When we created The Fiftyfaces Podcast in 2020, our mission was to tell the stories of a wide range of leaders in the world of investing – to learn about their career arcs, their wisdom and their spheres of expertise.
As our podcasts and sub-series multiplied, we created The Fiftyfaces Hub to centralize this content and optimize its accessibility and also provide resources, insights and coaching.
Now we are relaunching The Fiftyfaces Hub as an interactive portal that can take you on a tailored journey according to your interests – into the world of sales, venture capital, market commentary and allocator’s mindsets. We invite you to learn with us as we map the investment and professional landscape of the future.
Aoifinn Devitt: Public awareness is not just about education and textbook and this happened in this far distant country or to this one person or this one athlete. This is something that is happening to all of us that we are not being heard, right? So we’ve constantly talked about amplifying our voices, being brave about doing so. So I would just want to pull that caveat into what we mean by public awareness I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces podcast.
Tiffany: In this focus series, we are focused on women’s health and maternal mortality in particular, and I’m delighted to be joined by Tiffany McKeever, who’s the founder of Consensus Healthcare Consultants Inc., which provides strategic advisory and innovation in the healthcare industry. As an entrepreneur focused on population health, equity, and women’s health, Tiffany’s innovation has been acknowledged by HIMSS with an appointment as one of the future top 50 Class of 21-22 innovators in the patient leader category for maternal health strategies and applications, and the top 200 femtech personalities globally. Prior to founding CHC Inc., Tiffany gained extensive experience in strategy and technical operation with experience over 20 years in big pharma. She’s passionate about startups in Israel and serves as president of Philadelphia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, which supports collaboration between regional US partners and Israeli companies. Welcome, Tiffany. Thanks for joining me today.
Aoifinn Devitt: Thank you for having me.
Tiffany: Well, this is a series about maternal mortality, and I’d love you to set the scene for us a little. Can you talk to us, starting from a high level and getting into definitions, about the scope of the maternal mortality problem in the US as we sit here in 2024?
Aoifinn Devitt: Sure, most certainly. So I just want to give a little bit of background to our listeners. So maternal mortality in the US is a significant public health issue with multifaceted causes. Federal agencies in the past have been quoted by saying it’s a very complex system to look at. And what I understand just from research is, is that in addition to the healthcare service delivery itself, our social systems themselves are actually complex and ever-changing. So this causes lots of challenges in the maternal mortality problem. If we actually look at the formal or universal definition of maternal mortality, it’s defined as deaths due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth occurring during pregnancy within, I guess, 42 days is what the global component is. We’ve since had some legislation that has changed in the United States that has moved that end of pregnancy date through 365 days. We can talk about that at a little bit of a later time as I just wanna go over some definitions right now. And maternal mortality ratio, which is also known as the MMR, is the number of deaths per 100,000 live births. So when we look at the current statistics in the United States, one of the highest maternal mortality rates is what we have among developed countries. And the MMR has been increasing over the past few decades, contrary to trends in many of the other developing nations. And what we’ve even seen is, is that some of the metrics that have come out post-COVID have significant concerns for us that those numbers have somewhat, in fact, doubled, particularly in the African American community with most of the maternal mortality deaths now over 80% and all of them likely preventable. And that was just actually published this month. And the United States, I guess, overall still continues to have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation. And just to give you an example, some of the last metrics that we have, because the way this is bundled, we get the mortality review boards that review this each year or so. And some of the latest numbers that we had over 2022 is, is that approximately 22 maternal deaths in every 100 live births in the United States, which is far above rates for any other high-income country. The US maternal mortality is lowest in Asian American women and it’s still highest in African American women. So, someone like myself was very passionate about Black maternal health. I want to just talk a little bit about how I actually found myself in the space. If you don’t mind, we can chat about that a bit. In 2018, I was moving around. I’d started Consensus in 2017. Really, as you mentioned, me leaving the pharmaceutical space to really look at healthcare disparities and population health in our community and find out how I could better serve the community. And of course, in 2018, the maternal mortality numbers were published quite significant that I was 3 to 4 times more likely to die in the maternal health space here in the United States. I live in New Jersey. Our number is 47 out of the 50 states. So quite significant concern there. And at the time, I had 5 children. So as we looked at these stats, it’s the first time that you sort of catch your breath and say, wow, is that significant risk in some places? But I think what stood out most to us was the fact that highly educated women who actually had access to resources were still part of this number and still part of this preventable number. So that’s what really made me carve out a segment in Consensus Healthcare and population health specific to women’s health, and then of course specific to maternal health, focusing on healthcare inequity. So all of these numbers and these statistics that we see are quite alarming across the US in general for women’s health. But to just see it exacerbated, you know, in the community.
Tiffany: Just one of the areas in terms of definition, which you pointed out to me at our first discussions and I thought was so relevant, was that we talk a lot about death, but actually maternal injury, you said, is something that rarely gets measured and that can in fact be as certainly quite traumatizing and, you know, can be debilitating. When you speak about these numbers, are these just death numbers? Are we talking injury as well?
Aoifinn Devitt: So the injuries number, some of the numbers that we’ve seen in some of the zip codes, particularly in New York State, has an injury rate of 60% for African American women, which is a huge percent. And, you know, all of this really starts to tie into our experience in healthcare overall, right? And if those are some of the complex situations that we see, I think we have to get less sensitive about the structural components of healthcare, how it’s delivered in the US. We have to get truthful about racial bias that we have in the system. And in addition to that, you know, when I’ve done some of my studies here in the healthcare analytics program at Rutgers, we really started to look at the future of patient adherence and what that would look like from a policy standpoint and really where we’re able to sit with that. And is that a risk to us as African American women who are injured at 60%? How are we ourselves responsible for those white coat syndromes and all of the things that come with that where the onus is constantly pushed back to us about our healthcare system in the system that we somewhat don’t control. So those injury rates are where we start to hear the community start to talk about healthcare outside of the US healthcare system, where doulas and birth partners and all of those things, those advocates start to come in heavily. And we’ve had some sense of response for that with expansion of doula care, particularly in our state, but still have some access issues that we’re hearing in the periphery. So thank you for bringing that up because that 60% injury, right, we can come home and still have these issues in terms of how healthcare was delivered to us. And, you know, back to 2018 when we, we received the stats, it’s interesting when we talk about birthing partners because we were going through some of the things that were happening to the women at the time. And I have these 5 children and, you know, I’ve been married and I’m with my husband now 32 years. And I remember him saying, you know, Tiff, you went through some of that. Like, you were having the baby, but I was with you. And I remember the nurse not giving you pain medication. I remember them in a nurses’ meeting just as you delivered our first child, and someone forgot to write your script for your anesthesia. You just came directly off of anesthesia. It was my first delivery. It was quite painful. And my husband was running around trying to find the nurses, right? This mistake had happened. So that birthing partner piece, doula, whether you’re coupled or not, is very important. And he’s talking about a birth that I had at that time 23 years ago.
Tiffany: With a 23-year-old daughter myself, I know that time. And I suppose one of the conundrums that we’re facing is it’s one thing not to improve because we all know that improvement takes intentionality, it takes dedicated policy response, it takes follow-through, it takes funding. But to disimprove in this way, for the numbers to deteriorate, To what can you attribute that? Because you would think with the more connected world, more media coverage of these events, or maybe not, but certainly more awareness in medical education, that these at least should be becoming more front and center. Why are we deteriorating in terms of these numbers?
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I think we look at the medical education in the US and, you know, we’ve been quite critical of the medical education. And candidly, I’ve had physicians say to me, We have challenges dealing across multicultural communities. We really need help and support in doing this. Some of the comments that I’ve received is, is that they spend a large amount of their time on social determinants of health conversations. When that walks through their door, they have a percentage of it that is clinical, which is a small percentage of it, particularly in the maternal health space. But the rest of the conversation is really around cultural congruence and social determinants of health, which is where you talked a little bit about the HIMSS award. What we really looked at from those insights— I can’t change the medical associations right now, how they roll out healthcare in the United States. But what I can do is provide tools that give patients early access in education. I can connect them to social determinants of health to take that out of the physician space. And then from there, I can connect them to community components where we’ve looked at some research where peer-to-peer engagement through healthcare service delivery helps increase some of our numbers. So depending on what it is that your state is doing and what your hospital system is doing, and then how much your physician group and the leadership and administration is advocating for that, particularly in safety net hospitals, right, where we see under-resourced, underrepresented patients. That is what is causing some of the numbers because that’s the crux of the healthcare system. The social components ebb and flow. So this is somewhat what I call the ghost in the system, which is really evident to us. And we cross out of healthcare from this point and get really honest about wealth in the United States, about payer models in the United States, about the iron triangle and triple aim around cost, access, and quality. And whether we really believe that for you to get good healthcare, it has to cost you lots of money. For you to get quality healthcare, it has to cost you lots of money, and those different types of things. So of course, in the economics, transportation, nutrition, education, behavioral health, which is a significant component of that, which we really haven’t talked about too much in the US. I don’t think that we’ve done a great job around mental health in the US, but that postpartum depression pieces of it is what’s extending us down into that 365 days. So we have to get much better about that. I think we can do better in talking about suicide rates and things like that. But if I was to pull us back through a clinical standpoint, we know the comorbidities that we have in the healthcare space, particularly in maternal health. And we do have some ghosts in the system like preeclampsia. It’s very scary. Like when we see these, when we get beyond the wealth and we say people have money and there’s physicians and You know, in 2018, African American women were the most educated. I think we may still hold that space in terms of the maternal mortality deaths. Most educated, most wealth at the time, still had this stark disparity. And you see it in athletes and all of these other things. And you say sort of, sort of what is that? I start to look at the structural pieces of the OB-GYN bundle. Now, there’s been some conversations that are from OB-GYNs to say, we almost want you to go to high risk because then we can see you more often and we can get over the addendums and all of the other kind kind of things. But that’s not really the way that I want to do healthcare. And we talked a little bit about my time in Israel and startup, but prior to going into that startup space, I was with academia and research in a very public healthcare system in Israel. They have 4 HMOs, but because they’re not actually run by ICD codes like we are here in the United States with bundles and different time points that we have to wait to see patients they’re able to research in a different kind of way. And some of that research, just to give an example, is a biomarker that sits at a time point that we never look at in the United States that is very much tied to hemorrhage. Now, if I was able to bring that biomarker, put it in a technology, source for it, and then find that at a certain time point, when we look at these maternal deaths and hemorrhage being one of the second or third in terms of what happens with unnecessary C-sections. We save so many lives.
Tiffany: And when it comes to funding, so you talked about if there seems to be a biomarker that relates to hemorrhage and if you could get, I suppose, the funding or the support to research that and to actually get that tracked. How do we bridge that gap? And I know we’ve spoken with other innovators and entrepreneurs, including from Israel, on this podcast, Karen Leshem, Maura Rosenfeld, And this is an ongoing problem. We’ve compared the status there and their healthcare system. They, they still have people who fall through the cracks there. Some of it’s cultural as opposed to based on, on race, but there’s still gaps. But there’s also a much more, I suppose, joined up nature of these efforts. What do you think is the funding gap? What would it take to get at a national level the attention to this area? Because every so many different strands of medicine are competing for funding.
Aoifinn Devitt: Mm-hmm. Yep. And when I created United We Raise during the COVID era, I talked to a lot of companies that work with payers. And the payer said to me, Tiffany, you’re 10, 15 years ahead of us. We’re not ready yet. The funding is not ready yet. We’re not ready. We’re not ready. We’re not ready is what we heard. What’s interesting is that as I’ve traveled globally, these researchers are actually in DC with us. They’re at the NIH. They’re at the CDC. They’re sitting on these steering committees. So my question to them was, so how are you here in the US with us, and for some reason or another, this has not moved to policy, this has not moved to the payer groups, this has not moved to the funding sections, these metrics? And I think what you have probably heard from Karen and from Maura, who are good colleagues and brilliant women in the space that they are, is, is that it’s really around the tension that we get in women’s health or the tension we don’t get in women’s health, right? I worked in the pharmaceutical space for, as you mentioned, over 2 decades. And I’ve run clinical trials, serious adverse event reporting, all of those different types of things. And it’s really about how we look at women in society, first of all, right? How we look at health outcomes research in ICER, how we price drugs for us, if they’re for us, right? How are we in clinical trials, all of that. So those are some of the root cause pieces of that. So to pull that all the way into funding where us as startups go into a funding space primarily with male funders talking about something in women’s health, it’s to somewhat of a degree a foreign concept to them. And those are, those are some of the challenges. So I’ll say, do these institutions have an equivalent ear, right, to it when these experts say something like, We see a biomarker at week 17, and in the United States, that patient isn’t coming in until week 20. And when she comes in through week 20, we know what happens at week 20, right? We take the diabetic drink, we do our diabetic tests, we get some genetic screening, those different types of things. But we would have had the option to see that biomarker 3 weeks earlier and then have that reported to us, right? Should you be high risk and need a cesarean section? These are some challenges and some things that we need to look at for you postpartum. And, you know, we wouldn’t go home in 3 days’ time and then wait for a 1-month checkup.
Tiffany: I suppose what would you like to see as action items? We know and we’ve discussed on previous podcasts some of the funds that have been put aside by the Biden administration and committed to women’s health. We have private philanthropists like Melinda French Gates, who is dedicating a fund to female founders that may flow through into women’s health through the tech venture that they perpetrate. What would you like to see as a list of action items that you think would gain bipartisan traction?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yeah, so I think some of the pieces since we dived a little bit into women’s health and down into maternal health, into Black maternal health, I’d like to move through this ladder of inference and the way we talked about funding and we talked about research down into funding. What I want to also talk about is the policy pieces itself and how we actually change that, which is how we distribute the money and how we look at underrepresented and under-resourced populations and why we do it that way. When we look at this funding and you hear it in the startup world, you know, Europe and the US, you’re going to have your ROI there. And I often talk about funding below the equator. Is how I, how I think about it. And it’s a little bit of a paradigm. Obviously, it’s not directly under the equator, but I think people understand what I’m saying about it. Some of the comments that we received when I actually moved into this space was because we were African American women, no one would invest in us. No one invests in African American women, and no one definitely invests in African American women health. So we looked at it as under-resourced, underrepresented, and of course they categorize us immediately as mission. And I think that when we look at it in that lens, when we look at research in that lens, when we look at funding in that lens, when we look at distribution in that lens, that is what is the crux of the issue of what is happening with us, right? And I think the design of looking at the African-American woman who can be wealthy and still be found in these places is some of the issues that those organizations have not looked at yet. Look, I was in pharma for 2.5 decades. Our household was at $500,000. If I lost that and lost COBRA, if I lost my job, lost my transportation, all of these other things, and then suddenly found myself in a federally qualified health system just so that I could get healthcare, pregnant, and then loss of life, you may not see that full trajectory of how that actually moves. And I think those nuances is what the United States actually misses when they distribute this money, because there’s no governance around weighting the population and how the actual healthcare is delivered. We just go right back into the medical textbook.
Tiffany: Fascinating. So tell me more then. So that’s perhaps African American women as a whole. What would be on your wishlist to change this?
Aoifinn Devitt: There definitely has to be policy change advocating for things like cell gene therapy. And we look at personalized medicine. I would hope that we would have some personalized social design that actually happens as well. We don’t need it person to person. Do we need it as group to group? That’s fine. Let’s stratify us in some kind of way that we at least feel whole. We’ve looked at healthcare reform in the United States. We looked at Obamacare. And yes, people got access. Was it really far away from home? I mean, I have a disabled father that I take care of. Yes, he had access, but I had to take him 55 minutes away for the services that he needed. Someone else may not have that opportunity to do so. So I think some of those policy access in a comprehensive way to match if we’re going into the future of personalized medicine has to happen at a social standpoint as well. And this is really about healthcare system reform and improving healthcare delivery. In addressing those systematic inequities that we have. And then as I mentioned before, you know, the onus is on us as well too. I mean, I say that sometimes in these spaces and women say, you know, we really don’t like that narrative. This is some things that are happening to us. And, you know, Consensus has taken the stance that it’s our responsibility too, but it’s our responsibility to educate and provide public awareness, which is why I do what I do, right? Why I’m passionate about what I do. So increasing awareness and education around things and maternal health issues is critically important. So when we see these startup companies that are doing that in multiple ways, in all of the parties that are doing healthcare service delivery, that is another degree of the design that we really have to look at when they are distributing money to people. It can’t go to just friends. It can’t go to just large systems that are part of the lobbyist group that look at it. I’ve looked at large amounts of money go to zip codes where We aren’t even there, and the number is not as disparaging as other places where they could be distributed. Has anyone looked at where there isn’t access down in the lower South, but they’re under the Bible Belt and birth control and all of those issues? So all of these things sort of lead up, you know, the debates were just last night and we were looking at somewhat of this discussion around Medicare, which I wish was flushed out a little bit more. Giving me really deep concern. But even those distribution channels need to have that sort of comprehensive look about how this money is used and how it’s distributed. And I think it’s important not to just distribute money for the sake of distributing money, which is— I don’t want to get too political, but for sort of tax curves or tax harbors in the space or sort of feel-good mission work. But we really have to get to healthcare and change our lens to do this for America.
Tiffany: And I think you make an excellent point. It’s almost like this needs to be a pincer motion in the sense that we cannot wait for policy change to get where it needs to get to. We cannot wait for equity in distribution or in recognition or in funding. There should be equity. I think we all know that. Whether we’ll see it in the next decade is another question. But what we can do is grassroots community movements. And one of the previous podcasts, Adonica Shaw, who spoke about My Wing Woman, again derived from her own experience. And I think that her own experience in receiving less than adequate healthcare led her to seek out a community whereby they could put language on their trauma, educate, heal, and build awareness and visibility. And that just came from grassroots. And it seems that it needs to be this kind of a pincer movement because unfortunately waiting for one side to get to where it needs to get to will not be adequate. So I have been, I think, humbled by what I’ve seen in the community of women who have suffered through negative healthcare events to rally and use this experience to do the better good in terms of ensuring that other women don’t have to go through this trauma.
Aoifinn Devitt: Yeah, I just wanted to just pull back a little bit to the point where you mentioned Wingwoman and Adonica Shaw. Since we’re talking a little bit about our global access and reach, I was one of the managing directors of the MedFemTech Congress. In Paris, France in May last year. And somewhat of the design that we did for this particular conference, which was important to Consensus at the time, was Voice of the Patient, which is where I met Adonica and I was able to interview her and to put these 6 women on the stage to really talk about what our healthcare experience is like. I can tell you that by the time these women finished with various experiences, I mean, all different cultural country differences, on this stage, there were physicians standing in front of us who had walked up to the stage because it was so powerful what these women had experienced in healthcare service delivery. And I think we need to talk about it more. Public awareness is not just about education and textbook and this happened in this far distant country or to this one person or this one athlete. This is something that is happening to all of us. That we are not being heard, right? So we’ve constantly talked about amplifying our voices, being brave about doing so. So I would just want to pull that caveat into what we mean by public awareness. And then I very much agree, United We Raise is very much grassroots. We realized that that was really the only way short of delivering babies at our home, right? But still really realize that should there be an emergency, we would go into that Western healthcare system. So where consensus at that juncture really sat on the spectrum of the maternal health space was really around data. 1 1 is always 2. I’m not gonna have these bipartisan arguments or nonpartisan arguments around what Democrats are saying versus what Republicans are saying. Are these numbers really real? Are they inflated? Was COVID real? All of these different types of things that happen in the healthcare space. That really stop and halt the conversation. And in Consensus, we’ve seen that because even in the sales cycle of United We Raise, a particular hospital that we were working with, just the 2 years past COVID, we lost a woman every month in that hospital system, every month. And then there’s another— I want to say there was another 6 or so that were really at high risk that were able to be saved. So these are real numbers that we are looking at, and we’re just really trying to— really, really trying to find the solution. There are instances where we are given information, just to pull back a little bit to the voice of the patient experience, where we can think we’re really educated, and a physician tells us something. And we had someone on the stage actually lose her children because where she read the medical paperwork She thought that she could just go to a clinic for some blood work the next day, and it was actually supposed to be translated as stat, like right now, go to the emergency room. So these mistakes that happen, how she could go a whole evening without that physician saying, we didn’t get a report from the emergency room, those types of things are just gaps and errors that are happening in the healthcare service delivery design. All of that to say of what I would like to see in the future, I don’t want postmortem reports from the maternal morbidity board that just sort of says, this is what happened, this is what our numbers look like, this is what we’ve seen. And then we do that again next year. We need some practical components where we are actually tying our investors to those outcomes that we saw and saying how we’re solving for them. And I think there’s significant opportunity. We can tell from this podcast lots of things that we can do just to pull us back to what is being defined as so complex. And in recent, I guess, months or so, probably about a year and a half or so, I’ve looked heavily more at policy and having some function down in DC because I can see great technologies that are coming to the forefront that are just not making it through because of the very lenses, the multiple lenses that we have talked about on this podcast.
Tiffany: Thank you so much, Tiffany. This series started 10 months ago with the tragic story of Tori Bowie, the Olympic sprinter who was found dead at her apartment at 8 months pregnant, having gone into premature labor. And my hashtag I used at that time was #RememberHerName. And I think you mentioned postmortems. I also don’t want to read any more about any more postmortems. I think we have to remember the names of the victims, that the cases, their case studies and their details, because it is only by remembering and these stories that we will be reminded of the triggers and not to have that happen again. So thank you so much for the work that you’re doing, both on your own, but also by supporting startups and founders who are committed to new technologies in that arena. And thank you for bringing together so many advocates of this important cause. Thank you for coming and sharing your insights with us.
Aoifinn Devitt: Yes, thank you so much for having me.
Tiffany: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces podcast with this particular focus on maternal mortality within the framework of medicine and science. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear from more experts in this field, please tune in to Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Ian Mc: Hello and welcome to The Long and Short of It, an occasional podcast where we bring you economic market and investment commentary with a bit of real life and good humor thrown in. I’m Ian McKnight, a senior advisor at Cartwrights, Giant Shoulders, Hinani, and CIO of Tontine Trust Fintech. And I’m joined by Aoifinn Devitt, absolute legend of the industry, senior investment advisor at Moneta and several pension schemes to boot, the host you’ll know of the 40 Faces and Markets Happy Hour podcast. Welcome, Aoifinn, and happy New Year.
Aoifinn Devitt: Happy New Year to you too, Ian. Great to chat with you here.
Ian Mc: It’s very exciting indeed. So there’s— I mean, where do we start, right? We, we want want to, we to give listeners to this podcast a bit bit of, a of our thoughts on the whole craziness that’s just been going on. And with so much material, we’ll have to be parsimonious in what we say, won’t we?
Aoifinn Devitt: Exactly. Well, it’s been a crazy Christmas period. I hope you had a good time. I was relaxing in France, but with an inundation of news flow, it seemed, uh, there was a lot to get through in terms of rethinking the new order of the world and politics, finances, economics. And there was barely time to make many New Year’s resolutions?
Ian Mc: Well, how about we have a little chew over some of the Christmas festive news flow, which frankly was just nonstop, and then have a little look forward to the next year or two and see what we think about that. So maybe if we start, I guess, with something we brought up in a chat we had on one of your podcasts before Christmas about the Venezuela situation and the impact on the oil markets. But also the knock-on of two precious metals, both of which have been big stories financially over the peak last week too. And.
Aoifinn Devitt: You have— you actually called this, I think, in our last discussion. Well, I was finishing out the year 2026, looking back, looking at this phenomenal resilience from the US economy. And I’d seen the term that 2025 was a defining year for metals. And that was something I was running with on Christmas Eve as I was preparing my kind of Christmas podcast. Didn’t do Christmas Day, but Christmas, the day after Christmas, Boxing Day. And then no sooner was I then looking at the notes to prepare my New Year’s Eve podcast, the defining year for metals had taken another turn because we’d seen some pretty sharp volatility in the silver market and an alteration of some of the margin requirements by the CME and very sharp falls in silver and some rumors circulating which have completely gone to bed at the moment. That one large financial institution had been caught with these rising margin requirements. So it was a specter of another kind of whale trade or something capturing a large too-big-to-fail bank in its wake. And again, the perils of leverage. So it was a real kind of blast from the past that particular week, I think, in terms of just what we were seeing in terms of silver. That was one theme. And then in terms of what else, the AI, geopolitics, I think we now know from Venezuelan news, geopolitics still does not really move markets. I think Venezuela as an oil producer, what is it, number 18, seriously dilapidated and under-capacity infrastructure, and as well as its impact on world GDP, no better than minuscule. So certainly it’s clouding our social media feeds and the headlines, but in terms of its impact on the economy, I at this point am guided towards thinking it’ll be very minimal in terms of its impact on markets.
Ian Mc: I think that’s a very good point. So we’ve seen this for the past few invasions, wars, and crises. The markets tend to just take them in their stride. And it’s a very modern phenomenon to not have a massive panic when things like this happen. What are your thoughts on why that might be?
Aoifinn Devitt: I do think that it’s really history has taught us that these geopolitical events tend to be flash in the pan as far as markets are concerned. There could also be the inability maybe to potentially extrapolate from a very large, almost abstract event into tangible kitchen table issues that drive stocks. That could be just a disconnect where we can’t process it. So we therefore don’t process it and we just focus on what we can process, which are backward-looking earnings statements. That could be one reason for that particular disconnect. It could be that markets are just so resilient today that they run on their own steam and they don’t need to take into account geopolitical events. But it is a great question as to why this is occurring. And it does seem you that, know, looking back over the last 18 months or even longer, That has seemed to be the mood that geopolitical events can dictate headlines. They can certainly hint at a shifting world order, but that shifting world order, even tariffs as they relate to the world order, do not tend to impact markets that much day to day.
Ian Mc: So you’ve touched on tariffs there, which is relevant to the US. What are your thoughts around that? I’ve got some thoughts on what might happen there.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, it’s interesting, the— you mentioned what maybe some of the heuristics that maybe come into place as to why geopolitics aren’t affecting markets. And one of the other, I think, trends and behavioral biases I’m seeing is a tendency to believe that causation is instant, maybe unilateral in terms of that, for example, interest rates being dropped will instantly lead to a flood of new credit and drive up inflation. Or the opposite, in effect, this more stringent monetary policy, more restrictive policy would lead to lower inflation. Equally, there was the expectation that tariffs would immediately lead to higher inflation, not taking into effect many of the intervening factors that can get in the way of a very strict causation. And I think we are also assuming perhaps as markets open today, we’re recording this on January 5th, Monday, that there will be an immediate effect on the oil price. From the Venezuelan affairs as well as perhaps a short trade around Canada. And these effects are not immediate. So I’m not sure whether this is again a cognitive bias that investors assume that causation is straight line, single cause, and also immediate. So I don’t think these things are immediate. I think that that’s one of the things that we do need to factor in.
Ian Mc: Because it always strikes me, so in the bond markets, for example, even when things are well heralded, they often wait until it’s actually happened before moving. Whereas I think what, what seems to happen now in other areas is lots of— there’s so much news constantly that, as you say, identifying genuine cause-effect, this is a nightmare for economics professors, right, when they’re teaching their classes what should happen and what does happen. And in the past, as we’ve seen, sometimes it’s the complete opposite. But it’s a muddied somewhere in the middle of theory versus actuality. And this cause and effect thing in, for example, the stock market, we’re looking at massive multiples, which we’ll come back to in a minute, I think, because that’s particularly interesting. And you’ve got a delay in realization of what’s actually going on. But fundamentally to me, and back to this commodities complex, Isn’t it all fundamentally cost of energy and raw materials that should be the inflationary factor? Because you’ve got the rate situation has just got a mind of its own now, and the central banks have different remits than they used to. And they’re also arguably pretty politicized. They’re not as independent as they might want to pretend.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s a great point. And I think, yes, our assumption that an easy monetary environment would drive inflation is usually based on these demand factors. And in effect, much of the inflation around COVID was supply-driven, supply-side driven. And certainly on the energy side, with oil being suppressed as it has been, or at least the price coming down and it’s still down about 20% on the year, on the full year trading in the 50s, that would be a conducive environment to having lower at least energy prices at the pump, at least as far as that kind of big sticker price of a gallon of gas that President Trump seems to focus on. Whereas we do know, though, that electricity is rising in price, particularly in the UK. We know that it’s taking an increasingly large share of that inflation budget, and that is something that’s causing a lot of sensitivity to communities in the US that are concerned about data centers essentially devouring their energy allocation and driving prices higher. As well as just the affordability point more generally. So I think that why— and I found a very interesting stat at the end of the year that the clean energy index was up over 40% over the course of 2025. And this is against a backdrop of, I think, incontrovertible headwinds from the Trump administration.
Ian Mc: Yeah, but isn’t this just a global phenomenon where governments are just hose piping money? This is basically a subsidized industry to a degree, and you are being political, so it’s all linked. This confluence of politics and economics. Because standalone, I can’t see that they’d have ever got off the ground, these offshore wind farms and so on.
Aoifinn Devitt: But I think it does illustrate this 40% rise, and there was an interesting article on Bloomberg that was shorting regular oil and long the clean energy index, and that would have generated 80% according to John Authers’ Hindsight Capital, which is of course a backward-looking artificial construct. But at the same time, I think this does illustrate that the demand for energy, and this gets back to your AI point, that is only heading in one direction. So if we can— Yeah, so this.
Ian Mc: Is great for it. Sorry to interrupt you, but it’s like the oil majors are probably quite interesting at the minute. And this whole Venezuela thing, which fundamentally, whether it’s caused by or it’s just a nice corollary of what they’ve done, is to keep the oil flowing in, this heavy oil they’ve got that’s nicely refined on the south coast of the US. Of course it is.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s— well, this is a very interesting time for oil majors. On the one hand, they seem to be getting the promise, a very vague promise, I’d say. It’s been difficult to— there is always this guardrail against whether we should take President Trump literally or seriously or both. And I think taking him literally with some of the statements around Venezuela would be a little misleading because some of them simply have been contradicted the next day or simply will be difficult to imagine. For example, running the country from the US. But what has been quite clear in the rhetoric has been this statement around reclaiming stolen oil or regaining rights to oil. I think that has been a narrative that has been front and center of the recent developments and a suggestion that the US and maybe even multinational oil majors would be involved in essentially reclaiming some of that oil and certainly getting a right to develop it. That, that is another point of cause and effect, though, And certainly in terms of timescale, because it’s by all accounts, this could be something that would be 10 years in the developing, this under-invested in oil infrastructure within Venezuela. And it would certainly not be a plain sailing situation given the fractious economic situation.
