and at the more senior executive levels of large companies remains perplexingly and stubbornly low.

There are a lot of large companies that have accepted the theory and implemented unconscious bias training programs — Google started its program two years ago and has had most of its staff undertake it — and the major Australian banks have also put their senior people through similar training.

ANZ’s stance, regardless of the outcome of the confrontation with Aitken, will give the issue of unconscious bias and gender diversity within this market even greater visibility. There might be a cost to the bank, but that would be not a bad outcome for women in business.

It perhaps puts ANZ’s apparently overly-sensitive reaction to Aitken’s note in context to remember that Jablko’s elevation to the status of the most senior woman in Australian banking followed the appointment in March of former Google Australia managing director Maile Carnegie as ANZ’s group executive, digital banking.

ANZ sees itself as a leader in the broader campaign for greater gender equality within Australian boardrooms and the senior executive levels of major companies.

Its chairman, David Gonski, was one of the inaugural members of the Australian chapter of the 30% Club, an international body that recruits company chairs as advocates for its push for boards to appoint more women. The international chair of the 30% Club, Brenda Trenowden, is ANZ’s European head of financial institutions.

The appointments of Maile and Jablko were a laudable demonstration and affirmation of the bank’s commitment to placing more women into the most senior roles within the group and so it perhaps wouldn’t be surprising if Edwards and Elliott saw Aitken’s scribblings through the lens of gender rather than just dismissing them for the irrelevant, but not obviously sexist, ravings of a used-share salesman.

Aitken, who doesn’t mind throwing the odd expletive into his notes to clients, is something of a throwback to the 1980s and has been subject to an enforceable undertaking with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission after allegations that he gave information about a client’s trading intentions to another client, who profited from the knowledge. If he’s a victim of the confrontation with ANZ it’s hard to feel great sympathy.

More deserving of innocent victim status is Jablko, caught up in a controversy that wasn’t of her making and which has spoiled what should have been the high point, so far, of a long and highly successful career.

Jablko is an exceptionally intelligent and highly-respected (former) investment banker. The fact that she’s a woman ought to be incidental but her achievements in investment banking, a male-dominated and testosterone-driven sector, speak volumes about her abilities and her resilience.

If Bell Potter hadn’t forced Aitken to resign (Elliott has said he didn’t ask for Aitken to be sacked) it would probably have been a storm in a teacup, quickly forgotten, particularly if ANZ had withdrawn the charge of sexism.

Instead it could well lead to a courtroom debate about unconscious bias — and not just whether Aitken’s note was an example of it but whether the bank’s reflex responses were themselves coloured by its own unconscious biases, however laudable those particular biases might be.