Ian Mc: But it’s a decent strategic shift, and not least with the Russia and China influence over there. And I heard there’s like Hezbollah presence and Cuba’s interference and you know, potentially Cuba. They’ve got their eye on them now as well. So, but Donald Trump to me always comes— he’s like a bloke in a pub, isn’t he, who’s had somebody tell him in probably reasonable detail what they’re doing, why, how he should present it, but what it really means. And he just blurts out things he shouldn’t blurt out. So, and it’s quite amusing. The first time I noticed this was when he talked about you know, injecting yourself with bleach or something people were accusing. But what somebody obviously briefed you saying, look, we’ve got like 50 different trials going on. One of them is effectively screening your blood, passing it through a sort of cleaner and putting it back. And it’s effectively like you’re sort of bleaching it out. But they’ll throw a throwaway card and he’s like said this. And then of course everybody, somebody died. I can’t remember doing silly things. But he almost just tells you some of his briefings without meaning to. And clearly I doubt very much whether they’d have wanted apart from the obvious oil rights that were being withheld, they had a legitimate grievance about that. They would have wanted front and center, as you say, the, oh, we’re just doing this for oil and money. And because actually, there’s about 5 different reasons that they would reasonably have wanted to do this: to stop the flow of cocaine into North America, to moot the influence of other large global players in their backyard. And any one of them is a more legitimate reason than we just want them, because it’s a nice corollary, nice to have, isn’t it, for America? They’ve loads of oil in America, right? You could frack, baby, frack. There’s a ton of it. They’re not wanting for it. It’s just a strategic play on the oil for them.
Aoifinn Devitt: There was an excellent ex-post over the weekend by a trader who posts a lot on commodities, and her theory was that oil was a narrative. Essentially that was convenient and easy to understand, but it was actually— that was basically a show. And that behind the scenes, it was that trifecta of, as you mentioned, the bad actors as far as the US geopolitical scene were concerned, trifecta of China, Iran, and Russia, all of whom had operational interests in Venezuela. This was again the Monroe Doctrine in full force and effect in terms of the the desire to strategically mute these actors in various ways or neutralize them by taking this presence and removing the kind of common factor of Venezuela from the equation. Certainly those actors did not step up in defense of Venezuela during the recent actions. And it’s been, I think, very little has been said. But I’d love to take up that theory of how you did the drunk in the pub. So shooting from the hip with the latest.
Ian Mc: Well, Donald Trump doesn’t drink, of course, so he’s just in a pub. But sure. No.
Aoifinn Devitt: But how do you treat that drunk in the pub? How does one— I no longer drink, so I’m often maybe the sober, you know, person at the table. But how do you tend to treat the drunk at the pub? You kind of go, you nod your head, you go, okay, okay, great. Yeah, sure. Right. And I think that maybe that is the attitude we need to take. I mean, it’s not just shooting from the hip about running Venezuela, there was another X post, as you said, I probably spent far too much time this weekend or this past week on X with the map of Greenland with an American flag interposed on top of that. And that was posted by Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller, who is by some accounts very close to the president. And this had then not only sparked some outrage online, but certainly well over 20 million views. The time I last looked, but it has now sparked responses from the administrative head of Greenland as well as the Danish Prime Minister.
Ian Mc: So it’s outrageous. I mean, they basically want to buy Greenland. That’s what’s going on here. It’s not for sale last time I checked, but I don’t doubt he’ll bid them at some point.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s— but I think what my point is really that these gestures, which maybe are— are they to be taken seriously? Are they provocative? Are they jokes? Are actually sparking quite serious responses. And I think this is— are we being trolled with some of this, this flooding of the zone? And but I think they’re all sparking interesting conversations. The winners, I believe, in 2026 of this increased rhetoric will be most likely defense stocks.
Ian Mc: Right. And the consultancy universe that goes around in Booz Allen, I forget who it is. Yeah. Mm, that’s fascinating. So back to the US and what’s driving that, because, you know, it’s been all the talk, and I know you’ve done a lot of work on AI, the Magnificent Seven, or MAG Seven. He’s even got abbreviated. It’s so cool to talk about. But I mean, I’m almost yearned off about it, but there’s still loads to go. And Tesla in particular, I think, is worth exploring, because what I want to get to on on the equity markets is, first of all, the jobs, which I go on about relentlessly, and there was updates yesterday we can talk about if you want or not. But the multiples that have been applied to different levels of growth, and are those multiples due for a correction? So notwithstanding the growth may or may not be coming, and it may or may not be supporting some of those stocks, are some of these, because of AI, going to even be there by your payback period? And this concept of terming out an investment, Would anybody rationally pay £100 for something giving them £3 a year if they didn’t think it was gonna make it to the end? It’s like a bad bond.
Aoifinn Devitt: Exactly. Well, great, great question. And I suppose we’ve been kind of wrestling with this valuation point all year. I think just getting back to the Magnificent Seven, even though they have led the conversation, not only because of their dominance and representing 40% of the S&P, as well as they’re dominating headlines, certainly capital expenditure and just the whole AI story. Their actual performance over the year was somewhat lackluster in some cases. And probably you mentioned Tesla and Tesla had a particularly volatile start to the year. It was of course tied to Elon Musk’s role in government and Doge and his, he was, that was perhaps most accentuated around the aftermath of Liberation Day. They’re just looking at a stock chart of Tesla, of Tesla here, and it didn’t really start to recover until September, October, and is just back to where it started the year, essentially. So not a particularly illustrious run, I’d say, for Tesla. What the stocks that really did stand out were Alphabet, and we know that they are stealing a march on Nvidia when it comes to their AI models, and Nvidia itself. But if you take out, um, Alphabet and Nvidia from the Mag 7 chart, we’ve had a fairly lackluster plodding along recovering of what they lost, but not a particularly strong, strong year in absolute terms. And then just getting back to valuations, I suppose the key problem for extrapolating around now is that we do have solid earnings just ongoing, exceeding expectations coming out of the US. We know they have fat margins that have been defended, and that’s really what differentiates the US from other countries around the world is just that sheer robustness. Earnings picture.
Ian Mc: It’s the world in a continent.
Aoifinn Devitt: Exactly. Yeah.
Ian Mc: And I think the jobs is fundamental to it all. If you start seeing those come off, you’re soft— not even a landing, is it? But you sort of soft playthrough of that, uh, doesn’t, doesn’t work. But whilst they hold up, that earnings robustness that you mentioned carries on. And so it’s quite curious to see what it will be. It’s not— we’ve assessed that it’s not a esoteric political war-based shock. What is it that would cause some correction in that? And how long does it take the market to realize they’re paying chronically over long-term rates for income?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yeah, well, we’ve got back to, we were talking about cognitive biases and how we’re extrapolating causation and short-term and long-term effects. And I think the other problem is this kind of average. I had a guest on my podcast who described the average as a lie. And we do tend to focus on averages. And when we look at the average, say, earnings growth, the S&P, that the average earnings growth is supposed to be at 15% and double digit for the third straight year in 2026. And the estimated earnings growth rate to be 15%, which is above the trading growth rate, 10-year average of 8%.
Ian Mc: Is that mean or median?
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, that’s the mean. And then if you break it down, the real estate companies are languishing with a 5% earnings growth. Whereas technology is, you know, closer to 30% earnings growth. So this average of 15% is quite distorted and not representing necessarily the, the entire picture.
Ian Mc: Very high growth coming from the big.
Aoifinn Devitt: Large-Cap growth, and particularly technology. And why? I mean, this is of course backward-looking. What we’re seeing, staggering growth numbers which probably cannot be extrapolated in a straight-line way into the future. And then the, similarly, um, the The CapEx requirements will be significant. That will certainly start to eat at away that.
Ian Mc: Well, that takes us back to a topic we’ve discussed before, which is barriers to entry issues and why it’s different this time kind of chats. So looking back to 2000 and you had myriad startups and non-revenue-producing internet companies, many of which disappeared entirely, many of which went on to be those big names today. However, in AI, the CapEx is so vast to keep up and enhance their offering. And you’ve also got this sea change of people, perhaps I think going from using Google to looking at their Grok or to whichever else they seem to have, ChatGPT and so on, and others are available. So, and this sort of war for being the new search engine, such that when you Google stuff now, the AI is the first answer, its own meta one. Comes up at you. And so there’s a sort of a behavioral adoption piece for those, for those big ones that are already spending. And because it’s concentrated in those 7, you don’t sort of have this, oh God, what if they’re overvalued, in the way things were overvalued back in ’00 that were just never gonna fly. What do you think about that? Yeah, is it different this time?
Aoifinn Devitt: Those classic words about the 400 Most dangerous words in the English language. I’d say a few things are different. Yes, these companies have solid balance sheets. They have, in case of Alphabet, but not the case of OpenAI actually, a very solid existing business that can subsidize the spending on CapEx needed for their AI buildout and can also, that it gives them, that they have the ability to issue debt. There’s always, they’re oversubscribed, these offerings. And there is, I’d say, a very solid capital formation picture there for, say, for Alphabet. But what’s different— what’s not different is the tendency for market participants to buy the dream, buy to drink the Kool-Aid, and to kind of overestimate the impact of certain— of the growth will continue on the same trajectory and underestimate the ability for customer behavior to reach saturation point. And you mentioned the switching between models. I do think that this switching is indicative of the exploratory and experimental stage, that there will be a choosing of a model that works for your needs. And your needs may not be the needs of a kind of a vibe coder that needs the fastest, most powerful model available to, say, somebody doing biotechnology research. You may need something very basic that has already been satisfied by the current model. So there will be, I believe, a discrimination by consumers in terms of what they need and what they don’t need. And this will be a reckoning for many of the, the AI companies because they will not, I believe, see the same growth that they’ve seen up to now.
Ian Mc: Well, I think that that’s almost inevitable because growth has to taper to something eventually once you saturate. But is it— I saw some narrative yesterday or this morning on a news feed about potentially the commoditization of that Mag-7 universe. What do you think about that?
Aoifinn Devitt: That would accord exactly with what I’ve been thinking in terms of, you know, have we reached saturation point? I’ve spoken about 2026 being the year of enough. A good friend of mine called Brian Portnoy, you would enjoy him. He’s not afraid to speak his mind. He has a company called Shaping Wealth and he speaks about the— or his book called Shaping Wealth and his company speaks a lot about the idea of what are we seeking to achieve in our retirement or is funded contentment. And that there’s that concept of enough, that we’re not always striving for more, that if you can actually be content with what we have, that is the goal. And being able to fund that, that that is enough of a goal.
Ian Mc: As a human being, I would agree with that. But as a society and a planet, we never ever have enough. Well, that’s Ferris Bueller’s wisdom. You can never go too far.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s an interesting topic. I mean, I think you were getting into the philosophical now, but I do believe on this enough point, we can at times say, call timeout perhaps on our future development. We’ve already, I’ve mentioned before, the pushback around data center buildouts and the price of energy. There will be timeout, I believe, on the consumers’ ready adoption of AI because they will have reached either saturation point. They won’t be, we’ve already seen this point with some of the AI videos and AI content and even the discussion that influencer roles when it comes to marketing, maybe reaching some saturation point. So these are fascinating pointers to, I think, to note is that how quickly do we change how we consume, who we listen to, creator economies getting a lot of attention today. Are big brands losing their way because they haven’t got that? So all of these enough, I think affordability mentioned at the very beginning, mentioned that the oil price, the price of gas at the pump for US drivers, has there been appointed— they’ve just elected a socialist, Democratic Socialist mayor in New York City on the platform of affordability.
Ian Mc: Who’S just put the tube fares, their subway fares, up to $3, I believe, having promised to accent to zero.
Aoifinn Devitt: There, there you go. Do as I do, not as I say, or listen to— watch what I do, not what I say. And this will be a fascinating thing to watch in terms of also just whether these There were some pictures of Mamdani, recently the mayor, going to rent-controlled buildings and looking at the state of them. Arguably, the reason they’re in this state is because with rent control, the owners have not been able to actually make the upgrades that would be required in any old building. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have rent control and perhaps state-of-the-art maintenance.
Ian Mc: The failure of socialism, a bit of a theme with Venezuela’s collapse and rent controls not working.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s, it’s been popular. It’s been— I mean, that’s one that certainly in the US I did not perhaps take fully into account, just the, the cultural backdrop to that push. And I first started to see it during the presidential election in when, you 2024, know, where we had Donald Trump and Kamala Harris running, and this Kamala or the assessment of the socialist, the communist undertones. And it came up during the Bernie Sanders candidacy 4 years previously. But certainly I did not appreciate that cultural backdrop against socialism.
Ian Mc: It’s a massive polarized society. It’s not just in the US to a degree here. You have, you have, and basically the angst is from, it is about the wealth gap. And it’s not really an earnings Gini coefficient wealth gap. It’s a wealth gap. And the problem is, to my eyes, I’ve discussed with you before, is governments just spending too much money, depreciating their currency, and making people hide out in assets that inflate. So the haves have more, and the have-nots literally can’t get there because they’re precluded. And as the need for more spending results in higher taxation, the likelihood of them escalating of that social scale diminishes further, amplifying the wealth effect, the wealth Gini coefficient. Until that’s fixed, you’ll just keep getting more and more angry people realizing that they’re the victim of this. Frankly, the governments just need to stop spending too much money telling you you just need more and more people to prop up what is effectively a Ponzi scheme. It is. And at some point as a planet, and this is very philosophical but actually real, there will be a maximum population on Earth. And at that point, you will not be able to grow any further, right? So working back from then, there has to be a reckoning before that point or at that point certainly. So why not get it out of the way and stop making everybody’s lives harder? You know, just stop spending too much. That would be my answer to this.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, this is why I love conversations with you because you never— there are so many rich layers to what you just said. And I think a couple of things. One is we’ve spoken before about the lack of influence of geopolitics on markets. Does the K-shaped economy and the wealth gap and the rise of inequality, does that have an impact on markets? I showed a slide recently in the Markets Happy Hour podcast, which showed that the top 10% of earners in the US are responsible for 50% of spending. So clearly the bottom 10% are not moving the needle when it comes to those earnings numbers that we mentioned before. Maybe they’re downsizing into the Dollar Store, Dollar General, and they’re not spending money at Chipotle because they can’t afford a $15 salad bowl or burrito bowl. And I’ve never been able to justify that personally. So, you know, I’ve always been surprised at the rise of that, that class of spending. But so if they’re not really moving spending, what is this going to mean? I think you and I both know that it drives populist politics. It can drive socialist politics. We’ve spoke about that. So that can then drive wealth flight, which we can see. There’s a lot of wealth, whether it’s exiting the UK or exiting New York and going to Miami. So there will be that. But does that really move the needle at the end of the day? It’s hard to tell. But I think what does, the incontrovertible common factor that is associated with positive outcomes for every member of society is economic growth. And I had this conversation down in Argentina in the summer. I was there in August before the— it was the affirmation of Javier Milei’s policies in September. So there was quite a bit of concern at that point that he would not get that congressional affirmation and that it could be sidetracked or waylaid. Whereas some of these cuts, as you mentioned, were critical in Venezuela, what he also successfully did was kind of a little mini Doge down there in terms of cutting out middlemen, stripping away some layers of bureaucracy. He was, of course, the original chainsaw man. It was to see that the adoption of that, despite the fact that there had been some austerity resulting from it, it was seen as the essential must-have before growth could take place.
Ian Mc: Yes. I mean, it’s a template, that’s the template, right? And until it gets followed by major Western countries, we’re just going to keep languishing like this, to my eye.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, growth is the answer, and that’s why I’m so committed to the UK growth, living here now.
Ian Mc: Because ours has been stagnant, stagnant for 20 years, really.
Aoifinn Devitt: Right. And I think some of that’s due to the, perhaps the ecosystem is not conducive to encouraging venture capital. Certainly there have been more listings happening elsewhere. We’ve had the many pension funds forced into fixed income instruments. Some of that has been a regulatory requirement in order to shore up funding ratios. Pension funds have exited, foreign investors have exited the market, stock markets, the British stock market, the FTSE has shrunk as a component of global markets. So all of these factors, but I don’t think it’s too late. I tend to be, I think fundamentally at heart, an optimist and believe that it’s not too late to kickstart growth in the UK. I think we’re on the right path with government policy and with some of the recognition of what needs to be done. And this goes back to one of your points about some of the green energy lobby. You mentioned getting a peak, reaching a point where we go ex-growth, we can’t, the population can’t grow anymore, it just reaches saturation point. If growth is sustainable, to use one of those buzzwords that were popular a few years ago along with DEI and ESG, Sustainable growth, that is part of it. And I do think that local investing in the UK is a form of sustainable growth because it’s— it may— you may be sacrificing some return at the margin, but you are creating communities, building places, investing in agriculture. You’re seeing biodiversity enhanced. You’re building new carbon-neutral buildings. So this is sustainable growth. I’m very optimistic about that.
Ian Mc: You have a conflation on the wealth thing because of the population aging. So it’s not just the growing population, the sort of sanguine growth generally, but you are— I think David Willets mentioned it years ago in his The Pinch book. Remember the Tory MP, Two Brains Willets, he was called. And he wrote on this and it was how the baby boomers, he said, have stolen our, you know, future and how they should give it back and all this. But effectively, we’re kind of at that point where baby boomers, bless them, are about to, you know, reach the end of their, their time here. And it’s going to pass whether it drops a generation or drops two generations. And you’ve seen all the talk about inheritance planning and, and the second— the government’s recognizing this, trying to lick their lips. How can we get that? How can we get it? That’s the wrong answer because that’s needed lower down the young people without jobs and without prospects and without the chance of buying a house, frankly. To take that away as well would be the final insult, as it were, of that generation that has enriched itself beyond any reasonable measure and leaves everybody else to pay for it because they’ve geared it all up, of course.. And I think that story is fundamental to understanding the spend and wealth inequalities, not just— and it’s all linked, of course— not just the fact you that, know, if you do a day’s labour, it doesn’t seem to move the needle on getting you wealthy, as it were, because it’s all stashed in these older demographics.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, you touched there on two topics that again, the last two that I just brought up, and maybe it’s a good place to just do kind of end my thoughts on the year. But two points you made is one, the baby boomers and how they had it so nobody ever had it so good as the baby boomers. They earned more than their parents. They had a nice trajectory, stable jobs, built nice retirements, and are now sitting around these wonderful houses that they own, and they’re doing better than their kids could ever hope to do. And but yet on the other hand, they are downsizing, baby boomers. They’re living longer perhaps than they thought they would, and they’re downsizing, and that’s actually opening up the real estate market for first-time home buyers who are, it’s granted, older than they would have been in the past. They’ve waited longer to own a home, but because they’re waiting, that, that, that perfect point will synchronize that as baby boomers are selling, they’ll be entering the market. And maybe if the new Fed chairman has his way, and we’ll be seeing lower rates in the in the US at that point. So the housing market isn’t quite the basket case or disaster as you might have thought. And in fact, the baby boomers do have to go somewhere and there is that kind of, that is there. But the second point, I think this is something I talked about again at the beginning of the year, is this new nihilism. And one of the other, as I said, far too many times on X rabbit holes over the Christmas period was this idea of, you know, that it was in the Wall Street Journal that we’ve ascended, that current generation has essentially given up on traditional wealth creation. They have seen it’s not possible. They’re out of the housing ladder and they are instead focusing on speculation and perhaps, you know, gambling, throwing it all on black and hoping that they’ll be the next unicorn founder. But that they— Well, you see this.
Ian Mc: Don’T you, with the Insta-ready generation that made fortunes from a few, you know, videos, whatever it is they do. And, um, but you might also see— I’ve mentioned this to you before— that with the dawn of AI, you could see people without much experience or savvy being able to use the AI to do something that actually sells. You know, ask the AI, what is it that will sell? How do I do it? Can you do it for me? And they sit there just talking. And ask the right question, you would have to be pretty bright, but you know, the barrier to entry might actually for many be quite lower in that new world. And there’s an interesting corollary point there on the meaning of brand in the next decade. Does that carry the same weight it does? Which takes us nicely back to Tesla, actually, because the cult following that it does have of investors who are Elon fans will will hang on his every word and read everything there is to say about it. But that story would be, okay, robotaxis, everyone’s going to want a robotaxi, they’re going to take over the world. Well, of course, yeah, Tesla robotaxi or the competition that will inevitably follow, which one wins and does it actually work and are they the winner? They’re big questions and that’s possibly why it’s lagged some of the others. But all the other things it has, like the robot thing, everyone’s going to have a robot. Well, will they? And if they do, are you going to be the one providing it? And I think that those two— and if they’re right, they’re going to make a fortune. If they’re not, you know, they’re going to have a bloody nose. So it’s a really interesting one to chat about because it ties all of this together. It’s sort of a little microcosm of the economy.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I think where our conversation started is where we, you know, I come back to that. You said I— the mistake that when you look at your social media feed, you have it on all, read all. You don’t look for tailored news because tailored news sends down rabbit you a hole of the echo chamber, the confirmation biases that we already know. And that is exactly what I think this nihilism article revealed, is it was profoundly depressing to think that all young people might think that way, to think that the rise of Polly Market and Kelshee and other betting vehicles and sports we betting, know, has increased dramatically. It’s a sign that people just have given enough. And usually, as you know, lottery ticket sales are higher in poorer neighborhoods because it’s that when you have nothing to lose, you know, that little bit of a gamble and so much to gain, and you think about those odds quite differently. And they essentially were saying that the current generation has nothing to lose. They are at this place of such degradation in terms of their financial outlook that they’re just, you know, gambling it all.
Ian Mc: So what we need, Aoife, is hope. We need hope for the generation and for us. So what, what, what’s getting you all excited and optimistic for the next year?
Aoifinn Devitt: Let’s start with that article. The backlash to that article was well, like, you know, my kids aren’t like that, or I don’t see that the only answer is betting on these you know, casinos, buying it, getting into the gambling platforms, that I actually see that things are a little different is perspective. The answer is hope, but the answer is also perspective. What am I hopeful? I think, as you mentioned, with AI, it can be empowering. I think these pushbacks around the ethical case for AI, the moral case, the social media ban in Australia, as well as the desire for AI to just slow down, the rise of awareness of the anxious generation, the effect of social media on our kids. We are not amoral as a society. And I think that is reassuring. There’s no necessary formula for the moral code that dictates how quickly we accept change to our existence. But there is a code. And if we were to hope that we bend towards it over time, that gives me hope. And again, just back to that growth phenomenon, I think when we— things have to get sometimes to rock bottom in terms of perspective and outlook before something gets done. And I do think with the UK in particular, you know, such— and probably the last budget was probably, I think, a rock bottom point. That was when we last spoke.
Ian Mc: It certainly was.
Aoifinn Devitt: I think since then it was seen as an anti-growth budget, and I think the, the calls, the catcalls were far and wide in terms of this has gone too far.
Ian Mc: Yeah, well, thank you for your thoughts, and, uh, and I guess we should wish everybody listening a very, very happy, fruitful, and successful 2026, and health most important commodity of all. And a bit like you, I’m off to get some snow while there still is some, and hopefully we’ll reconvene to chat over again and see how that January is playing out.
Aoifinn Devitt: Thank you, Ian, fantastic conversation. I really enjoyed it.
Ian Mc: Lovely to speak to you, and God bless. Thank you all. Bye.
Aoifinn Devitt: This Pride series in 2025 is kindly supported by Latimer Partners LLC. Our next guest is CEO of Oasis Domestic Abuse Service, and she came to my attention when she posted a poignant post on LinkedIn about Lesbian Visibility Week and her family life with her partner. Tune in to hear from her about her upbringing, why Lesbian Visibility Week remains so deeply personal, and why she is so optimistic about the evolving state of employers. I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to this 50 Faces focus series in which we are celebrating LGBTQ+ professionals in a special series for Pride Month 2025. I’m joined today by Clare Williams, who is CEO of Oasis Domestic Abuse Service, and she has spent most of her career in the charity sector. We got to know each other over LinkedIn when I responded to her popular LinkedIn post about Lesbian Visibility Week. In which she described her life with her partner and their 6 children and the changing climate and political backdrop. Welcome, Clara. Thanks for joining me today.
Claire Williams: Thanks ever so much. I’m really excited to be here, so thank you for inviting me.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, before we get to that LinkedIn post and the reaction you got, could you just talk us a little bit through your background? Where did you grow up and what were your early interests?
Claire Williams: Yeah, of course. So I know it’s probably a bit of a cliché for a lesbian to say this, but I grew up in a little seaside town of Whitstable which many lesbians will probably recognise from the very famous Sarah Waters novel, Tipping the Velvet. So yes, maybe I was kind of destined for a bit of drama and rebellion from the start. I grew up on a council estate at the time, and I always thought that my childhood was kind of great, really. I played lots of sports, I was absolutely obsessed with music, and I mean obsessed with music and movies. And I learned to play the guitar very badly. And spending time outside really with friends, socializing. And I was a very competitive young person, probably still am if I’m honest. And I, I just loved experiencing things. I’d give anything a go. But I guess now that I’m older and I have children of my own, all 6 of them, which you touched on. I think very differently, and my family often back then didn’t know where I was half the time. I had no mobile phone back then. I was out until stupid o’clock and only went home when I was hungry. So from a parenting perspective, I look at that and I think, God, is that okay? And actually, no, it isn’t. And I found myself in quite unsafe situations or places that just weren’t suitable for a child, and I just shouldn’t have been there, full stop. There must have been kind of poverty around me, but I didn’t always recognize it back then. But my eyes were very much open to things like people drinking a lot of alcohol and using other substances at a young age, and I was never really interested in trying any of those things. I wanted a job, I wanted a car, I had aspirations, but I would have been in a position where I could have easily used those things and I could have potentially gone down a very different path had I have done. And I suppose looking back, I used to hang around with a really large group of people. There were about 20 of us who all grew up together. But when I think back, very few of those people from that group had actually, like, turned out okay. They had positive futures, and several never even had the chance to begin one, if I’m honest. And what I didn’t appreciate until now is that even though I wasn’t taking part in that activity, people looking from the outside would have tarred me with the same brush and made those assumptions, which makes me realize that actually you can just— you can never judge a book by its cover. I was a child who kind of struggled to learn in a classroom environment. I never made a full week at school. I, I absolutely hated it. And when I left school, I was 16. I completed my GCSEs, but I didn’t get any decent grades. I got a B in art, and you know, what the hell was that going to get me? So all I wanted to do really was work, and I was never afraid of hard work. So I’m what you would kind of call a bit of a grafter. I’ve worked in factories, supermarkets, care homes. I’ve worked in a family-run sandwich bar. I do actually make a cracking BLT also. And then when I reached 23, I finally came out about my sexuality, and I, I wanted to change. I wanted more for my life. I wanted more for my son at that time. And I, I reached a bit of a crossroads when it came to my career and some of my life choices as well.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s a wonderful story, and I thank you for sharing that. And as you were describing it, I was thinking of your current work with Oasis and how much some of your lived experience must help with with the empathy and with understanding some of the situations your clients or the stakeholders you serve. And that is a remarkable story. And then you said it’s interesting also that focus on hard work and how that was a strand that came through your life. How did then the charity sector make itself known to you? Why was that somewhere you found you wanted to be working and add value in?
Claire Williams: Well, I’ve kind of watered this down a little bit because I found my way into the charity sector by complete and utter fluke. I was out one night with friends and I ended up talking to a wonderful woman about her job and her background and what she was doing, and she was telling me about how she worked with young people in a homeless hostel and was explaining how she taught them life skills to live independently. And the one thing that really struck me about her was her absolute passion for this job, and it really kind of got me excited. It got the hairs kind of stood up on the back of my neck and I didn’t even know that jobs like this existed, really. And I asked her to keep me in mind if anything came up and became available. Not for one minute did I expect that she would remember me after a few drinks in, if I’m honest. But she did remember me. And a few weeks later, she called me up and told me about this job that was available. And I was in absolute shock that she even remembered me. So it was a real opportunity for me to sort of grab it with both hands. So I applied for the job. I’ve got to be honest, I had absolutely no experience whatsoever of the charity sector, of homelessness, or anything like that. And I was very lucky that this amazing organisation gave me a chance. And like I said, I took it. So I started in this organisation, it was a homeless organisation, as an occasional worker. They just called me up as and when they needed help, like for short staff, and if they were short staffed with sickness or holidays. So I just took every shift that was offered to me, every opportunity to just learn every aspect of the role. And, and I was a bit like a sponge, I guess. I just absorbed everything that they could teach me. I also went back to education in the evenings to retake my GCSEs. I continued to study further education to develop sort of management leadership qualifications. And slowly but surely, I worked my way through frontline roles into management and leadership positions within this organisation. And, and I will be forever grateful for the knowledge and opportunities that they gave me.
Aoifinn Devitt: So can you tell us about the work you do at Oasis?
Claire Williams: Yeah, of course. So I’m now the CEO of Oasis Domestic Abuse Service. We are a charity who is dedicated to supporting individuals and families affected by domestic abuse. We have provided refuge and support services for over 30 years, and we have a wide range of different services including safe accommodation, dedicated helpline, outreach services, high-risk services, and specialist children and young people services as well. We support individuals of all genders and backgrounds, and our focus is very much trauma-informed, person-centered support that doesn’t just respond to kind of crisis but helps people to rebuild their lives. And I think what sets us apart is our infrastructure. We’ve got dedicated teams for safeguarding, quality, training, data, and a lot more, which helps us keep standards high and respond quickly when needs change. And we also work very closely with partners like the police, health, education, and social care to make sure that people get the wraparound support that they need.
Aoifinn Devitt: And just a quick question about the use of your services. If you were to kind of plot the, I suppose, the need for the services, the incidence of abuse, Is this something that’s fairly stable, or do you see it as growing currently?
Claire Williams: It’s awful, isn’t it? Because you don’t want a charity like ours to exist in the first place, but because domestic abuse is now— people are becoming very, very aware of what DA is, of course that does increase the referrals, that increases the need. And we saw significant increases over COVID, people becoming sort of locked behind closed doors with that perpetrator in very unsafe environments and situations. And so from that point, it’s just been a kind of steady growth of new referrals because the awareness of it is just out there and it’s far greater, and so it should be. But with that awareness, obviously the need far outweighs what is available to them, which is one of our biggest issues when it comes to funding.
Aoifinn Devitt: And before we move on to talk about LGBT inclusion, which is obviously the key focus of this podcast, I’m quite interested in some of the work you do in the charity sector because I think it’s the work with marginalized communities sometimes that kind of gives us— I’ve mentioned the word empathy before— because often, you know, it is about inclusion. Would you say that there is anything about whether the homeless population or the people you work with at Oasis that most of us misunderstand or don’t appreciate by not being in the sector, that what has being in the sector kind of taught you perhaps that we don’t know?
Claire Williams: You know, I’ve worked in homeless services for 18 years, and during that time I saw just how complex homelessness actually is. Many people in this situation are dealing with sort of co-occurring conditions, mental health issues, substance misuse, and often unresolved trauma. And often that trauma goes all the way back to childhood, including abuse or witnessing domestic abuse. And that’s why a joined-up, trauma-informed approach matters so much. So, something that really struck me was the number of young people I worked with who identified as LGBT+ at that one point as well. I managed a hostel for 9 young people, and at one moment in time, 7, 7 of those young people identified as LGBT+. Now, that’s not coincidence. It says a lot about rejection, discrimination, and trauma in families and communities that push young LGBT people back into homelessness. It’s something that we have to talk about. And that realisation gave me the evidence I needed to show that more support was urgently required for LGBT young people. And so I approached an amazing Commissioner and asked for her backing to pilot a dedicated support service for young people identifying as LGBT+. And I think, you know, she just took absolute pity on me and probably just wanted to shut me up. So she said yes to giving me this opportunity to run this pilot. And within a few weeks of running it, it was such a huge success in a very short space of time. The numbers of young people accessing the service spoke for themselves. And the commissioner could see just how much that service was needed and the outcomes from that. And now, thanks to that success, the service now operates across the whole county of Kent and Medway and has supported thousands of young people over the last few years.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s extraordinary, and it reminds me, we’ve had many guests on this podcast that have worked with other segments of the LGBT+ community, say the elder segment It’s interesting how the youth, the elders, there are ways to push in and ensure better inclusion at every level. But extraordinary work that you’ve done there. And I’d like to now move to the focus of how we got— we met each other on LinkedIn and the post you made. Can you just tell us a little bit about that post that you posted? Lesbian Visibility Week and that it comes around. I think I ever say to come around again and a little bit about your own story.
Speaker C: I started working in factories when I left school in 1996. I’d have been 16 years old. I already knew at that stage that I was gay. I knew from the age of 4 that I was definitely identified as a lesbian, but I didn’t feel comfortable coming out at that stage. It just wasn’t talked about, not in a professional sense or personally, and I wasn’t even out to my family, so coming out at work, that would have been impossible. And later on, I moved from that factory to another, which was an all-male factory. I was the only woman. All of the other women worked in the offices, and the two just didn’t mix. And, well, there I had to deal with constant— and when I say constant, I mean constant— sexual innuendos and inappropriate behavior, touching. And at that time, the guys only— they meant it in jest and jokingly, but God, you know, it was awful. It was awful. And I made a pretty strong stock, and I’ve got what I would class as a good sense of humour, but when I think back to those times, it was just too much. And also, if somebody else was in that situation, they were a bit more vulnerable, I dread to think how they would have coped. They wouldn’t have coped. They most definitely wouldn’t have, because it was such a tense and just inappropriate setting. And when you think back, I was 17. I was a kid. So You know, it just wasn’t okay. And had I come out in that kind of workplace, I mean, God, it would have just made me more of a target. So I definitely, definitely stayed quiet when I was there. And things have changed a lot since then. Now we’ve got proper policies, support systems, things like shared parental leave, we’ve got Pride networks. I mean, the list is endless, isn’t it? And not all providers of services or companies do those things well, but we are a lot further forward than what we ever have been before. We just hope that it doesn’t go back, but, you know, those kinds of things like Pride networks and parental leave, they just didn’t exist back then. And so it is a very different landscape, and that progress really does matter. We can’t lose that.
Aoifinn Devitt: Can you paint a picture for how well LGBT professionals were included at the beginning of your career? And how has this changed over the course of your career? Do you think we’ll still have work to do to create more inclusive environments, for example, and what kind of initiatives have you found work best?
Speaker C: But I guess for me, everything kind of shifted when I started working for myself in a family-run business, and all of a sudden I could just be myself. I could be open without fear. I was working with my sisters, they knew who I was, I was out to them at this time, and, and actually I could just be my true authentic self. I didn’t have to hide that part of myself, and that was a massive, huge relief for me. And so by the time I moved into the charity sector, I was already out. I was well ahead of this. And at that time, I was in a position where I could educate that setting, I could educate my colleagues, I could work with the clients around around their sexuality, and so therefore I was in a position to help shape their policies, shape their practices, making sure that they were inclusive. And I guess I kind of got them ahead of the game back then. That’s what I really love, and I really love this about the voluntary sector. There’s a real appetite to learn and improve, and that workplace, the people that you work with, they’re open. They listen, and they genuinely want to do better. And you’re not pushing against closed doors, which I imagine you could be in other companies, other areas. And that’s just, it’s not the case in all of those areas, and that’s really sad. That’s really sad, and there is more work to be done there. People need to be open to creating those environments where people can be themselves and be safe.
Aoifinn Devitt: And why is Lesbian Visibility Week particularly important?
Claire Williams: So, the Lesbian Visibility Week is quite important to me, actually, and it’s very personal. As a kid, I didn’t know a single lesbian, and yet from the age of about 4, I knew that I was a lesbian, or I knew that I was very different. And I remember thinking, God, why do all ladies have boyfriends and husbands? You know, I even looked at my own family setting and I looked at my sisters and my mum and I thought, well, why do they all have boyfriends? And husbands, you know. I don’t want a husband when I’m older. I would like a wife. But I also knew that it wasn’t something you would openly talk about because people just didn’t voice those things when I was a kid. And then at 12, I had a Saturday job, believe it or not, in a video shop. It was the best job in the world, watching videos all day and disturbing customers, especially when you’re obsessed with movies. And literally across the street lived a lesbian couple and that absolutely changed everything for me. I remember seeing them and thinking, oh wow, it’s real, it exists, I’m not the only one. And these women didn’t even know me, but their existence just gave me such hope and really changed the way that I thought. And I suppose that’s why visibility matters. I want to be someone else’s hope. Because just being your true authentic self can give someone else the courage to do the same. Recently, I was at a concert with my partner, and we were stood next to a very young lesbian couple who were there with our parents, who looked very, very cautious, barely looking at each other, no eye contact or anything like that. And a few songs in, they saw me and my partner being affectionate to one another, and then they quickly started to hold hands, and even saw that, you know, I even saw their parents kind of smile because they were pleased that that embrace had happened, that they had got that confidence. And I think that’s what it’s all about. But being visible also means about facing comments and assumptions, some of which still shocked me. I mean, I think back over the years of some of the situations that I’ve been in, I think, God, I went to the GPs when I was pregnant and My GP made a remark and said, you know, “Why are you a lesbian? Penis isn’t that bad, is it?” Or I’ve been told things like, “Well, we don’t get funding for you people,” when we were looking for advice around IVF. “No, we don’t get funding for you people.” Or I’ve been reassured by things like, “Oh, you’re just like a normal family,” as if that’s meant to be kind of comforting. I’m not the kind of person who gets easily offended, and I don’t think everyone who says these things means harm. Not all of it is all malicious, but it still needs to be challenged because if we don’t speak up, nothing changes. The progress we’ve seen has come from visibility, from Pride, from healthy challenge, and that challenge has to continue because equality isn’t a given. And we have to keep pushing forward with that. I always say this, my staff probably hate me saying it, but if we all kind of hide in the shadows, that’s where we’ll always stay. But if we stay visible, stay vocal, and stay proud, that’s how we make space for the next generation to thrive. And I see so many steps forward with that next generation already. It’s amazing. It’s just making sure that we don’t go backwards. Now?
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s funny because the last time I just specifically discussed Lesbian Visibility Week was actually 4 years ago, 2021, and I’m not sure how much has changed since then. There’s still obviously the week, there’s still a need for it. Maybe some of the pushback against other members of the LGBT community has been damaging to that visibility because it’s taken— maybe people are lying low and not presenting role models. I think one of the best ways of ensuring visibility is, A, doing what you’re doing and being on LinkedIn and doing this podcast, but also sometimes celebrities and high-profile people being more open, and that’s why we try to showcase them. But it is, I suppose, a pity that we still need a Lesbian Visibility Week when there isn’t a similar for gay men. But thank you for doing what you’re doing, and I do think that that role modeling is so critical. When it comes to— you mentioned some of these comments, and clearly we’re not where we need to be in terms of full acceptance and inclusion. How would you say in the professional world being a member of the LGBT community has affected you or hasn’t?
Claire Williams: So I guess every workplace is different and it’s shaped by different values. I don’t know, as an example, my partner works for a company with incredible benefits. They have something called communities of belonging, pride events, egg freezing. Their policies are, you know, incredible. And what they have available. Like, the list just goes on. I suppose smaller organisations, including, you know, my own charity as an example, we don’t always have the budgets for that kind of extra support to go the extra mile. So we have to think a lot more creatively instead around how we support our workforce and those accessing our services. That said, some organisations or companies They still don’t even have basic EDI policies in place. And that’s where I guess the real work begins. But inclusion, it isn’t just about policies, it’s about culture. People need to see it in action and who’s getting promoted, who’s being heard, who’s in the room. And I guess that’s when inclusion starts to become real. Personally, I can think of nothing worse than writing a policy just to tick a box. My teams are my absolute biggest asset, and that’s true of every organisation and company. So instead of treating people as, you know, a disposable diversity process, we should be striving for better practice, full stop, like just better practice. And changing culture is one of the hardest things to do, and that’s why It has to be a shared effort and a commitment. Policies and values have to be valued. They have to be lived and breathed by everyone. Workplaces need to be safe spaces where voices are captured and heard and also acted on. And we need to think about inclusion long before recruitment. You know, by the time someone joins your team and reads your values, reads your policies, is being inducted, you’ve already kind of missed a trick. People should know who you are, know what you stand for before they even apply. It’s about how you externally get that across as well and being visible.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love those ideas. That certainly culture is key. And now that we’re releasing this in June, uh, it’s Pride Month, what can allies across different workplaces do? What what are the little gestures that you think make a difference? Is it about the rainbow lanyard, the, the rainbow flag on your desk, going to a Pride parade, or just kind of a sign of allyship? Anything that you found has particularly made a difference to you or to your friends and colleagues?
Claire Williams: Well, do you know, I think it’s all of those things. I think people underestimate the power of wearing that badge, that flag. I’ll use an example. I worked with a young girl once who was housed in a homeless accommodation, and she came to my service and said that she was ultimately made homeless again because the people who ran that place were homophobic and caused her nothing but grief and bullying. And so she felt safer to be on the streets than in that accommodation, which is actually the accommodation that should keep you safe. And when she came to my project for an interview for housing, she said the first thing she picked up on was the fact that two members of the staff, including myself, was openly gay, and that as she walked through the front door, there were posters in celebration. And we asked the question about how somebody identified, and she said those tiny little things made her feel safe to the extent where she felt she could be her own authentic self. And I think that’s key, isn’t it? Nobody even realizes the difference a poster can make, but it’s all of those little gestures that make such a significant change.
Aoifinn Devitt: Couldn’t agree more. So thanks for the reminder, especially if people think, oh, I won’t bother this year, or everyone knows it always matters. So thanks for that reminder. I’d love to return to some personal reflections now. So we’ve talked a bit about your career and how you ended up in the charity sector. Were there any any particular highs or lows there so far that you can talk about?
Claire Williams: Gosh, yeah, there’s quite a few actually. I think one of the hardest parts of my early working life was dealing with sexual harassment and innuendos, that kind of stuff. I mean, when I think back to those days, I was just 17, still a kid really, working in an environment where inappropriate comments and unwanted sort of touching were brushed off as normal. And I guess I was kind of, I don’t wanna say the word lucky, but I look back and I guess I felt more lucky at that time that I was strong enough to kind of push through those times. But it makes me think about how someone more vulnerable might have coped. And, you know, we’re just working in different times and that kind of behavior should just never have been acceptable. And it still needs calling out today. And then on the other side, I guess the high points has been building a career in the charity sector from the ground up. So I left school without any GCSEs, and I’ve always been open about my sexuality, which hasn’t always been easy or straightforward, but I’ve worked at every level from from frontline roles to leadership. And I think by doing that, it’s kept me really grounded. And I know, like, the value of every role in a team. And I often say that if one cog breaks, the whole clock stops. And I’m proud. I’m proud of what I’ve achieved, not in spite of the challenges, but because of them, I guess. Every kind of tough experience has shaped how I lead, how I listen, how I support others, how I work with others. And I don’t always get it right. I mean, who does? But I do my absolute utmost to learn from everything that I do, and I reflect on all of my practices.
Aoifinn Devitt: And speaking of teams and every cog needing to work, have there been any people on your team— and not necessarily your work team, your life’s team— that have had a particular impression on new or been pivotal in your life?
Claire Williams: Yes, it’s a really difficult question because you have to try and think of these, you know, few handfuls of people that have kind of inspired me. And I suppose when I think of this question, I’ve worked with so many people, including in my personal life as well, who’ve inspired me. Each of them have their own kind of strengths, but I suppose what’s inspired me most is seeing people grow and being part of that as well, like watching someone evolve in front of you is an absolute privilege. I can use an example of one person I remember working with, was a young man that I, I worked with who had a background kind of similar to mine, I guess. He’d had a bit of a tough start in life, unsure of where he was going, what he was going to do, what he was good at. And at the time, we helped him get a job in a hotel kitchen and something kind of just clicked with him when he went to work in, in that kitchen. And from there, his life just took off. He took up every opportunity available to him through that work placement. They sent him to work in Michelin-star restaurants in Europe. He entered competition after competition after competition, and he won them all. He literally traveled the world entering these competitions. And fast forward 20 years, and he is now in a top role at a 5-star department store in London. And I just think that’s my inspiration, like kind of watching him thrive, knowing where he was at the beginning and seeing him now, that kind of reminds me why I do this work. And it, again, it keeps me grounded. And I think back to team members that I’ve worked with and I’ve seen them progress I’ve seen them develop, I’ve seen them go into leadership roles or start families, and I think just to be part of those individuals’ pathways and futures is just incredible.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, those are some wonderful shoutouts there, I think, and a reminder of just the sheer grit that is involved in making a life and, and that, that needs respect at every time. The last question is any words of wisdom or creed or motto you might have for us, or anything you would say to your younger self, that young 16-year-old leaving school, maybe steering clear of temptation and trouble?
Claire Williams: Yes. So I suppose, like, thinking about my background as well, I sadly lost one of my best friends at a very young age. I was 9, she was 11. And I also lost other friends along that journey in teenage years as well. And I suppose those experiences and those losses they kind of shaped how I live my life today, even though I didn’t really realize it at the time. But they taught me not to kind of take anything for granted, especially things like your health and your happiness. So I try to make the most of every opportunity that whenever we don’t have our 6 children, we go traveling quite a bit and go away for weekends. And I remind myself that age happens, doesn’t it? We see the gray hairs kind of covering your head or getting the dye on your hair, kind of reminds myself that age is a privilege and not everyone gets the chance to grow older. I live with that sense of gratitude every day. So I do get days where I struggle to drag my ass out of bed. Of course I do. But I’m also grateful to be getting up at the same time. And I kind of, if I could go back to my younger self, I would tell myself that everything would be okay. Stop worrying so much. Stop holding yourself back. When I was younger, and I suppose because of my sexuality, I really struggled. Like, struggled with my identity so much. I felt feminine inside, but I didn’t really know where I fitted, you know. I, I didn’t feel comfortable enough to wear dresses because I didn’t particularly walk that femininely. And if I did wear a dress, I felt stupid. I felt too masculine. I never felt comfortable in my own skin. Now that I’m older, quite frankly, I couldn’t give two hoots what I look like now. But it’s taken me years, years to be comfortable with who I am. And I wish, I wish I realized that sooner, that just being you is actually more than enough. And I would tell anybody exactly the same. Thing as well.
Aoifinn Devitt: I think that’s one of the well-kept secrets of getting older, is that growing into your own skin, that is actually a huge plus among the many negatives that there— that’s a huge plus. And I think it’s hard to convey that. Maybe it only comes with age. Well, thank you so much, Clare. We have yet to meet in person though, although I know we will.
Claire Williams: Your—
Aoifinn Devitt: the sheer energy that comes from your profile on LinkedIn, from the whole content on this podcast, it is because you are your authentic self to every, every last bone of your body, I feel. And, and that energy is incredibly empowering to those of us who listen to you because I think it encourages us to be our own selves as well. And thank you for coming here. I do not know how you have the capacity to not only have your 6 children but also be so caring about the people you work with and carry that through their trajectory. And not only the people you work with, but your community as a whole. Because that’s what your post was about and that’s why your concern for Lesbian Visibility Week is there and why you’re, you’re doing this. So thank you so much for coming here, for your advocacy, and for sharing your insights with us.
Claire Williams: Thank you very much, and thanks for your kind words. That means a lot.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to our 50 Faces Focus Series. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring professionals and their stories, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: This podcast is brought to you with the kind support of Harbourview Equity Partners. Harbourview Equity Partners is a global investment firm focused on opportunities in the entertainment and media space. Founded by Charisse Clocks-Horace, Harbourview is a long-term investor in content with an industrial platform built to protect, optimize, and enhance the legacy of premium IP. With a vision of becoming a true stakeholder in the global value of content, Harbourview believes creators deserve a seat at the table creatively and economically. Owning their narrative, and maximizing value for all. In celebration of our partnership with Harborview Equity Partners, we have chosen a separate piece of music for each podcast in Series 1. We hope you enjoy it.
Dede: One of those lessons I learned growing up in Nigeria was no matter how bad things are, it pays to be optimistic. It pays to be motivated to see the good in people, in things, no matter how bad things are. But one of the things I try to live by right now is I want to own companies that I’m proud to tell my children, yes, this is what I held. Well, when I have children, I’m proud to tell them, yes, I invested in this type of companies. And I mean, I know that’s quite personal, but it makes me really reflect on certain industries or certain business models or certain types of management teams when we’re picking them. There’s some that we look at, and then I ask myself that question. I’m like, oh, maybe I, I wouldn’t be proud to tell my children or the next generation that, yes, we invested in this company and we gave them our capital to keep growing their businesses.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces Podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the world of investment by focusing on its people. And their stories. I’m joined today by Dede Ayasan, who’s founder and CEO of Jenga Investment Partners, a firm that invests globally across growth, turnaround, and cyclical equity opportunities. Welcome, Dede. Thanks for joining me today.
Dede: Hi, Yifan. Thanks for having me on the podcast. I’m really delighted to be here.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I think we may have come across each other through some mutual friends on LinkedIn, but I’d love to have you talk through your career journey to date, starting right with where you grew up and what you studied.
Dede: Yeah. So I started joining Investment Partners 3 years ago, just when I was finishing university. But before then, I grew up in Nigeria. So my initial experience with investing started when I was 10. My parents introduced me to the world of investing. And you know, back then in Nigeria, you’ll mainly come across investing through the newspapers, and it was right before the sports section. So I’ll look at the newspaper and my dad told me to pick 3 stocks I picked Nestlé Nigeria, 7up, and First Bank Nigeria, and literally 5 years after, 2 of them had doubled and tripled in value, and then one had fallen by half. So that was literally my introduction to finance, and I decided to find out why some did well and why others didn’t do well. And then I learned what— how a cash flow statement worked, why the balance sheet was the same on the left and right side. And in university, I started Jenga Investment Partners, which was an investment club, then was an investment club, now a regulated fund. But the goal then was just to build a track record, but I got really hooked on investing and I decided to take it further into something, an actual regulated fund.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, that’s really interesting. Well, I have to unpack a little bit of that. So were your parents investors in their own careers? And I’m guessing at age 10, you weren’t discussing stocks with many of your other 10-year-old friends. It was probably pretty unusual back then.
Dede: So my parents weren’t full-time investors. I think what I learned about my dad was that anyone could invest. So he worked in the civil engineering industry, but he used to invest, and that was where he created, I guess, majority of his earnings from, from his investments in the stock market. So it taught me a principle that, you know, if you have the passion, then investing is for you. And I wasn’t discussing— I mean, I was speaking about— my friends were mainly talking about games when I was 10, but it was mainly with my parents, and that was something we bonded about, the stock market.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love that story. And then when it came to studying, where did you go to university and what subject did you study academically?
Dede: I studied at London School of Economics, so I did accounting and finance. And what happened, or how I started Jenga, was we had a project over the summer where we were meant to find out what the— well, the lease liability, which is one of these complex IFRS rules. In the library in the university, there’s like a Bloomberg terminal. They have 4 different Bloomberg terminals, but no one in the university ever uses them. And then one day I decided to just walk up and open one of them up and I played around on the Bloomberg terminal and I realized, you know, there was just so much you could learn about finance there. And it went from trying to understand what lease liabilities were to looking up the income statements of Apple and all these companies worldwide. And that was literally where the journey started from, or the serious journey started from.
Aoifinn Devitt: And let’s talk about your experience as a founder because there’s a big jump obviously from an investment club to a regulated investment fund and, I would imagine even though you’ve been investing since you were 10 and you’ve had some success stories, that it takes a bit of convincing when it comes to attracting outside capital. So can you talk us through how that journey has been?
Dede: Yeah, so initially my plan was to do 3 years in consulting and then 3 years in banking and then do 4 years in private equity and then start my own fund. That was my initial plan going into university. But along the way, I mean, the passion just kept growing and the curiosity for stocks kept growing. And at the same time, I met a lot of investors who had built successful firms coming out of university. I mean, one of them was Ken Griffin, who started at the age of 19 at Citadel. And for me, I mean, all those stories were quite inspiring, and I just tried to learn what they did and what they didn’t do so I didn’t repeat mistakes they made or do mistakes they didn’t make. And that was where it started from. And along the process, I met our current CEO and CCO along the journey. So I loved investing, but I really didn’t know anything in the operational side, and they introduced me into the operational side of launching a fund, you know, legal side, what you need to do in insurance, and we just worked together over the period. Luckily, we had a family office who wanted to support us very early on, so that gave me a bit of insurance— assurance rather. And that was where we started the journey. And then earlier this year, we applied for the FCA license, which was a very— well, was a hectic process, but it was quite rewarding because I got to really test out the business plan, and reflect on why exactly I was starting Jenga and the purpose behind Jenga. And yeah, that’s where we are today. So we’re currently a team of 3 people and looking forward to the future years growing Jenga.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s fascinating, and I’d love to hear what your purpose is and your niche, how you approach equity investing, what you think is your edge, maybe any preferred sectors, how you construct the portfolio, etc.
Dede: Yeah, so in terms of the purpose of Jenga, so I know In the US, there’s a popular game called Jenga, and when people think about the name Jenga Investment Partners, that’s what comes to their mind first. But Jenga actually means build in Swahili, and Swahili is the most spoken traditional language in Africa. And for me, it means two things. Of course it means build. And when I started Jenga, I was really asking myself, what exactly am I trying to do? And for me, it was build the capital and the wealth of people who invest in it. And I said, why don’t I just call it build another language? And, you know, the name Jenga came from there. By At the same time, Jenga is something that’s globally known, even though it’s come from, you know, the Swahili region in Kenya, and it’s globally known. And it kind of also reflects our strategy and what our journey is all about. Because I come from Nigeria, and there aren’t that many global investors worldwide known from Nigeria. But then here we are trying to pursue a journey in investing. And for me, I have that same reflection, trying to achieve something at a global scale, even though you’re from a smaller country. But going more into the investment strategy, so at Jenga, what we do is global equities. So we manage a global equities portfolio of concentrated companies, and we look for about 15 to 25 companies. And we’re looking for two things. So one, we’re looking for pretty much good businesses that are undervalued prices. And the other thing we’re looking for are companies that are transitioning from bad to good. And when we say good, that’s really four things. So one, good business economics, so they’re profitable, growing earnings. Second, we’re We’re looking for competitive advantages, which could be switching costs, network effects. There’s so many of them. And third, we’re looking for good management teams, people that we think can grow shareholder value over the long term. And the fourth is that they’re undervalued. The edge is more of a tricky part. I think one of the things I realized in investing is that, I mean, well, especially from the great investors is that their edges weren’t just one thing, it was a bunch of many small things that added up, becomes a big thing. So For example, I think one of our edges is our ability to control our emotions, especially when you think about where the world is and the amount of bad news flowing in. And also the euphoria that happened 2 years ago in the market is our ability to control emotions and think independently. That is one of the edges from the emotional side. Zig and Reynolds are zagging. And then from the behavioral side, or from the technical side, I think it’s, well, I would say it’s our passion. For understanding the world, understanding things, businesses, why people are growing in certain industries, why things are falling, and just having that passion to answer the really big questions and focus on the ideas that are underappreciated, undervalued, and unloved by, I guess, other market participants.
Aoifinn Devitt: And do you think that— let’s— where we are today, we’re towards the end of 2022, we’ve obviously had a volatile year. What excites you most now as you look at different sectors Maybe do you think there’s an area that’s underappreciated, overlooked?
Dede: So one of the things about my journey is I started investing in Nigeria, and I know the macro backdrop is quite tough, especially in the Western world right now. It’s unusual. But when growing up in Nigeria, interest rates averaged between 12 and 20%. Inflation averaged between 15 and 20% over the last decade since I started investing. And when I initially started investing in 2010, the market was then at 54,000. Now is around 47,000. So in the last 12 years, it literally dropped 20%. By the same time, there were quite a few companies that were able to grow threefold, fourfold, quintuple over that period. And I think that’s one of the most amazing things about investing in equities, is that no matter how bad or how severe the macro backdrop is, there’s always going to be some company out there. It might take you a very long time to find, but there’s always some company out there that’s— I wouldn’t use the term benefiting from the environment, but they’re building more advantages during that period. So right now, in terms of what we’re looking at, we found quite a few exciting things. I’ll try not— I wouldn’t name any specific companies, but in Asia, for example, I think what has happened is we’ve seen a tremendous amount of income growth and consumption growth and economic output growth. And you have lots of companies that are just benefiting from that. I mean, India, for example, announced they grew 6.3%. They said it’s slow to 6.3%, and if you’re in Europe, I mean, that’s amazing to be growing at 6%. So there of interesting companies benefiting from all that growth, not just in Asia but also in the UK. And if you look at Europe, I mean, there’s a bunch of French luxury brands, for example, that have diversified well, where they generate 40% of their revenue from Asia, and they’re just tapping into that growth in income spending. So that’s one exciting place. Another exciting area for us right now is what we call, I guess, indirect opportunities. An example is we have companies in, well, Poland, for example, where right now the economic growth rate or the economic outlook in Poland isn’t great, but these companies make their revenues in foreign currency like US dollars. So for example, video gaming companies, they have most of their players and users in the US, and the macro backdrop in Poland gets priced into their share price. But when you think about the fundamentals, they’re actually generating revenue from foreign. So that’s quite inconsistent with fundamentals. And for us as a long-term investor, that’s quite exciting for us. So we look at those type of areas, um, those indirect opportunities.
Aoifinn Devitt: Very interesting. And when it comes to investors’ perception, maybe not just of your fund in terms of its size, but just in terms of some of the areas and regions you invest in, do you think investors have the right picture of the risk involved?
Dede: I think risk in finance is very complex. So I mean, you have, well, I think one of the school of thoughts is that we can boil down risk to a certain number and then I give you the number and you can judge by how risky the fund is. I think it’s very, very complex and there’s a lot of hidden risk when you look at certain things. So for example, I mean, I was talking about China earlier and if you looked at some educational companies, they didn’t look risky when you looked at like the volatility or the beta,, but then you have a new policy where they want to reduce the price of tuition in China, and the companies are told to stop making profits and the stocks drop 80%, 90%. That’s hidden risk and that’s embedded risk. And it’s very difficult. I mean, if I could understand all the risk, I would be, you know, I’ll be having triple digit returns. But I mean, that’s the thing about investing. There’s this hidden risk that we just have to keep thinking about and exploring and also communicating with our investors. So one of the things we do at Jenga is that we have a Jenga Briefings where we write monthly on articles. We’ve also written a book earlier this year, and we just try to share what we are understanding about, you know, this hidden risk and these hidden opportunities. And we try our best to explain it in a very simple way where any client, whether retail or professional or pension fund, can understand and also have a good grasp of what we’re trying to portray there. So it’s very broad, it’s very difficult. Hopefully we do a good job in identifying those hidden risks.
Aoifinn Devitt: Really interesting. And you mentioned some of the giants of the investment world, like say Ken Griffin, that inspired you to set up on your own at a relatively early stage of your career. Would you say there were any mentors or key people throughout your journey so far that have really made an impression directly?
Dede: Oh, there’s so many of them. I mean, when I started Jenga, I had made a list of like 50 different mentors and they were all like— I mean, these weren’t people that I was necessarily speaking to. I call them e-mentors, just watching their YouTube videos and see how they do things. Not just in investing, but also in business and just watching them, you know, how they do things. And that was literally how I learned how to invest and I guess run a company. In terms of people or mentors who have had a significant impact on my life right now, I mean, first my parents, they’ve taught me how to be a good person, love your surrounding, love people. And I think these are very important lessons being a founder. Learning how to inspire people and learn from your colleagues and teammates. That’s been very important for me. So they’ve had a significant impact on my life. There’s also the legends like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, and also one of the executives you interviewed a while back, Angela Miller-Mays. She’s been quite inspiring in terms of what she’s done in, well, the pension world industry and diversity. But I think right now, in terms of who I guess, which of these mentors are really inspiring me today, There are two of them. One is Allan Gray and another one is Lawrence Sloot. So Allan Gray, he was a South African investor who built two wonderful investment companies. One was called Allan Gray. They compounded in the early 20s percent over 40, 50 years, and I think they’re the largest private investment manager in Africa. And the other fund he built was Orbis, and they were the best single best global fund in the ’90s. I mean, his track record was amazing, but I think what really inspires me about his story was that he came from a very unconventional background as an investor. I mean, he grew up in South Africa. He traveled to the US to learn the world of finance in Fidelity. And I mean, back then, this was in the 1950s and ’60s. I can imagine just going to a different environment or a different background being so daunting, but he succeeded in it and not just succeeded, but he gave back. I mean, if you look at the writings of Gray and Alan and the lessons he instilled in his team even after he died 3 years ago. It’s just been wonderful learning about his story. And the other person who inspires me, well, she’s the number one person in terms of inspiring me right now, Laura Sloat. She grew up blind. So she was blind, I think by the age of 6, 5, 6, very early in her life. She was a woman in the 1960s and she studied history. So a very non-traditional background. Very unconventional, very different from what you expected. And she struggled to find a job. No one really took a chance on her in the ’60s. And if you think about how Wall Street was then, you can imagine how chaotic and cutthroat it was. And no one took a chance on her. And she started her fund, I think in the early ’70s, in 1973. And she had an enviable track record compounding 15% plus per year over the last, I mean, over the 30-plus period she invested for. And what I really learned from her, what I try to instill in myself today, is being able to turn weaknesses into strengths. So for example, well, perceived weaknesses. So for example, I mean, people would interview her and they’ll be like, no, she’s blind, she’s not someone that we should hire. And she always said this thing during her interviews that her blindness was never an obstacle and she just turned it into a strength. So for example, it allowed her to let go of the distractions that people see and allowed her to just focus her listening on investing. So she’ll wake up very early in the morning, 3:00 AM, and listen to several news in the morning playing at the same time. I think it was about 320 words per minute, and she’ll just focus on investing and build a great track record. And for me, I mean, that’s just been inspiring. I don’t think it gets any more inspiring than her, and it’s just something I try to instill in myself. And today, I mean, I complain about certain things, you know, when you get rejected,. And what I try to do is I try to go back to her story, and then once I read it, I just shut up and I just keep going with the battles that I’m facing. And it’s, it’s very motivating for me having those two people, learned about them in a very early stage of my career.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s so interesting. I’ve never heard of either of them, but really inspiring stories, and thank you for sharing them here. How do you think being from Nigeria has influenced you? I think I’ve done a whole series focused on Nigerian voices. I’ve been very inspired by the energy, the resilience and just the speed at which some new businesses have been founded. And I suppose the really that, that sense of optimism. How do you think that bears on your work now in the global financial scene?
Dede: Yeah, I think Nigeria and certain emerging markets, I mean, especially areas where inflation is very high, Turkey is one of them. Well, Brazil was one of them as well. I think those nations really, they teach you very important lessons very early on. I think one of those lessons I learned growing up in Nigeria was no matter how no matter how bad things are, it pays to be optimistic. It pays to be motivated to see the good in people, in things, no matter how bad things are. And I mean, I was talking earlier about how Nigeria’s inflation was so high, but yet there were still opportunities in the public markets. And that’s really shaped my investment philosophy today. When people complain about interest rates going up from 0% to 5% and it’s like all doom and gloom, I mean, even though yes, we try to understand the facts, but at the same time we try to see the positives in things. And I mean, That was one of the things I learned about growing from Nigeria. And also I think Nigeria, even though the main language is English, it’s just so diverse culturally, lots of languages, lots of different cultures. And that’s just taught me, I think it’s taught me more about building a business and it’s taught me about diversity in general, that there’s just so much out there, so much to learn about people, so much to appreciate about different things. And it’s something I just try to remind myself about every day. Wherever I go.
Aoifinn Devitt: Really interesting. Would you say there’s any creed or motto that you live by that you let guide you? I know you’ve already touched on quite a few. Anything in particular?
Dede: Oh, my mottos change every day. But I’ll say right now, well, my current, I guess, motto right now is just reminding myself that life’s bigger than me. And I should appreciate the things around me. And it’s very important that well, especially building a company, that the journey we make is we put more things into life than we take. And I think that’s not just in entrepreneurship but just in life in general. And it reminds me every day that I should put back more than I take. So for example, in Jenga, one thing that I’ve been doing is that, well, we’ve been trying to mentor young people in investing. And even though they don’t work for Jenga, but just giving them an opportunity to like hear about what we are doing in investing— not investment advice, but just sitting and this is what we’re doing, this is how we’re looking at things, this is what we’re thinking. Many people don’t have that opportunity, and I would have loved to have the opportunity when I was growing up. And it’s just something I try to do 2 hours every week and speak to 5, 6 different people in university. It’s a motto I found to be quite rewarding, and I found it— and I would also encourage other managers to also live by it as well. But I mean, yeah, that’s, that’s the motto I’m currently living by.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s really interesting. I like that kind of idea of office hours, you know, 2 hours a week. It’s great. My last question is around this concept you mentioned about life being bigger than you, because you starting out a business now, you have a chance to maybe set the standard in terms of what you look at when it comes to a company. And some of those factors, this bigger than us factors right now are around the environment, sustainability, whether it’s aligning with our investors’ net zero targets, or just ensuring that a portfolio is sustainable. How do you approach that with your stock picking?
Dede: I found the topic of sustainability to be very difficult to come to a conclusion in terms of what we do. So I know right now a lot of funds screen out certain companies and they try to use metrics by publishers to guide the sustainability, but I found it to be very, very complex. I mean, for example, you have EV companies that have lower ratings than companies in the oil and gas sector, and it might be due to governance. And if I put that in a portfolio, what comes out is that— let’s say I have these certain EV companies on my portfolio— it comes out that I’m running a less sustainable portfolio than someone who’s investing in oil and gas. And when you think about it from a practical view, so in terms of the transition and what the impact the EV players are having in how we do transportation. It’s bigger than just what they’re emitting or their governance. So I found it very difficult to boil it down into just numbers, and it’s something I’m still thinking about. How exactly do we do it? Because if we’re going to do it, we have to do it very well. But one of the things I try to live by right now is I want to own companies that I’m proud to tell my children, yes, this is what I held. Well, when I have children, I’m proud to tell them, yes, I invested in this type of companies. And I mean, I know that’s quite personal, but it makes me really reflect on certain industries or certain business models or certain types of management teams when we’re picking them. There’s some that we look at and then I ask myself that question. I’m like, oh, maybe I, I wouldn’t be proud to tell my children or the next generation that yes, we invested in this company and we gave them our capital to keep growing their businesses. But I think hopefully in the next few months we arrive at a, I guess, a more practical scope in terms of how we, I guess, run sustainable portfolios for clients. I mean, it’s something I think about a lot, but I found it to be very tough to do just numbers.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, now thanks for being honest. It is a complex issue and I think we’re still figuring out how to approach it. So there’s a nice opportunity at the beginning of a fund to maybe address it from the outset, but unfortunately no more clarity there than otherwise. Well, thank you so much, Dede. I’ve really enjoyed this discussion. You, maybe you’ve been told this before, are definitely a natural storyteller. And the way you, you told us the stories of those inspiring investors has really, it piqued my interest in them. And your optimism and energy is really shining through, and I can’t wait to see what the future holds for you and for Jenga. So thanks for coming here and sharing what you’re building with us.
Dede: No, thank you so much for having me. Looking forward to also listening to the other podcasts you do. Last thing for me, I would encourage anyone who sees this to, I guess, listen to the other podcasts because there’s so many amazing people on here. And I mean, thanks for sharing, you know, the diversity in finance. It’s really glad to see.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, when an endorsement comes from someone of your generation, that’s the best kind of endorsement. So thank you. I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces podcast. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring investors and their personal journeys, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: People do need to feel safe, but I, I think that part of feeling safe is also building your own resilience. Building your own resilience means actually finding strength to be able to counter what you meet. So it’s irresponsible to shelter people from absolutely everything. I think that it is important in giving freedom of speech to enable people opportunities to counter and to listen well. And in fact, I think that’s something that should be essentially taught in schools, the dignity of responsible and respectful debate.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces Podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the world of investing and beyond. By focusing on its people and their stories. I’m joined today by Margaret Casely-Hayford CBE, who until recently was Chancellor of Coventry University, a role she held for 7 years. She’s had an extensive career, having been a partner at Dentons in legal practice for close to 20 years, and has held roles as NED of the NHS, as a special trustee at Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity, chair at Shakespeare’s Globe, and as a board member of Co-op, to name just a few. We featured her on the podcast in February 2021, where we discussed her role as a champion for diversity in the law, and are delighted to now welcome her back to discuss her candidacy for the Chancellorship at Oxford University.
Aoifinn Devitt: It is indeed the Chancellorship, yes, and thank you very much for inviting me.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: So in our earlier podcast, we discussed your fascinating career journey and your various career moves, as well as your move into board roles. You spent 7 years in the role of Chancellor at Coventry University. Looking back at those 7 years, what were some of your proudest achievements there?
Aoifinn Devitt: I think that actually you, you started in your introduction by talking about the turns in my career, and one of the really key steps that I took.
Speaker C: Was leaving private practice where I had.
Aoifinn Devitt: Been for 20 years and going into the John Lewis Partnership as a director. That was a turn that really made me focus on the importance of good governance, seeing how the that really can create an entity that is seen as.
Speaker C: Iconic and pivotal in its role and at the helm of, of an industry. And good governance has been something that I’ve been really fortunate in being able to participate in through many of the moves in my career. And joining Coventry was really wonderful because of being able to go into an area of academia that I hadn’t been in before. And it’s a strangely sort of hands-off sort of role in that you’re sort of totemic, you’re sort of ambassadorial, but you do have to make sure that you understand the industry really well so that you can champion it at the right levels. And say, for example, speaking on behalf of the university and its sector to central government, which I did at times, and making sure that it— you represent it For example, when talking to industry and seeking opportunities for links, whether that’s to help get work placements or to strengthen the pipeline of potential opportunity for students. And one of the things that I’ve been seen as is a sort of diversity representative, and I don’t mind that because it means that people who might think to themselves, I’m not sure whether that’s for me, whether it’s women who wouldn’t otherwise have thought about getting into academia at a late stage in their career, whether it’s people of color, or whether it’s people who really just hadn’t even thought about it, but just because I look different, it’s made them think, perhaps that’s for me. I’m happy to be that diversity representative, and I’ve done a number of talks in that respect and say widening perception of opportunity just by being there is actually helpful. And then one of the things that I did do, which was helped a lot by the university, was to set up a charity called the Gallery of Living History with Andy Serkis and Jonathan Cavendish, the actor and film producer. And that was during lockdown. It was a sort of response to the death of George Floyd, the murder of George Floyd. And we were thinking about how we got people to look at each other.
Aoifinn Devitt: With greater respect and dignity.
Speaker C: And we established it really to enable young people to think about their forebears and what their forebears did. And as part of the historic context in which we find ourselves, because history is so often written from the perspective of kings and generals, and we wanted to say everybody has a role and everybody’s forebears helped to build the city, the community.
Aoifinn Devitt: The country.
Speaker C: So we established the charity, and the charity actually has allowed children and students to work together to research unsung heroes. And it’s been great to see the student proctors find themselves in giving them an opportunity to use their skills in a practical way. And then through that, they’ve actually helped widen the pipeline by stretching out to.
Aoifinn Devitt: Schools, reaching out to schools where young.
Speaker C: People who might not otherwise have come through the portals of the university have come through to use the university’s workshops, understand how they can research better and create new stories of unsung heroes. So that’s been fantastic. I’ve also done numbers of talks in schools about opportunities and so on. Again, widening access has been a really, really key aspect of who I am and what I do and what I champion. And then also just making sure that the Vice Chancellor’s messages go out to as many people as I can possibly help them to go out to. I mean, he’s a fantastically, what should.
Aoifinn Devitt: I say, farsighted individual.
Speaker C: And so it’s been great working alongside somebody like him as well. So I’ve learned the most enormous amount, and I hope I’ve been useful to Coventry in 7 happy years.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: That’s wonderful. And access comes out very strongly from your achievements there. And I do remember during our discussion in 2021, It was obviously in the middle of COVID a particularly challenging time for all institutions of education. And you talk there a little bit about your vision for what the modern university would look like, the university of the future, and how it might fuse the online opportunities as well as in-person learning opportunities, and also a lot more cross-institutional learning and exchange. Very interesting. But I think we will come to that when we speak about your vision for Oxford University. And I’d love to now hear what’s at the forefront of the mind of any leader of a third-level institution today as you see it. What are some of the issues that you think are most pressing? And then we can talk about your vision for what these would mean at Oxford University.
Aoifinn Devitt: I think it’s quite helpful that Universities UK, which is the vice-chancellor’s organisation, has literally just published— I think it came out today— a blueprint for growth which focuses really strongly on the need to stabilise the revenue for universities. It’s been something like 12 years since the fees rose, but I know that people see that an increase in fees.
Speaker C: Is something that’s of great concern because they’re quite worried about what that will.
Aoifinn Devitt: Do to student intake numbers. Having said that, a freeze of that.
Speaker C: Length of time really just makes for unsustainable economic budgeting.
Aoifinn Devitt: And so I think that their call.
Speaker C: For some form of indexation is right. I do think, however, that what that does throw into relief is a need for the public to be given evidence.
Aoifinn Devitt: And just to understand the story. You know, why do we need to.
Speaker C: Support the universities in the way we do? What do we really get out of this? ‘Cause I think that there’s, there’s been quite a wealth of information about the fact that if you learn more, you earn more. Okay, fine, that’s great for the individual.
Aoifinn Devitt: But there are social benefits, cultural benefits. You know, there’s, there’s different sort of.
Speaker C: Asset and capital growth in different ways. There are health benefits, there are social benefits, and then of course there’s the wider economic benefit and the enormous soft power benefit. From our sector, which is hugely respected globally.
Aoifinn Devitt: And we, we really do need to.
Speaker C: Have a really strong evidence base so that we can point to the numbers that really underpin all of that, so people recognize what it is they’re getting for the investment. And to me, that’s a really critically important thing. And the sector generally needs to be singing that song and to be looking at the data hard. But a chancellor of a global icon like Oxford really has the opportunity to really champion that loudly. So to me, it’s a really brilliant opportunity to just grasp that responsibility to marry the growth of the sector and the change of its model to make it more modern with giving people greater data.
Aoifinn Devitt: And really just sort of, I think, treating the public with respect and saying, this is what we do, this is who we are, this is the data to prove it.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: Let’s get back to that iconic status you mentioned before, because Oxford is obviously quite an unusual university with its college and hall and the identity and the symbolism that goes with an institution of such grandeur and stature. Can you speak a little bit about how you would weave that into your role? And, and you are an alum yourself of Oxford, I understand?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yes, that’s right. I’m a Somervillian, so a proud graduate, and in fact an honorary fellow of Somerville. I have a huge love for the college and the university, and it did so much to give me confidence and to make me the person I am. So I’d be really happy to celebrate and advocate and champion the University. I mean, I think that there are a number of aspects to the question that you’ve just raised. One is that, first of all, the colleges and halls have their own individual identities, but they are part of this unified whole, which is the University. And it’s really important that the Chancellor listens to, understands, accepts, and recognizes those various elements because they’re critical to the legacy and the way the institution’s structured. But it’s also important that that iconic role doesn’t mire the university in its progress as a modern institution. And so in respecting the status and its excellent legacy, one’s also got to be prepared to push forward in terms of pushing boundaries, testing norms, and enabling innovation and research as an organization. And I think that’s one of the things that Oxford has done brilliantly over the years. And it’s, in fact, it’s no accident that government often leans on Oxford. And it was really just brilliantly symbolic that during COVID the key challenges to the virus itself were founded at Oxford University. And that comes from researchers that push boundaries the whole time. So actually, championing and promoting that is critical to the future. But one needs to make sure that we’re doing this in a global context because of course, first of all, there’s the partnering aspect with— because you can’t do this on your own. There’s a really important role to make sure that you’re nurturing partnerships with industry, nurturing partnerships with other countries and other institutions, other academic institutions. There’s also the fact that one needs to make sure that there’s a stream of sensible funding coming in. And all of that means that you’ve got to make people understand the relevance of the organisation, the relevance of the institution in a modern context. So that means really sort of listening to the scientists, the thinkers, the philosophers, to make sure that one really can articulate its relevance, because everything moves really quickly these days, and the really key thing is to be agile in your messaging, agile in your operation. And so I think that the chancellor needs really to make sure that they’re under the skin of everything. To not just understand, but to be able to understand it so well that they can articulate all of that and make sure they’re in the right place at the right time to get the messages over appropriately.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: I love that. I’m definitely getting the themes of transparency, communication, proactive communication coming from that, as well as that balance act that needs to be struck between a heritage and an iconic status and a reputation. And this gets to the research agenda, and I think a topic that’s often on many lips when it comes to the academic institutions of today is around academic freedom. So given that academic freedom is essential to allow this research to flourish, what is your position on that?
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, obviously a university is a place of learning and learning comes from listening. It comes from accepting challenge. It comes from being able to accommodate, assimilate other points and perspectives. And to deal with those in a rational fashion. So allowing free speech, allowing academic freedom clearly motivates and promotes that. And so to me, that’s really important. I think it’s also important for what I, I mentioned before, which is pushing boundaries and testing norms. It’s actually all too easy to accept a body of thinking and to operate within that. And one of the things I learned from being a law graduate, a jurisprudence graduate from Oxford, was that there are two types of There lawyers. Are the lawyers who apply the law, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You, you know, you do you, that’s great. And then there are the lawyers that challenge things and say it can’t stand still, this is not the way it was meant to be, or this might be the way that it is currently, but that progress suggests, or our morality has moved on, And it suggests that we should test this and go in a different direction. And one of the really abiding memories for me was sitting at the feet of Lady Hazel Fox, who was actually the stepdaughter of Lord Denning. And Denning was one of the greatest challengers of norms, testing the norms. And I just think that that sort of academic freedom, that sort of liberation is really critical for the progress of society. And sometimes it can be uncomfortable, you have to be prepared to stand your ground. Last week I spoke to a wonderful young man who was chaplain of one of the City of London churches, St. Catherine’s Cree, and he said that people in certain roles— he and I were talking about the chaplaincy in the city and, you know, how difficult it must be given how increasingly secular the city is becoming— and he said that there are times when you just have to stand or something like a tent pole and allow the canvas to fall in such a way that others can come within it. But your, the, the importance of your role is to stand for something. And I, I just thought that was a really lovely analogy. So if you stand for something, you allow others to come in, you allow them a safe place in which they can operate. Because you stand for something, they can actually question, they can actually test, but they can see what the parameters are, they can see what the certainties are, and in fact they can even test you, and you need to be able to respond in a helpful fashion to enable them to mature, to move forward. That’s what a university environment should be. It should be like the tent on the campus that people can come into.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: So the other freedom, and I know you’ve already touched on this, is around freedom of speech, and this comes as much from the student body as well as from the academic quarters. And equally, there is the concern around safety on campus and feeling safe and hate speech, etc. And we really had a few years of having much of this play out in a public arena. So how would you thread that needle?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yeah, it’s a really tough one, isn’t it? Because people do need to feel safe, but I think that part of feeling safe is also Building your own resilience. Building your own resilience means actually finding strength to be able to counter what you meet. So it’s irresponsible to shelter people from absolutely everything. I think that it is important in giving freedom of speech to enable people opportunities to counter and to listen well. And in fact, I think that’s something that should be essentially taught in schools the dignity of responsible and respectful debate. But I don’t think that that should go to the points of putting people in danger. And we’re very fortunate in this country.
Speaker C: We’Ve got a great legal structure in that respect.
Aoifinn Devitt: You’ve got the Equality Act of 2010, which essentially safeguards people to quite a wide extent. We’ve got the laws that prevent people from being put in danger of their lives. And, and I think that provided one ensures legal compliance, there’s an enormous amount of room to maneuver and to enable what I would say is the growth of resilience in listening, learning, and respectful debate. And as you know, it’s often been said, I might not agree with what you say, but I will go to the death to protect your right to say it. What I don’t have is the right to put somebody else’s life in danger. In order that you should say it.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: And just to tie this then, we’ve already spoken about diversity as a need that is in place in order to make institutions and society more sustainable. And clearly this resilience is is a, a real backbone of sustainability too. Can we just tie this together in, in just hearing maybe a few words on how sustainable you want the institution to be and what you would do around the resilience, not just to speech and speech that was not palatable perhaps, but also around environmental change?
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s such a good question because you were talking about sustainability. One of the really important things is to widen access so that you are not going to miss the next Einstein because they can’t get to university because they can’t survive because financially it’s too difficult for them. I mean, it’s really interesting to note that in, I think it was about 2022, there was a report that said that 1 in 4 of the young people at age of 18 in the Northeast can expect to go into higher education, whereas it’s around 50% in the Southeast. And if Einstein, and in fact, interestingly, Einstein’s wife was thought to be the actual writer of a lot of his papers, but of course, because of the way that women were treated at the time, she was sidelined. And so that says a lot. So if young Tina Einstein is sitting in the Northeast of England, she has a much lesser chance of going into higher education than she would if she was sitting in the Southeast. Well, that is completely ludicrous, and it’s, it’s bad not just for her but for the economic growth of the country as well as the prospects of excellence within the education establishment. So I really strongly advocate widening access, and in order to do that, it does mean that we need to think about how we create a more stable revenue stream for universities and the maintenance grants, whether it be through bursaries, grants, loans, accessibility for the students. So yeah, that sustainability question is a really, really big one. And as I say, it’s great that the Blueprint for Growth has been published asking all of these questions and really exhorting the sector to look at itself in a transformative way. And I mentioned the farsightedness of the Vice Chancellor of Coventry. These are points that he’s been making for quite some time. So I was actually really pleased to see them so deeply enshrined in the blueprint.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: Well, we have a lot to talk about clearly, and this may only end up being part 1 of this set of podcasts, but I’d love you to just, in order to wrap up, it’d be great if you could capture for us a creed or motto that you live by or any words of wisdom that capture the essence of your personality and your commitment to academic life?
Aoifinn Devitt: I think I probably said this when we spoke last time, that I’ve had a motto that I’ve lived by for some time: I can, I will, just watch me. And I think it’s something for many women and also ethnic minorities to think about, because we, we tend to be marginalized because of who we are. We therefore have to prove ourselves. And there’s— you walk into the room and you can feel the doubt.
Speaker C: You walk into the room and you.
Aoifinn Devitt: Can see people thinking, have you come to make the tea. And I do think it’s really important that we bear in mind the fact that we’ve got that slight burden to bear. I mean, it’s slightly, it’s gradually going. People have greater trust in our ability, but I’m happy to break ceilings to demonstrate what I can do and hopefully to allow others to let the light shine on others. And I was just thinking about the fact that it’s almost a millennium since Oxford was founded as a learning institution. And it’s never yet had a female chancellor. So that’s a, what is it, a 950-year glass ceiling, which I think apart from sort of the religious institutions is probably the world’s oldest glass ceiling. And it would be really fantastic to break through that and just go, “I can, I will, just watch me.”.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: And indeed, I will take away from this your lifelong commitment to taking a stand. To being a first, to having a principal position on almost every topic, and to seeing that through with commitment and grit. And thank you so much for coming here, Margaret, and having this conversation with us.
Aoifinn Devitt: Oh, thank you for asking me. It’s been a great pleasure. Thank you very much indeed.
Margaret Casely-Hayford: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces Podcast. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring investors and their personal journeys, Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for information only and should not be construed as investment or legal advice. All views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: Our next guest sits at the intersection of innovation and change at my alma mater, Trinity College Dublin. Hear from her about the innovative microcredentials designation that they have introduced, what the impact is, and what this means for the university learning of the future. I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces Podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the professional world by focusing on its people and their stories. I’m joined today by Professor Orla Sheehills, who’s the Vice Provost and Chief Academic Officer at Trinity College Dublin, as well as holding the position of Professor in Molecular Diagnostics. Prior to her appointment as Vice Provost in 2021, Orla served as the Director of Medical Ethics in the School of Medicine, was the founding director of the Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, and was Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences from 2019 to 2021. Most recently, Orla was elected as a member of the Scientific Council of the International Agency for Research on Cancer for 2024 to 2027. This is a cancer research agency of the World Health Organization that supports cancer prevention research. Welcome, Orla. Thanks for joining me today.
Orla: Thanks so much, Aoifinn, and it’s lovely to be here.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I’d love if you could talk a little bit about your background, your progress to this role ultimately, but, you know, a little bit about your path.
Orla: Okay. So when I left school, I suppose I had a bit of a dilemma. I loved science at school, I was also really interested in law, and so I wasn’t really sure which path to go. So I went the scientific way. I studied biomedical science, and from there was very lucky in the ’80s to get a job, an actual job, in Trinity College. So I worked initially in the Sir Patrick Dunne Research Laboratory, which is based up in St. James’s Hospital. So it’s unusual that it’s an academic lab but based within a clinical setting. And that gave me the foundation to then go on, do my PhD. I subsequently got an academic post, start to build up my own research group, and began teaching. And meanwhile, in the back of my mind, I always still had this niggle, what about law? So I took a figary and went back and did a master’s in medical law and ethics. And that was actually, I suppose, in one way unusual, but in another way really helpful because it allowed me to bring those two disciplines together. And so I developed more teaching modules in medicine and for some of our research science courses involving ethics in the context of biomedicine. And then from then I became the director of the Translational Research Institute. Again, it’s based up in St. James’s. It’s Trinity’s newest research institute. After that, I was elected to become the faculty dean. And then 3 years ago, I was asked to become the Vice Provost and Chief Academic Officer.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, fantastic. And we’re going to speak a lot about the education aspect of your focus right now and some of the changes you’re putting in place in Trinity, which I’m very excited about. But just a few questions on that background, because we do also have a medicine series and we dive into some themes in medicine. What exactly is translational medicine?
Orla: So translational medicine is that area of research that looks at questions that are patient-centered. So everything starts with the patient.. And they are questions that will ultimately assist a patient through their disease course. So whether that’s in identifying their disease earlier, in identifying markers that will triage those patients for more personalized therapies, or identify them for drugs that will more efficiently treat the disease that they have. And I was particularly focused on, on cancer research.
Aoifinn Devitt: And moving to your recently just started role there and the research for cancer at the IARC, what exactly is, would you say, the agenda there for the next 3 years? What excites you about some of the advances in cancer research?
Orla: So within the IARC itself, I mean, it’s a global organization in education and research and just developing knowledge in the context of global health generally, particularly then focusing on cancer, looking at things like the environment, the effect of the pollutants we breathe in, the foods that we ingest, how some of those can exacerbate cancers, looking at differences throughout the globe, different exposures, and how different types of cancers occur in different areas. And then also looking at the area that excites me particularly, which is in this precision or personalized medicine, using molecular diagnostics to understand how cancers progress and to try and think a couple of steps ahead of the changes that happen in a person’s tumour, so we can predict which drugs may be used at particular points in a disease path. Historically, we used to treat cancer with very toxic drugs, and you got a drug and that was the drug. And if it worked, good, and if it stopped working, that was unfortunate. Now we’ve a more sophisticated appreciation of how cancer evolves, and so we watch and we monitor the progress of a cancer through a patient’s disease course., and we can alter and tweak the drug depending on the genetic route or the genetic driver that’s pushing that disease in a particular way.
Aoifinn Devitt: And given the dramatic advances that we’ve seen in this area, and it has been quite recent, and I know that your current role also focuses within Trinity College on— there’s a funding aspect and the fundraising aspect to all of that. Just on the cancer side for now, what would you say is sort the of state of fundraising around cancer research relative to its history?
Orla: So I suppose it depends where you are globally. So in Ireland, we are seriously challenged to keep up and to keep relevant with our research because of the paucity of national funding available. We do quite well through Europe, but by the same time, when you look to the East and the amounts of money that are invested into biomedical research, we lag far, far behind. And even on the European landscape, the research budget has been cut dramatically. I suppose in recognition of some of the geopolitical events that have happened. But it’s very unfortunate that one of the first things to be cut always seems to be research.
Aoifinn Devitt: And that kind of brings me now to looking at third-level institutions and their role. From your position, your vantage point as Vice-Provost, what would you say is at the forefront of your mind as you look at the, the role of an educational institution like TCD and how it’s evolving?
Orla: So I think we are a very old university. So 1592, we’ve been around for a long time. And what struck me when I took up this role and, you know, the Provost first said to me, you know, what do you want to do? I had this sort of an existential moment where I looked and I thought, we haven’t really changed the way we teach throughout all of that time. We look at students in a very binary fashion. So they are either undergraduate students or they are postgraduate students. Or perhaps they are full-time students or they’re part-time students, but there’s very little flexibility in between. And I don’t think we’ve really evolved or matured in our way of delivering education to respond to the needs of society currently. And so that was the first thing I thought I’d like to change and have a look at.
Aoifinn Devitt: And how much of a role do you think COVID played in that? Be, I suppose, the swift, almost overnight acceptance of the online form of delivery. And I suppose the reach that that provided, but equally some of the limitations.
Orla: So I think it was a huge benefit, but there were challenges, as you say. So prior to that, online would always have been seen as the, the poor relation to in-person education. As you say, we were forced to pivot almost overnight to online delivery. Now, while that demonstrated and it accelerated the pace at which we could deliver online teaching, I think there is a big difference between an emergency online delivery of education and true sort of considered pedagogy in the way we deliver. So what it allowed us to do was pivot quickly and develop the technologies so that we could deliver online material. What we’ve been doing since is refining that so that the online experience is just as meaningful and in some ways perhaps more meaningful than in person. Now, there are benefits obviously still to both, but there is a place for good online teaching, and that’s where we’re getting to now.
Aoifinn Devitt: And I know in the professional workplace there’s a lot of focus on creating these collisions and these opportunities for people to collide together, I suppose, and their ideas to generate creativity and just generally build a better body of work. And I know in the interview with the Provost Linda Doyle, we talked a little bit about some of the cross-disciplinary initiatives in Trinity around Trinity East, these hubs of learning being created. What kind of a role will they play actually bringing people together physically in order to really look at cross-sectional as well as synergies?
Orla: Yeah, I think there’s huge benefit from that coexistence of different disciplines. I know myself, I said at the beginning, I started on a scientific route. I you then, know, incorporated some arts, humanities, social science elements and merged the two. And I think the world is richer for having a tight-knit intersection between varied disciplines. Even within the research institute I mentioned, we have wide-ranging modules, things like music and medicine. So it’s very important, I believe, to, you know, incorporate the arts into what would be traditionally scientific subjects and vice versa, because there’s so much you can learn from one another and push one another on. I think from looking at problems with a different lens or from a different perspective, we can often see more clearly through to a solution.
Aoifinn Devitt: And then on the topic of continuing education, because I think this is another factor we’ve spoken about, how quickly some fields are developing, technology, medicine itself, and the need for this lifelong learning commitment.
Orla: Yes.
Aoifinn Devitt: And in particular, I wanted to speak with you about the microcredentials initiative at Trinity. I think this is quite innovative and love to hear how that started, what the goal is and how it’s going, I suppose.
Orla: Yeah, so we’ve been doing quite a bit on microcredentials, on all forms of lifelong learning, really. Microcredentials are short accredited pockets of education that allow the learner to dip in or dip out of a particular topic. They offer lots of opportunities. So it could be for somebody who wants to see if their interest in a particular topic might be fulfilled. Equally, we are working with industry and enterprise partners to deliver educational modules to upskill staff within the workplace, and the government has provided funding as well for people to upskill and change the direction of their professional careers. So they have quite a wide remit, and there is a broad variety. In Trinity, we’re focusing in the initial stages. We got funding from the government to establish a suite of micro-credential courses, and we’re looking at 4 pillars really. We’re looking at environment and sustainability. We have microcreds on well-being and the care community, ICT, data science and engineering, and then people, leadership and culture. So 4 basic pillars, and we have suites of courses within each of those, and all of them have been developed in conjunction with enterprise, looking at the skills deficit here in Ireland and seeing how we might address some of those needs, working in partnership within industry and enterprise.
Aoifinn Devitt: And what’s the target audience? I think you mentioned some upskilling within existing roles, and I think the other perhaps binary way that we used to look at students was mature or not mature, whereas of course there is a spectrum across of age across which people would want to learn. So what’s your target audience?
Orla: So my target audience is everybody that we don’t currently educate. So that’s a little bit ambitious, but I suppose there are pockets of students that we are aiming for. I think the large group would be people either in a professional capacity, working in industry, in enterprise, or in the healthcare setting who need to or want to upscale in particular areas. So those pockets that will assist them in that further down the line, we want to have people who will look at microcredentials, collect them, and ultimately gather them and assemble them into a major award. At the moment, they are small, 5 or 10 ECTS modules. So ultimately, I— the ambition would be to be able to knit them together, as it were, into a substantive degree. And that might be from a single institution, multiple institutions in the same country, or multiple institutions across countries. And that would be the ultimate goal.
Aoifinn Devitt: And what response have you had so far? And where are you in this goal? I suppose in terms of, are we only at the beginning of your ambition?
Orla: At the beginning. So we’ve done a pilot, we’ve had about 6,500 learners. I think we’ve almost 3,000 applications this year. So we’re on a steep upward trajectory. We brought out our initial— our first offering was about 67 microcredentials. We’re expanding that all of the time and we’re part of an evolving movement within Ireland. There are all of the other institutions are developing their own suites of microcreds also. So there is a widening sort of universe of microcredentials available within Ireland. We have, as I say, targeted those specific 4 areas in the short term. We’re expanding that all of the time, but we’re building closely on our links with enterprise, trying to circle back to make sure that what we’re developing is relevant And that especially if we’re expecting a company to sponsor their staff to go on a course, it needs to be something that’s relevant for that particular company. So that part of the work is ongoing and evolving. But I’m also very keen that we would look at and try and, you know, through our access pathways, encourage students to come in. There are some scholarships available. There are other routes of entry into microcredentials. Traditionally in Trinity, we have a long history of our Trinity Access Programme where we try and help students who wouldn’t typically come to Trinity to come here and experience the student life that we have on offer and the education that we can give. But we don’t— and I don’t think anybody really in Ireland has looked beyond that. Those people who missed the opportunity when they left school and maybe for other reasons have gone out into their life, maybe now they have caring responsibilities, maybe they have work responsibilities, and it’s to try and encourage them in and entice them into third level education so that they can then explore and expand and develop themselves.
Aoifinn Devitt: And I suppose two questions really. One is how much has the advent of AI— and I know that the Provost is probably one of the most forward-thinking academic leaders I know in terms of her embrace of AI and her vision as to how it can be used— but obviously fast-forwarding that into the workplace and the kind of skills that will be needed to complement that, how much of that has influenced your development? And then I suppose a broader question around universities and careers in general. I think, you know, when in my day back in the ’90s, there wouldn’t have been a massive career university integration. It was the idea that there was a career office and then you moved on. Is that changing?
Orla: Yes. I mean, we actually have a growing careers office, which is a wonderful interface, and I see it just as that. It’s quite a bidirectional fluid interface. That allows engagement with enterprise partners, also allows them to voice back to academics what they need, because there’s no point in us, 400-year-old university, delivering the same things we’ve always done. We need to be relevant to society. We need to provide and create students who are alive to society’s needs and who can respond to them and deal with the problems that we, we currently face. And so it’s really important for me that we have that input back from enterprise and industry. Increasingly, we have adjunct staff who will come from industry sponsors or partners who will come and educate and teach on courses. And that brings a huge relevance, I think, to the material that’s being taught. And it’s really important for the industry and enterprise partners to feel that they can input and co-design. But it’s equally important for the students to know that what they’re learning is relevant, does have a career trajectory, and there is a career pathway that they can follow and they can see where they might lead or eventually end up.
Aoifinn Devitt: And I suppose when you look at subject matter that will perhaps be in focus going forward, and we’re getting close to the end of the conversation here, just in terms of gaps maybe that you think are really apparent in the educational arena, whether it be subject-wise and this flexibility, how do you think this will evolve? Say if you were to look back in 5 years’ time, where do you think you’ll be with this offering?
Orla: With microcredentials? Yes. So I think, yeah, I think they will evolve dramatically. But I really would hope within 5 years’ time is that we have sufficient agility and flexibility within our own infrastructure and systems so that we can efficiently stack microcredentials for students. That’s our limiting factor at the moment. Our computer systems are quite archaic. They haven’t been invested in in many years, and they need to be updated so that we can have that agility. At the moment, to give you an example, it takes some unfortunate person in our academic registry office the same length of time to upload a microcredential as it does an entire master’s program. So it’s a completely manual process, and something like that shouldn’t be happening in this day and age. And I would hope to God in 5 years’ time that that isn’t the case, that these things happen seamlessly. I would also hope that we can incorporate AI not just in our teaching, but also in our processes within the university so that we can streamline things that currently take so much time, manual time, manual labor, to free up those people to use their creative skills in much better and more productive ways.
Aoifinn Devitt: And my last question is a bit of a surprise question. I put it in, put on script, but it’s really this been the material that we’ve talked about that’s generated it. And it’s really around the marriage of the old and the new when it comes to theory and learning, because clearly medical ethics is probably as old a topic as medicine itself, but there will be modern-day influences in how we interpret that. And a book I’ve been reading, The Almanac of Naval Ravikant, speaks a lot about the older the idea, the more relevant the book. So essentially, if we’re talking about interpersonal relations or family, the 2,000-year-old book is, is just, is probably as relevant because it stood the test of time. How in a university do you get that blend of teaching the old, the old maxims that never change and have actually stood the test of time, with the demand for the new?
Orla: Okay, and I actually think, and I completely agree with you, that those old questions are the same questions. I mean, history keeps repeating itself. We keep walking ourselves into the same problems that we’ve hooked ourselves into in the past, and, and the answers don’t change. So I think the way of doing that is to demonstrate how a question which is as old as the ages itself is relevant, and you can superimpose a historical question into a current dilemma and work out, and you, you can then use history to see how has this been addressed in the past, where did it go wrong, where did we make progress, and how might we use that learning in order to inform what we’re going to do with today’s problems and crises.
Aoifinn Devitt: And I think translating the old, I suppose, the older arts Yes. Into modern-day application and leadership, you know, refers back to philosophy.
Orla: It absolutely does. For the med students, I used to do a particular lecture. I’m just thinking of it now. It’s society’s evolving attitudes to the body. And we went right back, you know, 2,000 years and cataloged exactly how things changed, how our thinking changes. The reason it’s relevant is because it speaks to the core of maybe stem cell research. But the same questions that are there that are relevant for stem cell research, you can follow them all the way back and look back at Michelangelo stealing bodies, dissecting cadavers in a completely illegal way, but without which we wouldn’t understand anatomy. So you can use utilitarian arguments for doing particular things, and you can see where things have gone too far. And I think students actually find that fascinating to see ‘Oh my God, this is so relevant to stem cell research.’ But God, that same question has been rehearsed over centuries.
Aoifinn Devitt: Hence why the rich repository of universities are so relevant.
Orla: Yeah, and that’s why we need comprehensive.
Aoifinn Devitt: Universities, and they need to be allowed to thrive. Well, Orla, thank you so much. I hope you will package that medical ethics content into a microcredential someday that we can access remotely and take away, because it seems absolutely fascinating. And thank you to you for the leadership you’re providing. It’s an astonishing example of just how well universities are evolving behind the scenes, and I couldn’t be more excited, as I said in my interview with Provost Linda Doyle, to be an alumna of this university and to see what, what’s going into place. So thank you for the innovation and clear joy in learning that you’re bringing to the role.
Orla: Thank you, Aoifinn, and thank you for being a wonderful alumna.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Davitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces podcast. You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast podcast This is for information only and should not be construed as investment or legal advice. All views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: Series 3 is kindly supported by Eagle Point Credit Management. Eagle Point Credit Management is a specialist investment manager principally focused on income-oriented credit investments in niche and inefficient markets. Founded by Thomas Majewski in partnership with Stone Point Capital in 2012, Eagle Point currently manages over $7.8 billion in AUM. Investment strategies pursued by the firm include collateralized loan obligations, CLOs, portfolio debt securities, and other opportunities across the credit universe. Currently, Eagle Point is the largest investor in CLO equity in the world and one of the largest non-bank lenders focused on providing financing solutions to credit funds. You can learn more about Eagle Point at eaglepointcredit.com. What are some of the unintended consequences of the bank crisis? Why is superintelligence sometimes overrated? And what are some of the trends we are overlooking today? Find out next. I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces Podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the world of investment by focusing on its people. And their stories. I’m joined today by Duncan MacInnes, who is an investment director at Ruffer LLP, where he has spent over a decade. He previously worked in wealth management. Welcome, Duncan. Thanks for joining me today.
Duncan MacInnes: Hi, Aoifinn, and thanks for having me.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, let’s start with your background and career journey. Can you talk about where you grew up, your early interests, and how ultimately you came to enter the world of finance and investing?
Duncan MacInnes: Yeah, so I’ll try and make my background as interesting as possible. I grew up in a place called Motherwell, which is just outside Glasgow, where I went to school and university. And that’s in Scotland, for those of you that don’t know. And in high school, I would say that I was a capable student, but somewhat lacking in motivation and direction. And really, for me, it was all about sports, friends, computer games, that sort of stuff. And only because it was quite a good school was I sort of handheld through to university. Otherwise, Lord knows where I’d have ended up.
Aoifinn Devitt: And when you mentioned sport, was there any particular sport that motivated you more than others? Anything that captivated you?
Duncan MacInnes: It was always rugby for me. I’m not sort of— I’m not built for ballet, so rugby worked quite well. And played that from the age of sort of 7 through to the end of university.
Aoifinn Devitt: Right. So we’ll come back to that maybe just to see in terms of lessons learned. And then when it came to choosing a discipline or a direction, How did that pan out?
Duncan MacInnes: My family are medical, lots and lots of doctors on my dad’s side, and the advice from them was to not be a doctor, and in fact, how about suing doctors? So I was steered towards law because I liked an argument and I was relatively verbose, as we’ll all find out. And so I ended up doing law at university, or reading law at university, but actually All that taught me was that I didn’t want to be a lawyer. I realized very, very early on in my legal degree that this was not for me, that it’s not like the law that you see on the TV. There’s only, only very few lawyers get to stand up in court and pontificate. So I really did not enjoy my degree. And the only thing that came, the only positive that came from it is my wife, who I met at university and we’re sort of still together as far as I’m aware.
Aoifinn Devitt: And then in terms of, I’m certainly one can pontificate in investment, I suppose that goes with the job. How did you then find yourself applying to investment roles? Did you find your legal skills enhanced your aptitude there?
Duncan MacInnes: A very, a very meandering journey. So I really, all I knew, like I said, is I didn’t want to be a lawyer. And then in the summer of second year after all of university, my dad died fairly suddenly from a sort of aggressive cancer and my mom. They were separated, long divorced at the time, emigrated to the UK in the same week. So it was a pretty traumatic week. And that sort of jarring experience, I think, forced me to grow up quite a bit and actually to take ownership of financial affairs to a degree that I hadn’t before then. But in terms of what came next, so I sort of survived the rest of university. And I ended up at the end of university being a sort of, you know, decent student with a decent degree from a decent university that was Glasgow University. So without a sort of burning vocation or actually any really useful work experience, which, know, you if you even brought that forward to today, it would be almost impossible to get a good graduate job in 2023 with that CV. But back in 2007, so we’re talking about then, It was still difficult. And so what I did was the only reasonable strategy was spray and pray. So I applied to everything you could imagine, from Unilever to Tesco to MI5 to the Big Four accountants, investment banks, legal firms. And I had a legal traineeship lined up actually when I got a job at Barclays. And I have to be honest, I was totally cynical about it because I didn’t know anything about what I wanted to do. I ditched the legal job and took the Barclays job because the money was a lot better. It really was as simple as that. But if we sort of go on a bit, the Barclays grad scheme back then was— it was just before the financial crisis, so you were still in the sort of heyday of big bank spending. So it was a very luxurious program where you rotated around different departments and different cities. So I worked in Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, and Singapore for 6, 7 months in each place. And it was only when I got to Singapore that I sort of fell in love with something, and that something was markets. It was a really interesting time to be working and learning about financial markets because the job began 2 weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust. And I think I moved to Singapore in Q1 2009, I think it was. So that was pretty much the exact market bottom. Post-financial crisis. So I had this formative experience of financial markets driving everything that was happening in the world, being the focus of everything and getting to be, although incredibly junior, right at the coalface of that. So this idea that in financial markets you could have a thought or an insight, and if that is proven correct, you get to make money from it. Was just so sort of exciting to me, and it sort of feels like the biggest and best game in the world played by, you know, lots of clever people. So all of a sudden, having gone from having no direction, I had this thing that I really, really enjoyed. And for me, it sort of became tunnel vision from that point.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s really interesting. A couple of points there I’m taking away. First of all, it’s good and instructive that one doesn’t need to have necessarily a storied university career full of medals and awards, because I think not everybody does. I mean, especially the graduates coming out today who may have had a sidetracked university experience. Equally, those graduate schemes are fantastic. I think they still offer amazing opportunities, especially those with global rotations. And I also spent time in Hong Kong in my early 20s, and I found that there’s something about Asia that makes it very immersive. Maybe it’s the very concentrated nature of those cities, the fact that, you know, you’re surrounded by skyscrapers, surrounded by markets, by retail investors sucking up every piece of information. It is the ultimate immersive game if you think of in it that— They’re.
Duncan MacInnes: Very long days as well. In Asia. I mean, that’s what I sort of remember, was that I would start at— I think I started at 7 AM, and people would take long lunches, but they would work until 6 or 7, and they would often go for dinner and then come back to the office. So I think it was maybe something to do with the fact that people have small apartments in Hong Kong and Singapore, but actually the office was maybe a more enjoyable environment to be in. So people worked really long hours, which, like you say, made it very immersive and collegiate.
Aoifinn Devitt: And you were in private wealth at this time, is that correct? Or did you— I, yeah.
Duncan MacInnes: So I was hired for Barclays Wealth, which was the private bank of Barclays. And the intention of that graduate program was that you would end up as a private banker. The rotation to Singapore was into equity research. And that was when I sort of realized that I wanted to be closer to the coalface of investment decision-making and investment research than the client side.
Aoifinn Devitt: And if we take it forward then into what’s on your mind today, so Ruffer is known to have a multi-strategy approach. It’s known to have a wide variety of investment views, some of them contrarian. As you look out, we’re recording this second quarter of ’23, what’s on your mind now? What’s at the, I suppose, the forefront of your mind as you look to markets? What’s obsessing you today?
Duncan MacInnes: So for those of the listeners that don’t know, very brief history of Ruffer. The business began in 1995 from sort of humble beginnings with a shared office with another firm. We’ve grown to $26 billion under management for a whole variety of clients, from private individuals through to sovereign wealth funds all over the globe. But for those, all those different client types, we’re doing one thing, and the one thing is trying to build an all-weather portfolio. So global multi-asset, totally unbenchmark, go anywhere, which, as you say, leads us occasionally to contrarian or interesting positions. And I think reputationally, we’re known as bear market operators. So we’ve done particularly well in the crises. So we made money in the dot-com crisis, we made money in the financial crisis, and we made money in the COVID crash, and then in 2022 where almost everything fell as well. So that’s really forged the reputation of the firm. But over the long term, we’ve actually, we’ve outperformed the stock market and we’ve done it with less risk and less volatility. But I think the biggest difference between us and conventional asset managers is that Most investors start from a position of return maximizing. How can I make the most money? And then maybe I’ll sprinkle some hedges around the outside of that to try and mitigate the downside. Our approach is almost completely the opposite. We have this sort of minimax regret, so minimize the probability of your maximum regret. How do we make sure we don’t lose money? And then once we’ve done that, how much is left to shoot for the stars? So Bearing all that in mind, how do we look at 2023? I think it’s been a pretty surprising first quarter of the year. So if you went back to December and said by the end of the first quarter, 3 of the top 30 US banks will have disappeared and Credit Suisse will have been silently assassinated over a weekend and merged with UBS, do you think stock markets and bond markets will be up or down? I think most people would’ve said that sounds like they’re going to be down quite a lot. And in fact, they’re actually pretty substantially up. So I think the big question, the live issue is whether or not this is a banking crisis. And if it is a banking crisis, to what extent it looks like 2008. And I think the headline is it doesn’t look like 2008. It’s not a global financial crisis. We don’t need to worry about Alastair Darling saying that the cash machines were going to run out of money. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be very worried about what’s happening here. So I think this is quite a— the acute phase of this crisis has probably passed, but the chronic phase could go on for quite a bit longer. And the problem at the center of this that we see is that central banks and governments have a very difficult choice at the moment because they have competing goals. On the one hand, they want to focus on financial stability. But they also have to manage monetary stability. And monetary stability effectively means inflation. And if you try and fix financial stability by posing the banks with money to make sure that they survive this, then that exacerbates the inflation problem. And if you continue to raise interest rates and withdraw liquidity from the system, which is what they’ve been trying to do for the last year or so, that will exacerbate the bank run. So how they square this circle is going to be the big issue for 2023. And the sort of the way that I try to describe it to people is that money is moving closer to the center of the financial system. So people are withdrawing money from the regional banks, the smaller banks, and they’re moving it to treasuries and money market funds or to JP Morgan and Citigroup where they know it will be safe. But the closer the money moves to the center, the less monetary energy or velocity it has. And that reduces the risk-taking capacity of the financial system as a whole. Now, every individual is acting rationally here. So even though I don’t think people have to worry about the safety of their deposits, the truth is, is that you can earn more in a money market fund than you can in the bank, and you don’t have to worry about it. So why wouldn’t you do it? But if everyone— it’s a sort of tragedy of the commons. If everyone acts like that, then it creates a really big problem. And it’s that reduced risk-taking capacity of the system and specifically It’s the smaller regional banks that do lending to the real economy. So small and medium businesses, commercial property, these sorts of things. And that we are seeing day by day as the data comes out is having a real squeeze at the moment. And that could be quite concerning and potentially will tip us into recession this year.
Aoifinn Devitt: Really interesting analysis. And I like your acute versus chronic analogy. Clearly, once born into a medical family, you will always have that with you, the medical analogies. Having been in a medical family myself. But I’d love to say, so that’s a very, a fairly big idea out there. And what one of my next questions was around anything that we’re overlooking or perhaps not fully appreciating in today’s markets. And Rothbard, as I mentioned, you know, was early perhaps into gold and into other kind of commodities at the time. So if we do the thought experiment of taking that centralization of, of money and the lower velocity to its logical conclusion, Where do we go from here? What are some of the scenarios? And maybe we talk a lot about things breaking and maybe this wasn’t the thing that broke, but could anything else break?
Duncan MacInnes: There’s this idea that when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, it tends to raise interest rates until something breaks. So there is now a question as to whether the thing that breaks, whether that was Silicon Valley Bank and Signature and Credit Suisse, it’s hard to say. So I like to think of these things you think back about the financial crisis and you think of it as an event, but it wasn’t really an event, it was a process. So over the course of 2 years, you had Northern Rock, then 6 months until Bear Stearns, then another 6 months until Lehman Brothers, and then another 6 months until the stock market bottomed in March 2009. So perhaps Credit Suisse is Bear Stearns, but I don’t think it’s Lehman Brothers, and I don’t think it’s the bottom. So I think there’s potentially more things to break But what I would say in terms of what people can do about investing is that none of this stuff is good news that I’m talking about, but actually it would be okay if it came with low asset prices. So there wasn’t much good news in March 2009, but it was still a phenomenal time to invest. Unfortunately, there’s lots to worry about at the moment out there. There’s the banking crisis, there’s the risk of recession, there’s the war rumbling on, there’s China making noises about invading Taiwan, there’s commodity and wage pressures, there’s taxes going up. But if asset prices were cheap, I think you could still find a way to get excited about things. But unfortunately, they’re not particularly. Risk premiums, which are sort of the additional return that you earn above cash for owning riskier assets, are pretty low on average. So provocatively, I’ve been saying to clients, why take risk if you don’t have to? So at the moment, you can earn 5% in US dollar cash, in a money market fund or a very short-dated Treasury bill. And if you look at the earnings yield on the S&P, the S&P 500, it’s also 5%. So the stock market is subject to all of those vicissitudes and uncertainties that I mentioned. Cash is subject to none of them apart from inflation. So really, I don’t think you’ve been compensated for taking much risk. Our view would be that later in the year, you probably get the reality of recession. You get the consequences of this liquidity being withdrawn from the system. And our base case would be that the stock market revisits the lows of, of last year. And that might be the buying opportunity because I think you will get ultimately a government response, sort of fiscal policy response to try and get the economy going again from recessionary lows. But we probably have to feel more pain between now and then.
Aoifinn Devitt: Really interesting. And just like the SVB woes could maybe be said to have been hiding in plain sight, I mean, it wasn’t any secret that interest rates have been rising and that they’ve been forced into buying so-called low-risk assets, which as we know from the UK, low-risk government bonds can be less low-risk than we think in these extreme events. Would you say there’s anything else kind of hiding in plain sight? Can we take hints from the stock market, the bond market? The bond market doesn’t seem to believe the Fed with this inverted yield curve. Equally on the equity market side, tech stocks have been doing very well despite a lot of bad news and negative utterings there. So what’s actually going on? And are we missing something large?
Duncan MacInnes: Yeah, I think so. I think that first point you made about low-risk assets is very important. So what we sort of all learned to focus on was counterparty risk. And so you buy government bonds, you have no counterparty risk, so it’s a low-risk asset. What everyone overlooked was duration risk, the sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Of course, very long-dated government bonds come with lots of duration, and the long-dated inflation-linked bonds, which are so important to the UK pension industry, fell 70% last year. They were down more than Bitcoin. These were revealed to be much riskier than people thought. Full disclosure, we held some and still do. I think the risk hiding in plain sight and is being discussed, but I think is still underappreciated, is that the entire institutional asset management industry— pension funds, charities, endowments, and so on— have increasingly been drawn to illiquid assets over the last decade or so. So private equity, venture capital, private credit have become the flavor of the month. And I think there is a reckoning coming for these assets. Now, that’s bad news for investor portfolios, The good news is that I think to go back to the phrase of acute versus chronic, that’s a chronic problem, not an acute one. The benefit of the opacity and illiquidity is that I think these losses will be realized over a very long time. But I have pretty high conviction that there will be losses and they will be realized. But what you won’t have is the sort of cataclysmic down 50% that you’ve seen in some of the profitless tech public companies. Instead, you’ll see a slow-motion bleed over quarters of down 5%, down 5%, down 5%. And then in 5 years’ time, 10 years’ time, we’ll look back and we’ll say the vintage of illiquid and private investments from 2019, ’20, and ’21 were pretty poor. They were bad investment decisions. But it will take a while for that to be born out.
Aoifinn Devitt: And another question I just want to ask you about while we’re on this fascinating topic, you know, philosophical topic in terms of what investors are focusing on. In tech, there’s that old adage that we overestimate in the short term, underestimate in the long term. And it seems with some of these big events, whether it be the energy transition, there’s a lot of concern now, I’m based in the US, around will the US dollar continue to be the reserve currency? These are sort of long-term perhaps changes that sometimes get brought forward into short-term concerns. Do you think there’s anything out there that we’re perhaps worrying too much about today, that it’s longer dated and it will play out later, and something that maybe that it is a large, big structural change that we need?
Duncan MacInnes: That’s a good question. I think two things. I think one you mentioned, de-dollarization does seem to be the topic du jour. So every meeting I’ve done in the last few weeks, that has come up. It definitely feels to have sort of caught the narrative zeitgeist. And there have been various announcements from foreign governments of trade between nations. I can’t remember who the specifics were, but India is buying oil from the Middle East and they’ve decided to denominate it in gold or in yuan rather than dollars. So I think the direction of travel, the desire for de-dollarization from Asian economies or economies that the West would deem bad actors is clear. That will happen over time, I think. But I think that’s something that’s currently somewhat overblown. So the reality is that the dollar is the only game in town when it comes to a global reserve currency. So much of global debt outstanding is in dollars. So if you want to prove your creditworthiness or if you want to deleverage, you need the dollars to do it. So I think that that is a trend that will be live for the next decade. But the idea that we’re all going to sort of switch to buying our oil in Bitcoin or gold or yuan tomorrow is probably not going to happen. And then maybe another trend that is exaggerated, and we’re very much talking our own book here, is the demise of fossil fuels. So the energy transition is an inevitability. There is a huge amount of political capital and desire from the population for us to transition, never mind the fact that it’s possibly a scientific imperative if we’d like to stay on the planet for more than a few more decades. We will need to transition the economy off fossil fuels. However, the reality is, is that that will probably go a lot slower than the hardcore ESG proponents would like it to, and that fossil fuel demand, oil demand globally is still growing. And that’s because emerging markets continue to grow, global GDP continues to grow, everyone wants an air conditioner, everyone wants a car, etc., etc. So We have pretty significant exposure to oil in our portfolios because we think that is underestimated. Because when you look at the pricing of the assets, it would suggest that oil’s going to sort of disappear from the global energy mix in the next 10 years. I think that’s probably fanciful.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I could talk all day. We could go all around the asset pie chart and it would be fascinating. Just to move a little bit more to maybe investor sentiment, you mentioned having a lot of meetings talking about de-dollarization. I’d just love to ask you more in terms of the different priorities right now in terms of, say, institutional investors and maybe the private wealth investor. Do they have different things on their mind right now?
Duncan MacInnes: No, I think broadly we’re all wrestling with that same sort of menu of challenges: war, inflation, recession, interest rates, narrow risk premiums. But as a generalization, I would say that the biggest distinction is that institutional investors focus upon benchmarking, relative returns, career risk, not being willing to stick their head above the parapet on certain issues. Individuals, private wealth, worry more about preservation of capital, protection against inflation, and being able to sleep well at night. So I think philosophically there are sort of differences there.
Aoifinn Devitt: And the question I always ask on this podcast, given it does have a particular focus on diversity, So having started in the industry perhaps at the early part of the 2000s, have you seen any change in terms of its diversity? What are your thoughts? Studying law tends to be a bit more of a 50/50 equation in university. Any thoughts on how the diversity of the industry is evolving?
Duncan MacInnes: I would probably make a distinction between Ruffer and the industry, although acknowledge that both have more to do. I think both are heading in the right direction. But there’s more to do. The industry has undoubtedly improved, I think, since 2008 when my career began in terms of diversity of social class, gender, ethnicity. But where the industry fails, I think, is diversity of thought. So there’s still a really strong emphasis on finance graduates, pass your exams, think a certain type of way, think like a CFA. Know, You I did the CFA. And I sort of feel like I’ve spent the 10 years since trying to unlearn most of it. So, you know, there’s a lot of pressure on thinking a particular way in the finance industry. Whereas to contrast with Ruffer, I think Ruffer has done very well in terms of gender equality. We had a female CEO, several females on our executive committee and board, lots of female partners. But I think we have more to do in terms of social class and diversity of ethnicity. But, you know, we’re trying there, like I said. Where I think we’re very good relative to the industry, as well as gender equality, is that cognitive diversity. So we reputationally, as you said at the start, we think very differently from the rest of the industry. As a firm, we’ve got lots of people who think about things in different ways that come from different academic disciplines. Fiona, that I work with in the Edinburgh office, I didn’t touch a calculator or a spreadsheet from the age of about 16 to 22. That’s quite rare in finance. So I think we do very well in that regard. And I’ve never quite been able to put this as eloquently as I would like, but investing in finance, it’s a little bit like a language. And different people within the industry speak different languages. You have people that speak in quantitative terms, you have people that speak in qualitative terms, you have the value investing tribe that speak their language and a growth investing tribe that speak their language. Or you have people like me that sort of speak in riddles or metaphors. And I think we have a pretty good mix within Ruffer of people that speak all those different languages and that sort of bring different perspectives.
Aoifinn Devitt: I like that, the idea of this multilingual organization, certainly, and different clients speak different languages as well.
Duncan MacInnes: And I think that’s the— as well as literal languages. Yes, we have clients that speak lots of literally different languages.
Aoifinn Devitt: Yeah. Let’s get back to some personal reflections now. So over the course of your career so far, clearly finance is a humbling place as well. Have there been any setbacks or challenges or investment calls that you got wrong that have had an impact on you?
Duncan MacInnes: Yeah, it is definitely humbling because it’s one of the few industries where you get a scorecard on a minute-by-minute basis from the market reminding you how wrong or right you are. And everything is so measured. One of the biggest challenges when I made the jump from Barclays to Ruffer, that was sort of making the jump from wealth management to institutional fund management. And that’s not an easy one to traverse. There’s a degree of snobbery, I would say, between the two, where institutional fund management views itself as superior to wealth management. And to be honest, I think that is slightly unjustified. There’s really talented people in both. But what I was finding was that my CV as a wealth manager wasn’t taken seriously as I was only 24, 25, whatever it was at the time, trying to make that move. And so in hindsight, I’m not sure if I’m sort of overlaying too much method to the madness in hindsight, but I think when I was trying to manufacture that move, in hindsight anyway, it feels like the plan was laying the groundwork, Passing the exams was of course necessary, but I wrote an investment blog to try and showcase my work, I suppose, showcase my thinking, show that I was willing to go above and beyond and market myself effectively to potential employers. And I think that the lesson from that was probably that basically people are willing to take a chance on you if they see passion or potential.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s so good. I had another guest who spoke about the problem of pigeonholing. And he was pigeonholed as a banker. He wanted to move into industry and strategy, and he was always thought of as just a service provider and a banker. And I had never heard of that. I’d heard of being pigeonholed as a lawyer, but pigeonholing is a problem. And equally, it demonstrates that, you know, the old adage of if you don’t have the job you want or you can’t find the job you want, invent it, or actually kind of just start doing it, which is in a way what blogging can be, just doing the work you want to do. So I like that approach. Have you had any particular key people, mentors or sponsors that have had an influence on you or even outside your career that have influenced you in life?
Duncan MacInnes: So I knew this question was coming, and it feels sort of almost arrogant to not have an answer. I wouldn’t say I was self-taught, but I would say that I didn’t really have any mentors early in my career because I was quite remote. I was based in Glasgow and Edinburgh for Barclays, so I was miles away from the city or Wall Street, where most of the people that I would have wanted to learn from were based. But I did have that formative experience of sort of being born into my career exactly as the financial crisis was kicking off. So what I did very simply was sort of try to learn from, either by meeting or just by reading their output, the people who navigated the financial crisis well. It felt like that was a pretty good test of competence. You know, if if you, you can survive the biggest financial crisis the Great Depression or thrive in it, then you probably were doing something right. So a lot of my learning came from books and investor letters and so on from people who did well there. So I did a huge amount of extracurricular reading in my 20s, learning about the sort of old-school macro hedge fund managers who were willing to have these contrarian or controversial opinions and express them in ways that made money. That was one of the reasons that I came to Ruffer. My Ruffer origin story is that one of my first-ever client meetings at Barclays, the client’s portfolio had quite a lot of red ink on it because of the time of the particular meeting. But one of the few holdings that was on a gain was the Ruffer Total Return Fund. And I said, “Well, what’s that?” So I went online, Googled it, found the fact sheets, and started reading Jonathan’s investment reviews. Kept reading them for another 3 or 4 years. And then when I had passed my exams and so on, applied for the job and actually was rejected and then tried again 6 months later. And that time there was a space and I snuck in.
Aoifinn Devitt: No, that’s great. And you’re not the only one to have not had a specific mentor. I think that’s quite common, more common than we think. And it’s actually quite possible to have a very successful career without one. I think that’s part of the point of that question, you know, to draw out how common it is. And last question— my I think, you.
Duncan MacInnes: Know, it’s if you are lucky enough to have one, then I think it sounds like a phenomenal advantage that you should really, really try and leverage. Or even having an uncle in the industry, all these sort of slightly old-fashioned things. If you have any of those advantages, then I think you should try and use them.
Aoifinn Devitt: My last question is around any advice or word of wisdom, creed or motto that you’ve picked up over the years through this extensive reading. And I will say we can put some, any recommendations in the show notes if you have any, but Anything you can leave us with there?
Duncan MacInnes: Well, recommendations. I always recommend— I get this question quite a lot, and I think my top 4 books that I always say are Superforecasting by Philip Tetlock, Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke, who’s a former poker player, The Most Important Thing by Howard Marks, who’s a famous distressed debt investor, and then one called The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel, which is just the most dense book of wisdom that you could ever imagine. He squeezed so much wisdom into about 250 pages that can be read in almost 1 or 2 sittings. So I think those 4 contain an awful lot of the information that you would want to know, which actually, I suppose, brings on to the creed or motto. Wouldn’t be an investment interview or discussion without a Warren Buffettism sneaking in somewhere. And I think his business partner, Charlie Munger, actually was the one that said, it’s remarkable how much long-term advantage people like Warren and I have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid instead of trying to be very intelligent. And I think there is a lot to that. The way that at Ruffer we sort of frame that is that if you look after the downside, if you minimize the losses, the upside sort of looks after itself. You own a portfolio of risk assets, you own equity in businesses, these things make money over time. The key is to avoid the big losses. And the other thing, the other Buffetism, which is maybe comfort to people like me who are capable but not exceptional students, is that investing is a game where the guy with the 100 IQ can beat the guy with 160 IQ as long as he’s in control of his emotional intelligence. So there are many, many lessons in finance of people who were exceptionally smart who ended up blowing themselves up like Long-Term Capital Management, the geniuses that sort of invented CDOs squared in 2006. Sometimes a PhD in rocket science is actually a disadvantage. So I think it’s trying to harness your emotional intelligence and make consistently not stupid decisions gets you a long way.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love that. So everything in moderation, even intelligence. Definitely a good way to look at it. Well, this has been a great discussion, Duncan. Thank you so much. It’s been sweeping. As I’ve said, any one of these rabbit holes, we, we kind of just sniffed at, we could easily have gone down and had a very podcast-length thorough discussion. It’s been a pleasure to speak with you here, and thank you for coming to share your insights with us.
Duncan MacInnes: Thanks for having me.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces podcast. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring investors on their personal journeys, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: Our next guest has pivoted from working in private practice to going in-house and then back again, where she is now a partner at Evershed Sutherland. Hear from her about her evolving practice from privacy into everything AI, how it is so important to understand the technology, and some of the words of wisdom she has gathered along the way. I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to this 50 Faces focus series. Which showcases the richness and diversity of inspiring people in the law. I’m joined today by Rachel Reed, who’s a partner and head of US Artificial Intelligence at Evershed Sutherland. She’s based in the Atlanta area. She started her career in law at the firm, then spent 18 years in a series of in-house roles before returning to the firm as a partner in May 2023. She’s a board director of Hop on a Cure, a nonprofit dedicated to finding a cure for ALS. Welcome, Rachel. Thanks for joining me today.
Rachel: Thank you for having me. It’s great to be here.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, you’ve certainly had an interesting background, but can you, before we get to joining Evershed Sutherland initially, can we talk about your background before that, such as where you were born, what you studied, and what your path to law was?
Rachel: Absolutely. So I was born in Gainesville, Florida, which makes me a diehard Florida Gator fan. Hope that doesn’t alienate the listeners right off the bat. I ended up staying home for college and attending the University of Florida for undergrad. I had a couple of majors. First, I was a journalism major and switched out of that when I realized I couldn’t spell without spellcheck, and then ended up doing poli sci, getting quite interested in the law, finished up at Florida and went to Harvard Law School, which was a dream come true. Beautiful campus, great professors, learned a ton there, but I also learned that I do not like cold weather, having come from Florida. So after finishing up at Harvard, my choices, I was looking at either coming back to South Florida or to the Atlanta area, really just an area that had a big corporate law practice that was warm and relatively close to home. My family is still all in Gainesville, Florida. So I interned at a couple of firms and applied and ended up at Sutherland, Asbill Brennan, which was one of the firms that had been founded in Atlanta and had kind of a nice Southern feel, but also a very exciting corporate practice, which is what attracted me to that firm.
Aoifinn Devitt: And how did you make your way to this particular field of law, or did that come after your time in in-house roles?
Rachel: It really evolved throughout law school. So one thing I realized I did not like was sort of the debating, the public arguing, the mock court type exercises that we did in law school. I also, you know, as a first year, you have to take a standard set of courses, and I just found myself drawn towards the more transactional ones. So civil procedure and sort of being held to these, candidly, sometimes archaic rules of the court and artificial deadlines and things of that nature just didn’t really interest me as much. And so this is going to sound weird, but things like antitrust and intellectual property law, and I took as a second-year mergers and acquisitions class, it was really just what interested me, what got me excited. And then as I went through law school, I definitely picked pictured myself more as a commercial or transactional lawyer, not getting dressed and going to court every day. And since this is sort of a diversity-based podcast, I will say this was back in, you know, I graduated law school in 2001, and this was back in the day where women had to wear pantyhose and had to wear skirts, especially in courts in the South. And so a lot of that just really didn’t suit my personality very well. I wanted to dress how I wanted to dress and speak how I wanted to speak. And it was just a little bit more permissive. There were still rules back then for women, but it was a little— gave me a little bit more freedom to be myself, to be in a transactional practice.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s interesting when corporate transactional practice is the relatively more liberal place to dress and behave, so that’s saying something. And then the transition you made from being in private practice to going in-house is a transition that many lawyers make. Can you talk us through what drove that in your case?
Rachel: Yes, and this was again, I mean, sitting where we are now in 2024 and looking back, it doesn’t feel like it was that long ago, but it really was. And it was a decision that a lot of mid-level women associates made at the time they were either getting married or thinking about having children, and it was really just the demands both of the job but of being in the office, which is also very interesting how that has evolved not just over time but post-COVID. But the demands were such that you really couldn’t even envision yourself being able to do that while at the same time raising a family or building a family. So I actually got a cold call from a headhunter about an open position. I was not looking for jobs. It sounded interesting, so I decided to explore it and go for the interview, and it seemed like a great opportunity. I had just gotten engaged, so I was at that phase. I was going to get married, and you could make a good living in-house, presumably with a much better work-life balance. I can tell you I learned a lot about that over the 17, 18 years, and it’s not always a great work-life balance in-house either, but at the time it felt like the right decision. I’ve made a few career moves, not career moves, but job changes over time, and I’ve always just sort of trusted my gut. And so that, that one was telling me it was the right job and I should take it, so I did. It worked out great. It also led me to my you next, know, role after that, and then eventually back to the firm.
Aoifinn Devitt: So pretty interesting. Anything that you didn’t anticipate in terms of the cultural change, maybe a change of pace? Having one client instead of many, not having access maybe to a huge layer of senior legal talent, which you would have in a law firm and maybe you don’t have in an in-house. And what were some of the things you missed maybe and observed maybe that were less expected for you?
Rachel: Yes, well, the support is definitely the hardest part of the transition, I think, from law firm to in-house. And not legal support, right? Secretarial support, IT support. You sort of get pampered in a law firm because you’re the profit center. Right? And once you go in-house, suddenly you’re a cost, an expense, and everything that comes with what you do is an expense to the company who is focused, right, on its profit centers, which are in the business. So that’s definitely an adjustment. What I liked a lot was having more responsibility and more autonomy, as well as a broader breadth of responsibilities. I think especially as a younger associate in a law firm. We do, and I think this is true a lot in the transactional practices as opposed to litigation, we sort of put people by level into pretty narrow predefined roles. So if you’re on an M&A deal, you’re in charge of due diligence or disclosure schedules, right? We don’t give them sort of the breadth of experiences and types of work that you get when you’re part of a small in-house team and you only have 8 people, right, to support a multi-billion dollar company, and you have to take on additional roles. So my first in-house job was with a healthcare IT company. I was hired primarily to support a particular sales organization in a region of the country. So we sold healthcare software and technology products, but before long there’d be another need, right? Like, oh, the business is building a new outsourcing business and they need counsel. So you would take on those other things. And then there are just sort of the side projects, you know, legal has to be involved, but it doesn’t fit neatly in anyone’s space. So there are a lot of opportunities to learn different things, to do different things, and to take on more responsibility. And candidly, as a young associate, that’s not always within your control.
Aoifinn Devitt: What drove the journey back then into private practice after 18 years? That perhaps is less typical of a move.
Rachel: Yes. Although as I go through this journey, I am finding more and more people who are what we call boomerangs, have left the law firm and then came back. So to the earlier, I sort of alluded to in-house is not always a great work-life balance. I had progressed with the company I was at over the course of almost 15 years. I had taken on a huge scope of responsibility. I felt like I had sort of done everything I was capable of accomplishing at that company. And I will say there’s a little bit of a sense of burnout because other people change, right? So one of my roles, for example, was supporting the IT organization. And if there’s a change in one of the IT leadership roles, you sort of feel like you’re going back and doing the same thing again to build those relationships and partnerships. The other thing that I always caution, I don’t know if caution is the right word, but advise lawyers who are thinking of going in-house is that inevitably at most companies, the more senior you become, the more your day-to-day shifts from doing quote unquote real legal work to administration, management, managing up as much as managing down, right? Managing outside counsel, budgets and things of that nature. So I was missing on some level doing more of the pure legal work, but it’s also, you know, that’s what keeps me stimulated is the learning and growing in new things. And when you feel like you’ve sort of hit the ceiling in a role, for someone like me, that means it’s time to move on and find the next opportunity.
Aoifinn Devitt: And speaking about the meat of the legal role, which clearly the areas you’ve been in could not probably be more top of mind, privacy and AI, and privacy was primarily some of the, in the in-house work that you did. Can you talk us through, let’s start with privacy. I’d love to talk about some of the issues and aspects that you think as an expert in this field, we’ll be hearing more about as laypeople perhaps in years to come. What are the hot button items and some of what’s on your mind?
Rachel: So thank you. That’s a great question. And I get accused sometimes of bringing every question back to AI. But I do feel like we are at sort of this pivotal point in this technology evolution, and AI is going to impact everything we do. But taking a step back, right, the world we live in has been shifting more and more over the years to an online, digital, data-driven world. And I think partially COVID accelerated that. But also it’s the rise of social media. It’s the fact that teenagers now, right, that’s how they interact. And that’s been the case for years. And that’s now who’s entering the workforce. So, so many of our interactions socially as a consumer and as a professional are now happening in the digital world. And that creates data, right? So everything now is data-driven. And I imagine a lot of companies are having regular discussions like, how do we become a data-driven company? We’re going to lose a competitive edge, right, if we can’t be a data-driven company. So the drive to collect data, to use it in different ways, and just the proliferation of data in cyberspace, right, that’s happened over the past few years is going to emphasize privacy, I think, above everything else. We’ve seen that that’s how the laws and regulations are evolving. So if you look even just in the US, but certainly in Europe and other places as well, what has happened over the last few years is not just that we’ve had additional states, for example, adopt privacy laws. There have been amendments and states have taken steps to, for example, broaden what they consider personal information, right? So if you go back to the early 2000s when I started practicing, personal information was like your Social Security number. That was basically all anybody cared about protecting. And now we have Internet activity, IP address, geolocation data, sort of all these ways we’re interacting with digital technology that are tracking our devices, right? Not just what we would think of as information associated with our person. So we’re broadening those definitions. We broaden significantly, starting with the California Consumer Privacy Act, the rights of individuals to exert some sort of control over their personal data. And then now we’re layering on top of that artificial intelligence technology, specifically generative AI, which is going to process just these vast quantities and volumes of data unlike anything we’ve seen before. And the privacy implications of that are quite significant. So I think not only are we already seeing this proliferation of laws specific to AI technology, folks are going to find that existing privacy laws are also going to be implicated by that technology. And I think if regulators see a gap or a disconnect between existing privacy legal landscape and AI technology, I think we will see them move very quickly to close those gaps with amendments or additional laws and regulations around privacy and protection of personal data.
Aoifinn Devitt: And how do you see it from a corporate standpoint in terms of a policy around privacy? Clearly there’s that trade-off as a corporation between the amount of data you can use and commercialize versus observing privacy norms. Privacy policy can become virtue signaling of sorts from corporations. And equally from the consumer side, don’t consumers maybe underweight it sometimes, their own privacy, until it really matters because they’re keen to get a free app or something of that nature? How do those kind of human issues factor into the advice you give?
Rachel: I think it’s for most corporations, it’s all about trust, and that can be managed in a number of different ways. And I think it depends a lot on the industry and the type of company. But for privacy laws and ethics generally, I say, always say kind of the good thing is that they’re very principles-based. So you don’t have to understand all, you know, 50 states’ privacy regimes if you follow a set of pretty basic principles that include notice, transparency, consent, accountability. So people want to know what personal information you’re collecting as a business, who you’re sharing it with, what you’re doing with it, how you’re processing it. I think that for all companies, right, if you want your customers, your consumers, even if you’re business to business and you’re doing data to preserve that trust, you have to be candid, transparent, and truthful about your privacy practices. And then I think consent is the other big one. And a lot of times, yes, the consent might be buried in terms and conditions or teeny tiny script when you’re agreeing to download an app or things of that nature. And there my advice is sort of take the reasonable consumer standard and the nature of your business and make sensible risk-based decisions. So if you are a financial services company and you want to kind of share data with retailers for marketing, like that is not something I’m going to expect when I go open a new savings account, right? That then my data is suddenly going to be used for marketing. If I’m downloading a gaming app, right, then I’m going to say, yeah, probably whatever I enter into this app is going to get sold to someone or shared with someone, right? Because that’s the nature of that world and that industry. So I think understanding what reasonable consumers anticipate and then meeting those expectations. So it’s not to say that the financial services company can’t sell my data,. But I would probably make that in a big bold disclosure or something that requires an affirmative click or a checkbox, right? When the person is agreeing to those terms, not buried further down in the terms because it’s not consistent with expectations. So if you think about, you know, what does the consumer expect and what do I need to do to sort of preserve their trust in me as a responsible business? I think that will get you a long way towards privacy compliance.
Aoifinn Devitt: That certainly seems like a very fundamental way of determining what regulation should be in place or what approach should be taken. When it comes to AI, we’re probably all dealing with such a novelty and the deluge of information and expectations and a sense of not knowing the direction of travel really of different areas. How do we make sense of that? And what’s really focusing your mind from a legal standpoint right now when you speak with companies and your clients?
Rachel: So number one, and where I always start, is understanding the technology itself. And a lot of lawyers in particular look at me like I’m a bit crazy when I say that, but I started as a baby lawyer doing technology contracts and trying to understand life insurance systems and things of that nature. But if you don’t understand what the technology is, how it’s developed, how it’s trained, and how it’s implemented, it will be virtually impossible to advise from a legal perspective or even from a business or a risk perspective on how to appropriately manage that technology. And it’s not intuitive. So every— I’ve been doing a lot of speaking on AI for companies, for clients, for lawyers across the board. And the slide I always spend a lot of time on is actually a diagram of the tech stack, right? So how, when you implement generative AI solution, what it actually looks like, and there are 5 layers. Layers, you know, including your infrastructure layer, which is basically either the cloud environment or the data center. There’s layers of software, there’s where the actual large language model sits. And then there are layers on top of that. And that has been eye-opening for a lot of the folks I’ve spoken with. But it helps explain where you can control what a generative AI model does and where you can’t, and helps you understand what questions you should be asking the vendor if it’s a vendor solution or your own IT if it’s an internally developed solution. And it also helps again, as lawyers, a lot of time our job is to apply law to facts. And I think these are critical facts, right? So you need to collect the relevant facts about the model. How was it trained? What data does it use as inputs, right? What guardrails have been put to restrict or contain the outputs? Things like abuse monitoring, or you can sometimes customize systems so they’re less likely to put defamatory language or offensive language, right, as outputs, things of that nature. But again, if you don’t understand the technology and the building blocks that went into it, it’s going to be very difficult both to really understand why generative AI comes with the inherent risks it does come with, things like bias, right, things like hallucinations, it’s because of the way those models were built and trained. So it’s to help you understand that. And then as, and I like to assess AI in terms of use cases, right? So the technology has such broad functionality and applicability, you could apply it to almost anything. So when a business is trying to make responsible and ethical decisions, I say you need to look at it as a specific use case. And first you need to understand the technology And then you need to understand who’s going to use the technology and how. And then you have what you need to do a proper legal assessment, right? Looking at the current laws and applying it to that particular use case.
Aoifinn Devitt: And with both of these areas, privacy and AI, what I think of when I think of these is, are we running to standstill to a degree because it is advancing so quickly? Can the legal side keep up? And it seems a little bit like the cybersecurity dilemma that, you know, we are furiously trying to keep up with the hackers who are ahead of us in that respect. How would you say the legal capabilities around these fast-moving areas are developing?
Rachel: So the law will always lag behind the technology. That’s something we’ve been seeing for decades. The EU is acting much faster than the US, as we’ve seen, and they’re trying to keep up. And that will likely sort of set the benchmark. But what we have done in the United States with these sort of broad federal regulatory regimes is cast a wide net. So, for example, the FTC Act generally prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices in interstate commerce. And that law has been used historically in the absence of federal privacy legislation to enforce privacy violations along the lines of my privacy notices X, but I’m doing Y with the personal data I collect. That has already been applied to cases of what the FTC has deemed to be misuse of AI technology. So back to those principles, the same ones often apply to AI: notice, transparency, consent. If you’re interacting with an AI system, if it’s making a decision that could impact an individual, certain rights, inherent rights are inferred in those instances. And so we see the federal agencies using existing laws. If they find anything that they think is unfair or deceptive to consumers generally, they will act on it. We’ve seen similar enforcement by other agencies such as the Fair Housing Administration. If you use an AI algorithm to distribute rental housing ads to web browsers, right, and that algorithm is triggered by assigning a certain zip code based on the IP address, and that zip code determines whether the rental you know, ad is displayed. In the United States, zip code is a proxy for race, so that violates the Fair Housing Act. So what I would encourage folks is two things. We are not going to be able to stem, I don’t believe, the proliferation of AI systems and everything we do. I think that horse is out of the barn and it’s not coming back, and it’s going to rapidly proliferate because in the tech world right? It’s a race to not be left behind. So every SaaS vendor, right, every infrastructure as a service vendor, every real big tech vendor is enhancing their products and services with AI right now. And they’re just going to push it out to their customers, right? And customers are not really going to have a choice. The choice is going to be use the old technology or use what the vendor is now offering. And the idea is to use it responsibly, as best we can in the absence of prescriptive laws and regulations, right? So we’re going to have to use sort of responsibility and ethics as a guide. We have things out there like the NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standards and Technology has an AI risk management framework that is also principles-based that companies should be applying. So I think it’s finding that medium, making sure you have governance in place and that folks are thinking about the implications of the AI you’re using and deploying, remembering that we do have an existing set of laws and regulations that can be applied, and then really staying attuned and staying nimble for the developments that will inevitably come at some point.
Aoifinn Devitt: And you touched on this. It’s clear that AI is going mainstream. It’s being integrated into everything. Do you think this as a practice area will stand alone going forward? Will it be folded into, maybe sit alongside intellectual property or privacy or where if somebody, a lawyer entering the profession now, wants to specialize in this area, where will this practice area sit?
Rachel: So what we have decided as a firm at Evershed Sutherland is that it’s going to sit in the data privacy, cybersecurity, and technology function. I think it goes hand in hand with data privacy, and I think the two are inseparable. The same way though, I think data privacy goes hand in hand with cybersecurity, and I know some companies separate those functions and treat them differently. What I believe is going to happen and why I think clients and law firms will be best served by combining those functions is that eventually, at least in the US, the legal and regulatory landscape is going to become so complex and there’s going to be so much overlap between the privacy laws, the security laws, and the AI laws and regulations that you will inevitably have to become well-versed in all of those bodies of law to be effective in your role as a lawyer. And so they’ll naturally become combined and become part of the same function. I think the part that’s going to be hard for some sort of pure privacy lawyers to get up to speed is that you really do have to understand technology. So there’s sort of an intellectual property rights component of that. There’s a, do I know generally how hardware and software is run in a business? Those are things that can be learned, right? They’re not inherent. You don’t have to go back to law school to learn these things. But I think having an open mind and really starting to understand the tech world, how technology is built, and then how it’s licensed regularly to customers, and how does a software as a service differ from an on-premise platform, just those types of things folks will have to get up to speed need. But as far as sort of a legal practice area, I think with that underlying foundation in the tech, privacy, cyber, and AI fit very nicely together. And if you’re not combining them, you’ll need to have, you know, make a friend in the other practice group and have close partnerships with others who work in those areas.
Aoifinn Devitt: Clearly a highly dynamic and fast-growing area. I’d love to change gears now a little bit just to what you said was tantalizing in terms of the work-life balance. And how that can ebb and flow regardless of being in private practice or in-house. And this podcast, as you noted, has a particular focus on minority voices, less heard voices, and around diversity. I’d love to hear from you, I suppose, how you rate the legal profession today. How do you think it’s doing today, maybe compared to when you started your career, and any impressions on what it can do better?
Rachel: That is a very deep question. It’s near and dear to my heart. And I want to answer honestly, but also be kind of respectful of the organizations that have given me you opportunities, know, over my career. There have definitely been improvements, but not nearly enough in my opinion. And I think that’s true for both in-house counsel as well as law firm counsel. So one of the organizations I was fortunate to be sort of nominated to participate in when I was in-house with something called the 30% Club. And they endeavor, right, their mission is to get at least 30% women at senior management and board-level positions. And so when I first went to the first meeting and you get matched up with a mentor, my first question was, why 30% when women are 50%+ of the population, right? And so if that tells you anything, right, it’s like, Yes, people care more now. They’re doing more, but it’s, it’s still not enough. In the law firm, I mean, again, some of the old-fashioned ways have gone by the side, but I still hear stories about certain judges in the Deep South, right, that female lawyers are like, if I showed up in pants, I would be kicked out of the courtroom. I think that is ridiculous, right, in this day and age. The other thing that I’m still seeing as a challenge is is the pressure on hours and time for younger and mid-level associates. And I see it in ways that appear to affect the women more so than the men. And I will say I have a stay-at-home husband. That was a decision we made right after I finished my maternity leave. And I— we have one child. She’s now 13. She’s amazing. But he is the parent that drives her to school, that picks her up, right? That takes her to bass lessons in the afternoon. And when we get the call that she’s not feeling well at school, goes to pick her up, right? There are just a lot of responsibilities of parenting. And so sometimes I even think, am I the right person to be telling people how to find this work-life balance when I have a full-time adult basically helping manage my family and other people don’t? What I am trying to do back at the firm is be a resource, a sounding board for all of the female associates. I want them to see someone who hopefully has made it work, but also am willing to share with them that it’s really hard sometimes, right? And this is a demanding job and there are times when you just have to make decisions and sort of hope for the best. And I think as a young woman in this field, I think we feel, especially feel the pressure to not say no to more work, to not admit that it’s gotten to be too much or I need a break or I need someone else to help with this because I think we worry it’ll be seen as weakness or lack of commitment or things of that nature. So I am trying to help with coaching to say like, no, that’s just life, right? Everybody needs a break sometimes. There is absolutely absolutely no reason you can’t be both a successful law firm lawyer and a parent and a spouse. And, you know, whether you’re a pet parent or whatever you are, it’s okay to have interests and commitments outside of the office. And I try my best to both demonstrate that with what I do, as well as both talk the talk and walk the walk, and hope that I can help at least our firm retain female talent. And make it just a really safe and comfortable place for them to work and grow.
Aoifinn Devitt: That is wonderful. And sometimes I think it’s about life hacks as well, sharing life hacks that maybe have made it easy for you because clearly you have a massive amount to stay abreast of in terms of technology, privacy changes, AI. And those are things that, you know, take time and the job is hard. So I think combining that with a family, a foot cannot be taken off the pedal much in this profession. And I suppose it’s a way of how to keep it on while not compromising other sides. So I do think sharing practical things can often matter quite a bit. And just a final point on that, have you seen any particular things like affinity groups, women’s circles, special kinds of leave, maybe emergency childcare, or any particular hacks at a professional level that you found particularly impactful?
Rachel: What I found most helpful is just building a support network. And for me, that’s both with, among my clients. So I have an Atlanta Women Attorneys group where we meet really just to socialize, to vent, to form and deepen friendships. There’s really not a pure business aspect to it, but I find that the more you make the time to connect with similarly situated, right, high-powered, hardworking moms in other positions and just being able, like you said, to share tips, best practices. I think at our last event, we were exchanging Amazon shopping carts because someone had found the perfect under-desk treadmill that you could walk on. So things of that nature, really just building a network and a community. And then I think it’s just not being afraid to ask for help. There are a lot of amazing women out there who want to champion other women, myself included, and I’ve been the beneficiary of many of them along my career. So really just understanding that you are not alone in what you’re doing and reaching out if you need help, but looking for these opportunities to sort of form these networks and groups because you can all rely on each other and you’ll all be the better for it.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s a good segue actually to the question on reflections around mentors and key people, given you have clearly a set of peers there. Was there anyone in particular that mentored you? And sometimes the answer to this is no. But I’d love to know, through your career, was anybody particularly impactful?
Rachel: I have had several along the way, and interestingly, the two that come to mind are both men. So I do want to say it doesn’t take, you know, you don’t need a working mom as a mentor if that’s what you are. I think you can pick up really great advice from others. But one was when I first started at the firm, and it was a partner who who took me under his wing and really taught me the basics of software and technology law, which started me down this path. And it’s really, I think, when someone just makes a commitment of their time to your learning and betterment, from someone like me, it really makes a big impact. And so I think look for that, look for cues. If someone’s willing to take your meeting request and sit down with you for an hour and explain something to you, like, that’s a good person to kind of stay close to and think about as a mentor. And the other was in one of my in-house roles, one of the general counsels. I think learned a lot from him in the non-legal aspects of in-house work in particular, but even a law firm, right? We’re a business as well. We have accountability to our other partners, to the COO, and, you know, so it’s still the aspects of business and how much of it is really relationship-focused. So sort of about building trust, maintaining trust, figuring out the best way to work and collaborate with either your peers or whoever’s higher up in the organization. So I think it was two different things. You know, the first mentor was more substantively, and then the second was more of the soft skills. But I think both of it, it’s taking the time I think everyone is so busy. If someone’s taking the time, it shows that they care and they’re willing to invest in you, and people really appreciate that, myself included.
Aoifinn Devitt: I think it’s interesting, people often say, how will I know who my mentors should be? I think they make themselves known because of this behavior. Often it is a natural thing. And staying on the personal reflections, when you look back at your career so far, private practice, in-house, and then back to private practice, were there any particular highs or lows that you can recall and maybe any lessons learned from the low points?
Rachel: There are definitely points, and it’s usually early on in each move when you second-guess yourself, right? And it’s like, oh my God, did I just make a terrible mistake in switching to this job or that? And I think I’ve had them. So I 1-2-3 every time I switched. And so my advice is be patient with yourself. And I remember some of the best career advice I ever got was from a woman who hired me for one of my in-house roles. And she said— and I was pregnant with my first child, first and only— and she said, don’t make any career decisions until at least a year after you come back from maternity leave. And that was huge, right? Because things obviously seem very overwhelming. So I made the same commitment with my job changes, right? And said, OK, I’m panicking a little bit, but I’m not going to make any decisions. I’m going to give it a year. And inevitably it worked out. And so I think, again, trusting your gut is really good. It was hard to leave a role after almost 15 years, but everything was telling me that now, you know, that it was the time. And then same with coming back to the firm. That was not necessarily my first or only option, but you after, know, thinking through the choices, discussing it with my family, and my gut kept saying like, I think I do want to give this a try, I think this work. So being trustful of that, and yes, it was super hard. I mean, the first 6 months, I think, I don’t— I think I blocked it out. It was a bit traumatic, but now I’m getting in a groove and I am really enjoying what I’m doing. So I think there are no wrong choices if you trust your gut. Don’t ever feel like you’re stuck in a role or a position. If you feel that way, reach out, ask for help, find a mentor, especially I think for lawyers and for women lawyers. There’s so many opportunities out there. And just keep an open mind for them.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, thank you for normalizing that feeling, that knot in the stomach in the first few months, ’cause I think many, many people will identify with that. And just a couple of closing questions. So can you talk about any, the cause in particular that’s close to your heart and the work you do with Hopin’ a Cure and ALS?
Rachel: Absolutely. So Hopin’ a Cure was founded actually by a friend and neighbor of mine, John Hopkins, who was a founding member of the Zac Brown Band. He was diagnosed with ALS unexpectedly a few years ago. And really part of this is the sense of the neighborhood I live in. We’re all very close and dedicated to each other. But the more we learned about it, ALS is one of the least researched and most prominent diseases out there globally. And it’s one of those that we firmly believe can be cured if we can get the right money and dedication to research and researching cures. So a bunch of us have banded together to do this. We’ve raised a lot of money and made grants to researchers, experts in this area. And it hits home, I think, seeing someone you know and you’re close to going through the progression of this illness. And I know people have similar experiences, you know, almost everyone has a close friend or a family member who’s dealing with some sort of illness. And I think just giving giving back is what is most important. It doesn’t matter to what, but finding something you care about and finding a way to support it. It doesn’t have to be financially, but by volunteering or again, for the attorneys out there, joining a nonprofit board, I think is a great way to give back.
Aoifinn Devitt: And you’ve already littered this conversation with a lot of great words of wisdom, particularly on the career front. My last question is whether you have any creed or motto that you live by or any words of wisdom that you can leave us with?
Rachel: Yeah, so this might sound a little bit ordinary, but it’s really be authentic, be true to yourself. And I realize that’s easier said than done. And I also realize it’s easier the older you get. I think both because you sort of have more leverage, you’re more established, more experienced, but also you’re just more confident being yourself and doing what you want to do. But I think it’s really never too early to start. At least being as true to yourself as you can. Yeah, I do have to dress professionally sometimes, even though I’d rather be you wearing, know, yoga pants and flip-flops. Little things like that. But bring as much of your true authentic self to work as you can every single day, and don’t be afraid of that. It’s exhausting otherwise, is what I found. And we want, right, we want to live these sort of fulfilling, whole lives. And for me, that’s the best way to do it. So if I’m starting to feel like either I can’t be myself or I’m not doing it, to me that means something needs to change and I need to do some reflection.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s a wonderful conclusion. Certainly there is little room for exhaustion caused by inauthenticity. Plenty of other things legitimately giving us exhaustion in the lives we lead. So I think your authenticity has shone through this podcast. Rachel, thank you so much for coming here. You have made some pivots in your career that are not easy look effortless and graceful. Remarkable. And similarly, the ease with which you seem to have mounted these learning curves that are seismic in terms of the changes in the profession is quite remarkable. So thank you so much for sharing your journey.
Rachel: Thank you very much. It was my pleasure.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to our 50 Faces Focus Series. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring lawyers and their stories, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast The podcast is for information only and should not be construed as investment or legal advice. All views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: Brought to you with the kind support of DLA Piper Ireland.
Maud Sarliev: And in French, it’s: Impose ta chance, sers ton bonheur, et va ton vers risque. À te regarder, ils s’habitueront. So basically means stick to your guts, believe in yourself. It won’t be easy, but you’ll get there, and people will look at you and follow your path if they find it inspiring.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to this 50 Faces Focus series which showcases the richness and diversity of inspiring people in the law. I’m joined today by Maud Sarliev, who is an expert in international criminal law, international humanitarian law, human rights, and a leading authority in the development of creative legal thinking to address the environmental and climate crisis. Her professional commitments and casework have taken her to conflict and post-conflict environments in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Central and Eastern Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and Eastern Europe. She is currently judge assessor with the French National Court of Asylum, a founder of Control Z focused on climate and environmental justice, in addition to numerous other roles. Maud grew up near the Massif Central in France and moved abroad to the Côte d’Ivoire as a young child. This experience of living abroad and being enmeshed in different cultures inspired her to choose law and commercial law in particular in order to enable her to have an international legal career. Welcome, Maud. Thanks for joining me today.
Maud Sarliev: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Aoifinn Devitt: Let’s start by talking about your career journey and what first interested you in going into law and international law in particular.
Maud Sarliev: Initially, I read international and EU law because I wanted to learn and, and live abroad again, and I saw business law as the best way to achieve that, which I was wrong about, basically. I went from being a first-class honours student to being a failed commercial lawyer. Which was very hard to accept at the time, but probably the best thing that’s happened to me. So after that, I decided to start from scratch as an intern with the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia, and the rest is history.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s interesting, my next question is usually around surprising turns, but I guess that was the surprising turn there, finding your passion in a different area. I’d love to now talk about some of those areas, because international war crimes, human rights evaluations, huge issues, highly complex and systemic. And sometimes I would say it seems to the outsider that progress in making change is slow and can sometimes be protracted. How do you cope with maybe the lack of measurable success and lack of feedback in dealing with some of these big issues?
Maud Sarliev: When it comes to how to cope with it, I try to focus on the objective that the values that I stand for and the general interest rather than my own, which sounds very corny and perhaps self-indulgent, but it’s far, far from easy.
Aoifinn Devitt: I remember when we spoke earlier, you used the story by the Amerindian philosopher and environmentalist Pierre Rabhi to illustrate this point. So if you don’t mind, I’d like to just read this story now in full so that our listeners have a full appreciation of its beauty. The Hummingbird’s Tale by Pierre Rabhi. One day, a long time ago, and in a faraway place, or so the legend goes, there was a huge forest fire that was raging in the countryside. All the animals were terrified, running around in circles, screaming, crying, and helplessly watching the impending disaster. But there, in the middle of the flames and above the cowering animals, was a tiny hummingbird, busy flying from a small pond to the fire, each time fetching a few drops with its beak to throw on the flames. And then again, and then again. After a while, an old grouchy armadillo, annoyed by this ridiculous, useless agitation on the part of the hummingbird, cried out, “Tiny bird, don’t be a fool! It is not with those minuscule drops of water, one after the other, that you are going to put out the fire and save us all!” To which the hummingbird replied, “Could be, but I’m going to do my bit.” So a really beautiful story there that captures the idea of everyone doing their part. And you’re a leading authority in the development of creative legal thinking to address the environmental and climate crisis. Can you give us an example as to how this works exactly, this creativity?
Maud Sarliev: One good example is something that I remember from when I was reading family law and we were going back into history and the professor was telling us, yeah, and up until ’94 in France, adultery was a crime. And you’re like, what? I’m sorry. It took a long time to accept something that was already accepted in society and had been accepted in society for years. Maybe not as much as accepted as we would’ve wished for. So that’s what I see with the climate and environmental crisis is that the law is lingering behind, but there is so much will and determination from the scientific community, from parts of the legal community that I think the next step is to get the lawyers and the scientists together and have them take the bridges between their respective jargon and bubbles down and make each other understand where they’re coming from and where they want to go, and then bring that to policymakers so that the law is changed and adapted to the challenges of our time.
Aoifinn Devitt: No, it’s really interesting. I suppose around human rights and your right to, say, a clean environment And that seems an area that definitely lends itself to hybrid, or at least hybrid thinking. And then also there’s an increased awareness as well of ecocide, especially in the current situation in Ukraine, and a lot more media attention to that.
Maud Sarliev: We all depend on clean, like breathable air and clean water and edible food. And without a sustainable, healthy environment, there’s no access to that. And similarly with ecocide, ecocide is even more blurry in my view, because It all comes down to the fact that the environment is, as a notion, as a concept itself, is very dynamic and very fluid, so hard to define. But what’s incredibly interesting and also incredibly depressing when it comes to Ukraine and the conflict that’s been raging since even before February 2022, because it started in 2014 with the invasion of Donbas and Crimea and the annexation of Crimea, but it’s really like where everything seems to be shifting. And also there’s an alignment and presented alignment between the political will of a government and its president on the one hand, with a 10-point peace plan of President Zelensky that lists ecocide and clean water and nuclear and energy safety as each of the 10 points on the one hand. And on the other hand, a real strong and solid determination of the Prosecutor General’s Office to hold accountable those most responsible with the environmental impact of the conflict. And here, because the law is not there, they are pushing Instead of reinventing the wheel, the idea is to push for the interpretation of the existing provisions and see how far they can go and explore the limits of these provisions. And as you, I think you said, just to be clear, in Ukraine they have a provision in the Ukrainian Criminal Code that defines ecocide. And it’s going to be very interesting to see how the Ukrainian judiciary is going to approach that and explore indeed the limits of that particular provision. Similarly, they have another provision that allows for the transposition to some extent of international humanitarian law into the Ukrainian internal legal order. So what does that mean? Which provisions that already exist are going to be applied? To which extent? How can we demonstrate the existence of their elements? For example, you have a particular additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which is quite interesting because it defines in its Articles 35 and 55 as a war crime, like any attack that’s caused long-term widespread and severe damages to the environment. So how is that going to be interpreted? Then at the ICC level, before the International Criminal Court, if the prosecution’s office considers that there are reasonable grounds to believe that crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC defined by the Rome Statute and impacting the environment have been committed.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s interesting that you are, for the most part, trying to find the answers within existing law, existing legal frameworks, and not reinventing the wheel. Is that because that would just take too long?
Maud Sarliev: Unless you want to do it the French way and have a revolution in 1789 and end in 1873, trying to recreate everything has, in my view, never been the easiest and fastest and most constructive and effective approach. And when it comes to environment and climate, Most of the time, the legal frameworks are there, or the beginning of an interesting legal framework is there. So test it, see how it works, how it doesn’t work. And if it doesn’t, then you have a practical case, a study that you can use and work out from. I think everyone’s efforts is important in, in that particular field. And again, that goes back to building bridges, building bridges between the practitioners, between academics, between the scientists and the policymakers, to have everyone’s perspective on board and then take it there and see which solutions are the most acceptable for everyone. And that’s why the right to healthy environment, concepts like the right to healthy environment or ecocide, all the campaigners behind it, behind these two concepts and others, are so important. Similarly, in the Aboriginal culture or the Māori culture, brings along people whose interests are usually completely sidelined, such as the interests of indigenous people and communities who have a completely different approach to environment. They see it from a philosophical standpoint that’s not comparable to the way we look at it in, in the West. They give them rights and considers nature as an entity that should be protected for itself.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love that systems thinking approach and drawing inspiration from how other societies view the environment and I suppose the role it plays in their lives. So I think that that’s really interesting. When it comes to recognition of some of these crimes against the environment, do you think that society, despite the fact that they get a lot of media attention when they happen,, but then it blows over perhaps. Do you think that society is taking them sufficiently seriously?
Maud Sarliev: A lot of people do not necessarily realize that the environmental impact of a conflict is not about birds, bees, butterflies, or hummingbirds, but it’s about the future of, of mankind. Because when you have farm fields turned into minefields, when, when you have water contaminated by industrial pollution or oil spills, when you have the air turning and bore because of chemical plants exploding or any sort of industrial accident. It’s not only one person, one geographical location that’s impacted, it’s that person and their family and friends, and it’s for the generations to come and beyond. And one example that I usually use, which may come across as a bit shocking to people, is to me, when someone is a victim of rape, men or women, it’s not only them that’s being impacted, and it’s not only now, it’s also in the generations to come and beyond. If you look at the impact and damages caused by the Kakhovka Dam catastrophe disaster that happened a few days ago, a few weeks ago, Or if you look at the impact of what has happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima with the nuclear weapons being used, isn’t it comparable? So it’s not only, again, birds, bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds dropping water to, um, raging fire. It’s really about us as humanity. We are shooting ourselves in the foot unless we adapt. Our legal framework and our policies to the stakes.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, some very profound ideas, I think, to ponder there. So thank you for raising those and I think making them real for us because I think it has to be done. I’d like to just move from there to some reflections on your career so far. First question is around diversity. This is a podcast series that focuses on diversity quite a lot. We look at the evolution of diversity and inclusion throughout professions. From your experience in law, how has your experience of diversity been? Have you seen— is it improving throughout your career so far?
Maud Sarliev: Well, I’ve been really lucky. So in Cambodia, there was a lot of diversity because it was a hybrid tribunal with Cambodian colleagues, and within the national side of the tribunal, we had a lot of Westerners. It was more North represented South. And then in Kosovo, again, working with Kosovars and then the international sides, you wouldn’t have a lot of diversity in terms of color, to say the least. And in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, again, you know, the Lebanese, there was a lot of Lebanese and Middle Eastern representation, which is completely normal. But on the international side, I saw a little bit of evolution towards important, but not as much as one would wish. And now what strikes me, now that I work a lot with my international colleagues in Ukraine and other conflict zones, is that I don’t see many women, I’ve got to say. So the not so positive developments that I notice, or have noticed lately, and that’s specific to my experience as a sure it’s going to change and evolve. And that being said, so from I started where I was convinced that women representation was no longer an issue and we’d already won that battle, I’ve noticed that you have fantastic networks such as the Atlas Network, which is a network of women in human rights, international criminal law, with a Facebook group and I think 6,000-7,000 members now, with little groups in different cities on all the continents, which is developing, and where we provide support to younger women— and women, sorry. And so that’s a really interesting and positive development. And another network that I find incredible in that same sort of vein, not only for women but for students around the world is the network that’s being built around the PiCTA competition, which is a competition on international humanitarian law and international public law. It’s taking place at least once a year in a different city of the world where there have been conflicts, and that summons and convenes teams of 3 students from all over the continents. You know, you have loads of African teams represented, loads of South American teams, loads of Asian teams, and that’s incredibly positive in terms of diversity. I was actually speaking in a lecture where I was invited by former Pictaist, as we call ourselves, last week to talk about environment, climate, and international criminal law and international humanitarian law and how bridges can be built in that respect. And I think it’s incredibly important to have the voices of our African young researchers, lawyers, and practitioners heard when it comes to these debates.
Aoifinn Devitt: Absolutely. Well, we’ll put links to all of those organizations in the show notes, so look forward to that. But just wanted to quickly now move to you advising young law student who wants to enter your field. As I, I said to a friend of ours, Angus, who also works in the same field, it does seem for some like the dream job. What advice would you give in terms of entering the field of international law? Any steps you recommend?
Maud Sarliev: If you think that’s your call, then just try and persist and be determined. I have many, many examples around me of people like Kip Hale is another one, and Angus and others who have been extremely persistent in their approach to the international world. And you have many ways to get in. You can go The UN or international tribunals, NGOs are not the only answers. You can work your way in through reaching out to your connections and, or just emailing someone that you find interesting, asking if that person you’re very impressed by doesn’t respond to your message. Well, you know, it’s not the end of the world. And you do that once and twice and three times, and, and you have a meeting and you share a coffee Or you have a phone call and, and you get advice from that particular person, and that’s one further on your career path. I’ve done that with many people I didn’t know and had never met before who had no problem to email me out of the blue, and I’m always very happy if I have the time, which is getting rarer and rarer. I’m always very happy to help out as much as I can with time I have.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, you’ve mentioned two great people there. I brought up Angus Kelly, and of course Kip Hale appeared on the first series of this podcast. So thank you for that shout out. And my last question is really around wisdom. So when you look at, of course, your career, the people you’ve worked with, any wisdom that you have gathered that maybe you live by now that you can share?
Maud Sarliev: I think there’s a quote, another French poet, it’s a bit cliché, but It’s something that I read when I was about 19 or 20, and I didn’t understand it, and I sort of it made my motto without realizing. And I’ll say it in English, it’s: impose your chance, hold tight to your happiness, and go towards your risk. Looking your way, they will follow, or looking at you, they’ll get used to it. And in French, it’s: impose ta chance, serre ton bonheur, et va vers ton risque. À te regarder, ils s’habitueront. So basically means stick to your guts, believe in yourself. It won’t be easy, but you’ll get there and people will look at you and follow your path if they find it inspiring. So that’s sort of been like, it’s, it’s easy of course to come up with that. You’re not a young student and have realized that you’ve got nothing to prove, but things that you have to prove to yourself. So there’s that. And also the other thing is that don’t let anybody, including and perhaps most importantly yourself, tell you that you’re not worth it or too ambitious. That’s another thing that I’ve learned along the way.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, those are beautiful words to leave us with, and I’m so glad you said them in French because I was going to ask that anyway, because that really made my evening. And thank you, Maud. Your creativity that really laces through all of your work is such a gift to the profession. And I think forcing us to think differently about established areas is what pushes us out of our comfort zone and into creating the solutions that we need in the future. So thank you so much for coming here and sharing your insights with us.
Maud Sarliev: Thank you. Thank you for inviting me.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces of Focus podcast. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear from more inspiring lawyers and their stories, please follow us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is are information only and should not be construed as investment or legal advice. All views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: But with the professionalization of sport, with the increasing TV rights and payments, with private equity coming into sport, you see that, for example, in Formula 1, in soccer, and more recently in rugby, that drove change and an increasing demand for sports law expertise. So today, sports law is a genuine career choice for students coming out of university. They have the brilliant opportunity to study it at undergrad level and to do masters in it. There are now sports law departments within bigger law firms, and you even have boutique sports law firms, as well as in-house opportunities with sports federations, marketing companies, and agencies. So the landscape has really changed quite dramatically.
Susan Ahern: I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to this 50 Faces focus series, which showcases the richness and diversity of inspiring people in the law. I’m joined today by Susan Ahern, who is a barrister, international arbitrator, and accredited mediator with a specialisation in sports law and regulation. She is past chair of the Sports Law Bar Association of Ireland and formerly was general counsel for World Rugby Rugby World Cup Limited. Susan is the first independent judicial chair of World Wheelchair Rugby Independent Vice Chair of the Irish Horse Racing Regulatory Board Appeals Panel, and an arbitrator of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. She has over 25 years’ experience as an INED, including on the board of RTE, UCI 2023 Cycling World Championships, and multiple national sports federations and the Olympic Federation of Ireland. Welcome, Susan. Thanks for joining me today.
Aoifinn Devitt: Thank you.
Susan Ahern: Well, let’s start by talking about your background. Of course, having overlapped at Trinity, I know a little bit of this. But it’d be great if you could just fill us in on where you were born and what your path to law was.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I was born in County Tipperary in a large town called Clonmel, and I was taught by nuns and lay teachers in the Presentation Convent for 14 years. That actually was a quite a nice combination, and I really did get a good education in that school. And was given the freedom to try things out. So for example, myself and my pal Sarah set up the school cafe, which didn’t exist previously, and I think was a legacy that was left when we went on to university. And it was a school where there was plenty of sport, you know, an all-girls school but plenty of sport. And so really, I actually wanted to be a PE teacher. That’s what I thought I was going to be from a career perspective, and that really did persist until quite late in the day. But in my final year in school, we did debating through a, you know, an inter-schools competition, and to be honest with you, that really opened my eyes to the wider vista, and that included law. So for me, I hadn’t thought about law previously. There were no lawyers in my family, but I began to make that mental adjustment and eventually aimed for law. And of course, you and I, Aoifinn, we did cross over in Trinity College in Dublin, where I was for 4 years, and then I went on and did a year again, a master’s in law in Queen’s University in Belfast. So that’s really, I suppose, the background to how I started in the path to law.
Susan Ahern: So would you say there were any surprising turns along your trajectory so far?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yes, I would. There have certainly been a couple. I think the first surprising turn was that having, having done those 5 years of law study, I then went and became a banker. And so I became a graduate recruit into corporate banking, into an Irish bank where I had an absolutely fantastic training. And I also managed to meet my husband there. And then after that, I veered into capital markets with a small Belgian bank. And began to do a lot actually of the legal documentation there. And then I moved on in my next role to the National Treasury Management Agency, which was the entity that managed the national debt and pension reserve fund for Ireland. But by that time, I was actually working as a legal counsel because I had completed my barrister training in King’s Inns at night, actually, by that stage. So I had finally, after about 5 years, figured out that I did like the legal side of the house and that I did like the legal side of banking, and that’s where I went to. And that persisted, obviously, for 5 or 6 years. And then surprising turn number 2 was that I applied for a job as legal counsel to the then International Rugby Board, which is now World Rugby, and I was hired. That started my pathway as a sports lawyer, and at the time, both the general counsel, who actually had only been in the job 6 months himself when he hired me, he and I were the only 2 full-time sports lawyers in Ireland at that stage.
Susan Ahern: And that is interesting, actually. Not many lawyers made that move into banking, so well done on even knowing that was a career path, because I don’t think I would have known coming out of Trinity. And then just taking up that sports theme, so you played sports from an early age, you continued it through Trinity. I knew you for your volleyball fame there, and clearly now in your profession. First of all, what role would you say sport has played in your life? How do you think it has changed you as a person? And is it the ultimate confluence of those interests now that take that into law?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yeah, I think even you’ve put your finger on it there. If I look back at any one thing that is attributable to the career I’ve had to date, it stems back to volleyball really. But before volleyball, I was an athlete. I started an athletics club at the age of 7. I did shot put. I was quite a good shot putter at the age of 12, but then I stopped growing and soon became quite bad at that and dabbled in hurdles and then really became quite embedded in volleyball, which was introduced in my school when a new teacher came there. And through that process, the school became quite good, our teams were quite good, and I was eventually selected to be a member of the Irish junior volleyball team. And so thereafter followed 11 years playing both junior and senior national team. I played in a club as well as, you know, playing a little bit in Trinity, but mostly I played with a club And through that, I traveled a lot, I coached abroad, I was coached by coaches from abroad, and that was a really a wonderful time and a wonderful learning experience and creating a, I suppose, a family and a network in that environment. And that really led later on, and not very much later on, to getting a tap on the shoulder from the President of Volleyball Ireland because he knew I was studying to be a barrister, and they had a constitutional review that they were doing, and I got the tap on the shoulder to say ‘You’re a lawyer, can you help us out?’ And so really, that was the first step on my sports administration career. And not long after, at the age of 26, I found myself actually running a national sports federation. That was Volleyball Ireland. And I did that as a volunteer and in tandem with my working life for 4 years. So I suppose everything— there was a kind of a step-by-step process through volleyball that led me ultimately into that World Rugby role, because I’m firmly of the view that if I hadn’t had that mix of the athlete experience, the sports administration, as well as the law, that’s not a role that I would have achieved. So yes, I think volleyball really is the singular element that has tied my career to date.
Susan Ahern: And a lot of people credit time in sport, especially as youths, for really forming their personality, maybe their sense of teamwork, discipline, rigor. Not easy sometimes to go out to those early morning trainings. What would you say— would you say for you it made you approach your professional life differently, having been trained to such a high level?
Aoifinn Devitt: Most definitely. I think the most important thing for me was the teamwork element. I really did thrive in that environment. I liked being part of a group of people who had a singular and collective objective, and everybody played their own part and role in doing that. And so when I ultimately did become the head of legal in World Rugby, I approached the management of my team in the same way, kind of like a team captain, that we’re in this together. There’s a collective purpose, there’s mutual support and engagement, because nobody teaches lawyers how to be managers or how to run legal teams. So you have to come up with your own way of doing it. And for me, the easiest analogy and the way that was absolutely deeply embedded in me was running the department like a team.
Susan Ahern: After your time as general counsel at World Rugby, Rugby World Cup Limited, you then decided to go back to the bar. Can you talk us through that decision?
Aoifinn Devitt: Certainly I can. I spent a wonderful 15 years in World Rugby. I had a great innings there and I really grew up and matured as a lawyer. But I also did an enormous amount of travel, and my children were teenagers by that stage, and I really did want to be around them a lot more. And I was also cognizant that we were now entering into a 5th Rugby World Cup cycle, so that was going to be my 5th 4-year cycle, as it were, and I didn’t want to hit repeat. And I was also very cognizant of my age and that I was at about the right age in my early 40s where I could do something different and yet harness the 20 years experience that I had. Because I had trained as a barrister, the bar was always niggling at me in the background, and so I just took the leap with a view to not solely being a barrister but rather having a portfolio approach, because I wanted to combine my love of counsel work in disciplinary tribunals, which was a a big part of the work that I did. But also I had a growing desire to sit on the other side of the table as a decision maker in tribunals and in arbitrations. And then finally, I really wanted to leverage my corporate governance experience and my INET experience as a board director. So that portfolio approach was something that I thought would, I suppose, be the next stage in my career and give me career longevity.
Susan Ahern: Well, we’re going to come and speak about that portfolio approach a little bit later, but first I’d like to dig into the world of sports law because it does sound like for many law students perhaps, or practitioners out there, this could be the ultimate dream job, the fusion of the work and play. Can you speak a little bit about the area of sports law, like how it evolved maybe over the time you were there and what scope you would have had as a general counsel in a role like at World Rugby?
Aoifinn Devitt: Certainly, and I do appreciate what a great and attractive what a great job that was. I’d like to be able to say that I deliberately went down that pathway, but of course it was by dint of just making a series of decisions. I would start by saying that sports lawyers are specialist generalists. You need to know a little bit about a lot and a lot about certain key areas. And back in the early ’90s, when I joined World Rugby, the scope really did encompass both the commercial practice and also the regulatory practice. And so just delving into the commercial side, really you’re looking there at hosting and participation arrangements for all of our tournaments, sponsorship and licensing agreements, and broadcasting. And that’s dealing with whether it’s agencies or direct sales, and ultimately World Rugby set up its own production vehicle for Rugby World Cups. And if I was to give you an example of— I was thinking about this— one of my favorite contracts of the many, many hundreds that I did was actually the arrangement to put a replica of the rugby ball under the Eiffel Tower for the 2007 Rugby World Cup. So there were lovely features like that along the way. But then moving to the other side of the work, then on the regulatory side of the house, that really was dealing with off-field matters. So not necessarily the sport the sports rules themselves, but really everything that went around to support those. And you’re looking at writing those rules, those regulations, interpreting them, educating the membership, and also implementing them before independent tribunals. So that was an area which really, I suppose, if I had a preference, it was probably in that space. I really enjoyed getting my teeth into crafting those regulations. And then a lot of the time was spent in enforcing them. And we did all of that in-house. So our little team, which did expand over the years, but it was one of the features, I think, of that team that we did it ourselves. And we only really went to external counsel in very discrete areas or where we had an official law firm for a Rugby World Cup. So that gave a great sense of ownership, which I certainly took with me throughout my career. That’s the early phase. Those are the two sides of the function, I suppose, of a sports lawyer. But with the professionalization of sport, with the increasing TV rights and payments, with private equity coming into sport, you see that, for example, in Formula One, in soccer, and more recently in rugby, that drove change and an increasing demand for sports law expertise. So today, sports law is a genuine career choice for students coming out of university. They have the brilliant opportunity to study it at undergrad level and to do masters in it. There are now sports law departments within bigger law firms, and you even have boutique sports law firms, as well as in-house opportunities with sports federations, marketing companies and agencies. So the landscape has really changed quite dramatically, but the only downside I would say is that now it’s very difficult to be the generalist traversing both the commercial and regulatory side of sports law in the way that I had that opportunity, because it’s so broad and deep now that students and law graduates and so on tend to now have to choose either the commercial path or the regulatory path, unless of course they start in a small sporting organization.
Susan Ahern: So interesting just how that has become such— and I was just thinking of celebrities buying into Premiership football franchises, that the Ted Lasso effect is alive and well. Really interesting. So besides that, the regulation side and the commercialization side, any other issues that are at the fore or coming to the fore now for sports organizations?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yeah, there are a few that spring to mind, and I think the one that is at the foremost of my mind particularly is safeguarding issues around child protection and also athlete protection. They’re very much in the news, and they are very much at the forefront of the work that sports bodies are doing. I think we’ve certainly seen issues in a number of countries, not least in the United Kingdom, Canada, where these issues are very much alive, and certainly that’s an area where sport needs to focus a significant amount of attention. We’re also seeing an increase in athlete activism. So previously, team sports are reasonably well represented, they’ve got collective bargaining and so on, but for the individual athlete, it is far more difficult. And so now they are starting to work together, really, both within sport and increasingly in external organizations. So you have bodies like Global Athlete who are starting to represent the voice of the individual athlete. And the other area where I think we’re starting to see a recognition that is in the area of diversity and diversity in decision-making, because traditionally sports federations have been predominantly managed by men, and the boards have been reasonably homogeneous. So you are now starting to see diversity coming through, both on a gender and on a minority basis. And I think, just to give you one example, the Irish government has mandated that 40% of the boards of Irish sports governing bodies must be female by 2024. So I think that’s a very solid requirement and a recognition that diversity is essential. And of course, that has come after many years of the organic growth not, not working. So I think those are probably the top 3 issues that I think are on the minds of sports federations at the moment.
Susan Ahern: And recently, a leisure centre near us has a new esports whole division department, as well as we’re hiring for an esports manager. And we’ve heard a little bit about the world of NFTs kind of encroaching on sports area. Is that something that you think is going to start exploding in terms of the esports franchising and digital?
Aoifinn Devitt: Definitely. It already has. I mean, I think if you were looking back and having a conversation 7 or 8 years ago, you might say, well, oh, where is this going to go? But most sports now, certainly the professional sports, will have an esports complement to what they do. You’re seeing it at the Olympic level where you have esports. You’re seeing it coming into, for example, in cycling, the cycling world championships. They now have esports available. It’s a reflection of the generation that are there today. They want to have that optionality. And I think sports who are able to work it into their existing frameworks, that’s great. But also that it sits alone as well. And I have to say, I haven’t had any involvement in where there are professional esports teams, but I am fascinated by them.
Susan Ahern: Yes, I’m watching from afar. I won’t be signing up for that leisure center, I think, anytime soon, but just very interesting to see how much that’s taken share, I suppose. I’d love to ask about some of the arbitration and mediation work that you do. Is this something that grew out of your sports law work? And What skills do you think are needed in the arbitration and mediation area?
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I can say that definitely the arbitration piece is a direct next step, in my view, out of the work that I did in World Rugby in terms of being effectively a prosecutor in the role of disciplinary officer for that organization and enforcing regulations before independent tribunals over many years and across many different subject areas. So I came to know and understand that both that disciplinary and arbitral process, it effectively was ingrained in me. And so when I left, part of my idea was to become an arbitrator, to become specifically to start with being a sports arbitrator. And I was very lucky that within a year or so of moving out into my independent practice that I was appointed as an arbitrator of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is effectively the Supreme Court of Sport, as it were. I suppose in terms of— I’ve learned a lot in these years. I think that developing a new area of practice into arbitration, into mediation requires quite a degree of patience and a commitment to the long haul because arbitration in particular is built upon networks and reputation and building on your credibility. And so for both arbitration and mediation, you really do need to have a solid foundation of knowledge. You need to have the credentials from the requisite recognized bodies. You do have to engage in speaking on the speaking circuit. You have to network, and you ultimately have to get a lucky break. But of course, having done all that foundation work, you can see how you you would build that lucky break yourself. And so really what that has shown me is, in terms of my skills, I’ve had to really work on communication, on efficiencies, on building rapport with the appointing institutions and with my colleagues at the Bar, which are both sources of work essentially. And I think if I look at mediation, and I’ve actually just come from a mediation conference this afternoon, One of the key things there, and a differential from arbitration or from tribunal work, is the mediator is not making a decision, and their job is to actively listen. And so I’ve had to learn how to switch my mindset from that sort of confrontational environment to one where it is a consensus-building environment. And that really is— that’s a challenge, and it’s a great challenge. I really relish that particular environment.
Susan Ahern: It sounds so interesting just taking into account, I suppose, the listing aspect and also the complexity. And I suppose the reduction of issues to multi-issue as opposed to single issue where there can often be that conflict. I only learned that for the first time in business school around negotiations. So I think maybe that is actually ultimately more intellectually stimulating as well when we start to look at things as complex, nuanced, and multi-issue.
Aoifinn Devitt: Exactly. And sometimes the dispute that you come into the room to deal with isn’t actually the real dispute. And I think spending a day or however long it takes in trying to peel away the layers and get to the essence of the issues. There’s always a turning point in a mediation where you can see a pathway to, I won’t say solution, but a pathway to compromise. That’s always a lovely moment in in a, a mediation from the mediator’s perspective, at least.
Susan Ahern: Interesting. So we’ve gone from the question behind the question to the dispute behind the dispute. It certainly sounds like we’re into multi-layered analysis there, but, but I can see the intellectual challenge and perhaps the satisfaction. And governance is like that. So you now have a lot of experience in different governance roles, directorships, as well as many board roles, INED roles. What would you say you bring to those roles? And what do you think makes a good director or chair in your view?
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, as an INED, I mean, the first thing I bring is independence. If you don’t bring that, then you’re not much of an INED. So I would say independence is key. But personally, I also bring pragmatism and decisiveness. I very much like— in the INED world, I like the practicality of dealing with business issues, whatever the business happens to be, and trying to look and see where the business is going strategically and that the right people are there to deliver on those strategic objectives. I suppose the sum of my various— because of the sum of my various experiences, I’m frequently selected to be on the audit and risk committees of these bodies or the broadcasting committees or inputting into crisis management policies. So you bring a general independence, but then also the specific skills that are coming from having that banking and legal background are generally, I suppose, plucked out by the Chair to be used in a functionally appropriate way. In terms of what goes into being a good director, really, you absolutely have to know what your duties are and you have to fulfill them, and exercising that independence of judgment. So that’s at the very high level. I think from my practical experience, I think it’s really important that independent directors contribute across all areas, not just their own areas of expertise, and that they’re clear on where conflicts of interest arise, because sometimes having the insight to understand that as well is important. And simple things as well, Aoifinn, like just being prepared for meetings, reading your papers, being supportive of the executive, but not being shy about asking the hard questions. And I am increasingly looking at things like culture of the organization and ESG, so that environmental, social, and governance responsibilities, and where they sit within organizations and how they’re being reported against. So I think that that space is evolving and evolving quite quickly. And you asked me as well about what goes into being a good chair, and I have really had the benefit of sitting on boards with good chairs, and I think The key thing for me is that they are the communication link between the CEO and the board, and of course also between the board and the CEO. And if that individual is balanced and is able to bring all of the board members into the various discussions so that they all contribute in a balanced way, that’s hugely important. And obviously that they’re able to chair a meeting within an agenda and stick to timeframes, these are actually quite important aspects of that role.
Susan Ahern: The reason I ask that question is it’s so rare that you actually get the manual or you get the course in what it takes. It really does come, as you mentioned, a bit about the personalities and knowing them, but also watching a good chair in action is so important. It’s the ultimate apprenticeship role, I think, and the same for a director. I’d love to go back to that diversity point you brought up earlier. You mentioned how we’re kind of getting it right in terms of maybe arranging some of the review panels, et cetera, now. But sport is not known to be a particularly, I suppose, equitable area when it comes to the amount of airtime, money male and female athletes get. We don’t see as much perhaps in sports being— in the US now it is, but in every country there may not be the same amount invested in female sport. But then to take that also to your profession and your experience around diversity, How has your experience of diversity been, I suppose, both from a professional standpoint and in watching the industry in which you work?
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, if I look at the legal side of things first, I think the legal profession has gone through considerable change in the past decade in particular, even though I still believe it has further to go. And even though there are more women now, certainly in Ireland and the UK, who are entering the legal profession, after about the first 5 years, you start to see a divergence in terms of how women are doing and their numbers being maintained. So I’ve been pleased to see the focus of the law societies in Ireland, the UK, and also the Bar of Ireland on initiatives like Women in Law Pledge or gender equality and inclusion charters, or more recently for my own professional body, the equitable briefing policy that they have introduced in order to try and ensure that women in the law are getting the same opportunities. And that’s not just to get work, but also to get the high-earning work, the commercial work, and so on. So that’s been an interesting thing for me to see and be involved with. And similar activities are happening in the arbitration world as well. You do have bodies like Arbitral Women who launched an equitable representation and arbitration pledge. And you see the institutional bodies like the ICC and the LCIA really trying to promote women and appointing them as arbitrators. So all of those things have really happened pretty much in the last decade or so. So that takes me back, I suppose, to when I started, which was well beyond that. And when I started, really, it was a bit of a base zero in all environments. There were no female heads of departments or directors. And this is not just within the legal environments, also in banking. There really were no role models at that C-suite level. And that began to change as I entered the C-suite, as it were. So for me, in many ways— and I was thinking about it lately— in many ways, I just took the environment I was in and worked with it. And it’s really more in retrospect that I understand and see how that was not necessarily a straightforward pathway. And so I’m really pleased to see that society in general is really working on trying to have more women involved in decision-making. And I’m very supportive of initiatives like the 30% Club for women on boards. I think that the trend is really going in the right direction. I think the conversations that are being had in business, in law, in arbitration are the right ones and they’re entirely appropriate. But I still think it’s very slow, and I think there still remains the danger that female talent will be lost because, quite frankly, I think there are easier jobs in this world to do than law. And so therefore, it was really incumbent on law firms and law societies and bar councils to keep working towards equity for their female members.
Susan Ahern: And then just the backdrop in sport itself. I know this wasn’t a scripted question, but how do you think we’re making strides there?
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I think in sport there’s been an exponential change. If you start maybe at the top of the pyramid with the International Olympic Committee, there is now equal representation of men and women at the Olympic Games. That was a policy they pursued over a long period of time that has now been achieved. And so that then has— because they are at the pinnacle, that has a way of filtering down. And so you are seeing across sports, you are seeing those efforts to try and create that equitable balance.. Now, I haven’t done an analysis across sports of recent times, but you really are starting to— if I take rugby as an example, previously you had a Women’s Rugby World Cup and you had the Rugby World Cup, female Rugby World Cup, and then the Rugby World Cup was the men. A number of years ago, they changed that nomenclature and they are all Rugby World Cups, and the differentiating feature is now the year. And so that was an effort to try and say, well, actually they’re all Rugby World Cups. They just happen to be men or they happen to be women. And you’re also seeing female representation being deliberately increased in sports like that where you have that 40% representation. But if I look back maybe to more locally in Ireland, there was an extremely successful program that was run by a number of organizations called ‘If She Can See It, She Can Be It,’ and it has won numerous awards because what it did is it showcased girls and women playing sport. It showcased those women that can be role models for younger girls so that they could see women playing sport and they could actually think, you know what, that’s something I would like to do, and if she can do it, I can do it. And that has been enormously successful and has resulted in the transformation, certainly in television in Ireland, on the amount of female sports that is now being shown on television. Has it a ways to go? Of course it does. But having started from effectively ground zero, there has been massive change. And I think that is going to continue because we are never going to go back. Once women are given an opportunity and once girls are given an opportunity to get into a space and make it their own, they’re not going to give that up easily. So I’m really hopeful for the future.
Susan Ahern: Well, really great to hear that, I have to say. So thank you for the insights from the inside, I suppose. And you’re an athlete, you’re used to winning and losing. If you look back at your career, just on the moving to the reflection section here, would you say there are any highs or lows or any particular setbacks that you learned lessons from?
Aoifinn Devitt: Yes, and I think it’s always hard to be honest with yourself and talk about your setbacks, but I think it’s fair to say that everybody has them. And the one that I think is probably the most recent for me was at the time when I transitioned from being a general counsel and head of a legal department doing really stimulating legal work with a great team, which was mostly female, I have to say, and I moved to try and establish myself as a barrister and build my arbitration career. That was not an easy transition, and when I had a bad day in court or worse, no solicitor instructions, I wondered if I had made the right decision. But I am resilient, and I do— you won’t be surprised to hear— have that competitive streak. And so I just had to set myself the challenge of doing something every day that incrementally moved me forward. At least in my own mind. And so I went on lots of boards and bar committees and did lots of CPD and generally got stuck in. And actually, that incremental work is paying dividends now. So looking, I suppose, at the highs, if I think about my past career in rugby, I would have to say that running the legal and disciplinary teams at two Rugby World Cups one in New Zealand in 2011 and then in England in 2015. They are 7-week marathons in the midst of the media eye, which are wildly exhausting, full of ups and downs and issues and very little sleep, but they were exhilarating. So that was a real high for me in my past career in-house. But now today, I would say that my greatest high was being appointed as an arbitrator to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, actually at the Tokyo Olympic Games. It was a high point, but it was also a privilege because those games, due to COVID, obviously had no spectators. So it was just the athletes, it was just their coaches and entourage. And the referees and officials, of which we were one, who were permitted entry. So that really was a special time. Wow.
Susan Ahern: As you’re describing disciplinary committees, and I’m thinking of all the disciplinary infractions in sport and the amount of tabloid headlines that even one will get, I think we’ll have to dedicate a whole podcast series to ethics and sports. But we’ll leave that for another day. Another thing I want to just get back to is when I speak with people who’ve had a lot of sports in their background, coaching and coaches come up time and time again. And I’ve heard about people seeking to have bosses who are like coaches because of that deep personal interest a coach has in your success. And I’d love to ask if there have been people in your life, whether they’re coaches or otherwise, that have had a pivotal role for you.
Aoifinn Devitt: Yes, clearly coaches do. When you’re on the field of play, you follow their pathway and you, you pretty much have to because if you don’t, you’re not going to make the team. But then you have the choices to be a member of that team or not. But in my working life, I would say I haven’t had a specific mentor or coach in my career path, but there have been a couple of people who I would call out as maybe changing the trajectory of my life. And I did mention before the president of Volleyball Ireland, a man called Aidan Curran, who, who was the man who tapped me on the shoulder way back when I was but a young lawyer, and started my sports administration career. So I look back on that, I suppose it’s more of a turning point than anything else. But the other individual that had a big influence on me was the Judicial Panel Chair of World Rugby, a man named Tim Gressom, who I did work with very closely for 15 years. And he was a former Crown Prosecutor in his home country and also a rugby referee, and for me, he was a great sounding board. Board, and I really did learn everything about rugby discipline from him, as well as getting insights from a criminal law perspective that I might not otherwise have had, and they have served me well in my tribunal and arbitration careers. And I think it would be remiss of me if I didn’t mention my husband, who has been a huge supporter in my career and in life, and we’ve been equal partners in that journey. And I think my career would not have been possible without his support.
Susan Ahern: Well, that’s lovely to say, and I’m sure he’s got some prime seats at some prime sporting events as well as part of the journey.
Aoifinn Devitt: So I guess there’s always a trade-off.
Susan Ahern: Indeed, always a trade-off. Well, my last question is around any creed or motto that you live by or any words of advice that you have maybe found to be important for you and your trajectory, or that you would have given your younger self perhaps. So a bunch of questions thrown in there, but really just getting around words of wisdom.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m not great with words of wisdom, and I was thinking about this, and actually what I came back to was I had an uncle who lived in the, in the United States, and who on a visit home when I was about 12 or 13, he brought me a poster of an athlete jumping a hurdle. Obviously I was a hurdler at that time, and that poster had a quote, and it was ‘Dream your dream, awake in action.’ And that poster resided on the inside of my wardrobe until I left home to go to college. And so when I meet a hurdle in my career, I think of that and it spurs me on. And I also think about it when I actually achieve something. So I think about it both positively, in a positive frame of mind, and also in a negative frame of mind. And I suppose I would say that I, I do see the world as a place of opportunity, and I do see life as a journey. It’s made up of many, many parts, and I consider that I have been really fortunate to have had 3 phases to my career so far, and I don’t believe I’m done yet.
Susan Ahern: Just thinking of those words of wisdom, sports really is the ultimate petri dish of life, so it’s no surprise that we get so many inspiring quotes from sports and from some of the players. So thank you so much, Susan. You’ve always been a wonderful teammate. I think we were on a moot court team at one point, as well as a team player. And I think you’re doing this now for the industry as a whole, being a wonderful team player, pushing forward the equity that we spoke about before, and being a wonderful role model for the generations coming behind. So thank you so much for coming here and sharing your insights with us.
Aoifinn Devitt: Thank you, Aoifinn. It’s been my pleasure.
Susan Ahern: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces Focus Series. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear from more inspiring lawyers and their stories, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: This podcast is brought to you with the kind support of Plutus Capital, a female-run investment management firm based in Evanston, Illinois, which works with clients on a wide variety of mandates such as custom diversity solutions, manager due diligence, diversified hedge fund to fund allocations, and advisory services. I’m Aoifinn Devitt and welcome to this collaboration between 50 Faces Podcast and GAIN, where we are meeting 3 interns from their recent 8-week summer internship program, which was held across various financial institutions in the city. GAIN is a community of investors with charitable status set up to change the lack of gender diversity in investment management from the ground up. Its mission is to increase the number of female applicants for entry-level roles into the industry. They do this by informing young women with online resources, bringing helpful information on careers and investment to their fingertips, inspiring young women with a strong network of female role models who speak in high schools and universities around the UK and feature on their online channels, delivering compelling and high-impact messages on the many benefits of investing as a career, and also by providing opportunities for young women to get into the investment industry, such as via this internship program. I’ve gathered 3 interns here to discuss their impressions of the internship, their impressions of the industry, and their plans for the future. I’m delighted to be joined here by Ellen Welford, Heyu Lo, and Ava Boras. Welcome, thanks for joining me today. So let’s start with Ellen. Can you talk to me a little bit about where you’re studying now and where you did your internship?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: Yeah, so I’m currently studying at Oxford and I’m just about to go into my third year studying economics and management. I’ve also just completed an 8-week internship at a small family investment office based in London.
Aoifinn Devitt: Great, thank you. And how about you, Han Yu?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: Thank you, Aoifinn.
Speaker C: So I’ve just finished my second year doing chemical engineering at University of Cambridge. I’m entering my third year next academic year. So I’m currently interning at Metropolis Capital and MMM. It’s my week 5 now.
Aoifinn Devitt: And Eva, how about you?
Speaker D: Hi, I’m Eva and I just finished my second year in Biomedical Engineering at Imperial College London and will be going into third year. And I completed— two weeks ago I finished a 7-week internship at Capstone Advisors.
Aoifinn Devitt: So Ellen, you studied perhaps the most traditional path for preparation for a career in finance. How did you find that Economics and Management that you were learning at Oxford How did you find the skills there translated into something you might have needed?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: Yeah, so definitely economics is quite a traditional route into finance and the investment industry, and quite a lot of my peers have also gone on to do internships in banking and you consultancy, know, quite the traditional route. One of the things about my degree course is like the mix between the economics and the management side of things. So the economics is quite problem solving and we do quite a lot of mathematical work, whereas the management management side of the degree course is a lot more essay-based, and we do a lot more reading and a lot more referencing. And one of the things that surprised me about my work in the internship is how writing-heavy it was. So quite a lot of the tasks that analysts have to do is prepare for meetings and send everybody out a brief in advance of a meeting, and then also write up the meeting notes afterwards. And then throughout my internship, I also did 2 projects which were kind of accumulated in a report-style structure. And so my first project was on SPACs, and that was about a 30-page-long report. And I guess I didn’t really anticipate that I’d be needing my writing and essay writing skills that much, but I think that’s definitely something that really helped going into the internship.
Aoifinn Devitt: That’s fascinating. And I’d love to know then how our 2 scientists found that, whether they had a similar element of writing included. So Han Yu, chemical engineering. To the world of finance. How did you find that transition?
Speaker C: Well, it fits pretty well because I think from my internship I’ve realized that, as contrast to Alan’s work, I have less writing. It’s probably because my tasks and responsibilities are different, but what I do a lot is reading, reading, digesting, guessing the key takeaways from a lot of readings, and then present it. So I think this is what I’ve learned from chemical engineering, especially from writing reports, because when writing like lab reports, we have to do some extra researching as well and then present it into the report. So this is one of the skills that I’ve learned from chemical engineering that’s very useful in my internship. But the scientific knowledge-wise for chemical engineering, I do find more comfortable when looking into the chemical industry or maybe just like sciences industry. So chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies, that’s where I have the chance to use my scientific knowledge into my work now.
Aoifinn Devitt: Absolutely. And Eva, did you have a similar impression, biomedical engineering to investing? How did you find that transition and what skills did you bring to bear?
Speaker D: So as my peer just said, bioengineering in general is very lab-based and a very important skill to have is knowing how to write reports. That reflect all the experiments that you’ve done before. And I feel like that’s what is more overlapping with investment and asset management, which involves, at least in the group that I worked in during my internship, which was risk arbitrage, there was a lot of heavy research to be done into looking into different companies and their financial past and comparing and whether in the future some finance would be feasible or not. And I feel like not because it was biomedical, but just the engineering part of it was the most useful in terms of preparing for the internship, as well as being able to work under time pressure and having certain deadlines to complete projects, or if a report was expected from me from my supervisor, to know how to manage my time. So I feel like my degree also helped me develop that skill.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s really interesting. So clearly a diverse set of skills needed, and even if you’d come maybe with a certain set of skills well developed through your degree, there seemed to have been the opportunity to learn new skills there in those positions. I’m curious, so in terms of what you knew about the asset management industry before entering, I’ll start with Ellen. Would you say that you knew a lot about the world of investing? Had the asset management industry done a good job of advertising itself to you, making you aware of it?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: Yeah, so I think I was in a relatively fortuitously lucky position in that my next-door neighbor works in the asset management industry, and that has been my only connection to the industry from a relatively young age. You know, I had no family members or no one in my school went into the industry, and so as I from, say, a super young age, I would be quizzing him on what he was doing in his work and what he enjoyed about his work. And one of the great things about him was that he was always so eager to explain things to me and was always really patient with all of my questions and also just made it sound like such a dynamic, interesting industry to work in. So that was kind of my first exposure to the industry. And then after that, I decided that I was going to study economics at my A-levels, and then with a view to if I really enjoyed that, then studying it at university. So it was a good job that I enjoyed it in the A-level stage and then continued pursuing the asset management side of things from then on. I did do a work experience with my neighbour when I was about 17, so I shadowed him in his asset management firm. And then I’ve done a couple of spring weeks as well, which is again quite a traditional economics and management undergraduate route. You know, you go from your degree to your spring week to your internship, then fingers crossed to the grad role. So I had a few bits and pieces of insight into the asset management industry kind of sprinkled in. Through my life, but I definitely think the internship has kind of surprised me with how much I’ve still got to learn about it, because all of these other insights gave a great overview. Yeah, I don’t think I ever realized how deep it went.
Aoifinn Devitt: Fantastic. And Han, you and Eva, how about you from a science perspective? Did you find that the asset management industry was knocking on those doors in the traditional kind of milk round, or did you have to seek it out yourselves?
Speaker C: I was exposed to finance sector, not just asset management, relatively late, so I’ve only realized this sector when I was in uni because I didn’t have any relatives or friends or family that’s in this industry. So I realized it, I joined society, and I’ve just realized there are so many more branches in finance sector. And yeah, and then digging around, researching around, and realized that asset management is probably the sector that I’m most, most interested in out of all this financial sector. And yeah, so what I thought about asset management before entering the internship is managing people’s assets, right? And there are like so many different ways to manage the assets. And then after I’ve joined, I’ve just realized there are so many branches from asset management yet, you know, like public fund and private equity fund and stuff like that, hedge funds. So, right, so I’m probably just understanding one part of it. But yes, definitely, I have still a lot more to learn.
Aoifinn Devitt: Fascinating. Eva, what was your experience?
Speaker D: So on the contrary to Ellen, I had no exposure to asset management or the finance industry as a whole. Me personally, I completed the business GCSE back when I was like 16. But then I decided to look into it when I came to university, and I realized how important the finance world is. At the core of the economics of how the world works, it all comes down to money. And so I felt like it would be very important, as well as very interesting, to look into this whole world that I hadn’t been exposed to before. So to answer your question, no, I hadn’t been exposed to it before.
Aoifinn Devitt: And had any of you been investing personally in stocks or had an interest in investing before embarking on this internship?
Speaker C: I did have a little interest in investing before joining, but since, like I’ve mentioned, I didn’t have a lot of exposure to this sector, so I wasn’t very comfortable of taking risks. So I’ve decided to learn a bit more before I do any decisions.
Aoifinn Devitt: How about business clubs or economic clubs or investing clubs at university? And some even go right back to high school. Did any of you join any of those kind of affinity groups?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: So I know that Oxford has a fair amount of investing clubs, but I think quite a lot of them are a lot more focused on the sell side, so quite a lot of people focus on like M&A and investment banking, and that was not the side of things that I wanted to go into. So I joined one of the societies called Oxford Women in Business, and that really appealed more to my interests, which were really in kind of the business fundamental side of investing. And that society is also really interesting because it introduced me to the world of not only investment but then also consultancy and law, because yeah, the society covered all of those different grounds. And then I say, after being able to view all of those different options, I decided that the investment management side was the most interesting to me. And then also another point to that is that I joined GAIN as an ambassador whilst doing my degree at Oxford, so I assume we might come on to talking about GAIN in a little while, but that was also an amazing introduction to the asset management industry.
Aoifinn Devitt: And just getting back to the idea of you can’t be what you can’t see, how important was it to you to see senior women succeeding in these roles? And on an ongoing basis, if you could put yourself forward 5 years and you’re a junior to mid-level, how important do you think it will be to see women in leadership roles?
Speaker C: You wouldn’t want a job that has no future or promotion, good job prospect. You don’t want yourself to working harder than anyone else and reach a glass ceiling. That’s very demotivating, I think. So looking if there’s like more opportunities or normalizing females in the senior roles and firms, that’s very encouraging. I’ll be very happy as long as it’s fair and square, as in they don’t discriminate women as someone who are not decisive. Things like that.
Aoifinn Devitt: Any other thoughts on that point around female role models perhaps being important?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: It’s quite difficult, I think, because I’ve really not had exposure to many female role models. Most of the women that I’ve spoken to in investment management are under 30, and I think that that’s a big issue in itself, and that a lot of women who go into the industry drop out of the industry when they decide that they want to start a family. And I think my firm at the moment are really strongly trying to encourage shared paternity and maternity leave. So that— I know that one of our head directors at the moment who’s a male has just taken 2 months of paternity leave, and I think that’s like a really important step to equalizing the playing field a little bit and making sure that women aren’t taking a disproportionate amount of time out of the job and out of the industry. But yeah, I think most of the women that I’ve spoken to are under 30, which makes it difficult because obviously they are great role models in themselves and have been able to provide so so much insight into the role and what the whole industry consists of. But when you go a bit higher than that, I’ve, yeah, struggled to find a vast amount of people that I can reach out to and discuss with. And so hopefully that will change going into the future, but I think at the moment we kind of need to create our own role models in a sense.
Aoifinn Devitt: Ava, do you have any thoughts on that point?
Speaker D: I feel like a big part of why there is not that many female role models in very senior positions is the fact that at some point in your career, you’re faced with a decision of whether you want to continue working or have a family or have a child. And that’s a very important aspect that should be taken into account. I know during my internship, I didn’t meet any portfolio managers that were women. But I did meet the head of legal and compliance. The whole compliance part of the firm that I was working in was mainly women. I did really feel very motivated, even though it was compliance instead of asset management or like a portfolio manager. I did feel very encouraged to keep working when I saw the woman that was the head of compliance. So I feel like it’s definitely very, very important to try and get a lot more women in charge, which there are women working in the industry, but not necessarily, as mentioned before, in a very high position. So I feel like for me, and I would say for like every girl that’s in primary school right now, if they had like a talk by a very important female CEO, they would certainly be inspired or maybe have it in the back of their minds., as you said, as an option of what they want to aspire to be. So definitely I think having more role models or people to look up to, it’s very important.
Aoifinn Devitt: Did any of you have specific mentors during your internship or in your university careers office perhaps? And how did you find that useful if so?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: Yeah, I have had a couple of amazing mentors actually. And again, I know I keep bringing it up, but it’s through the GAIN program. So when I first became an ambassador 2 years ago, they provided me with a mentor, an amazing woman a woman named Natasha who actually did become like a more senior position. So, you know, she is like my one reference point. And she worked on like the ESG side of investment. And that was something that I was really interested in at the time. So that’s environmental, social, and governance. And it was amazing to talk to her and get her insight into the industry. And then just before starting the internship program, GAIN also provided us with another mentor. And so again, I had an amazing, amazing woman named Hannah, and she was in her late 20s and had risen up the ranks like really, really quickly. So it was amazing for her age and provided me with so much insight into what it was like in kind of the early days starting out into the industry, because that wasn’t too long ago for her now. And yeah, those are my two like really great reference points that was also someone outside of the firm that I was interning with, so I was able to ask them all the stupid questions that you’d maybe not want to approach someone in your actual internship firm to ask, you know, like, what does business casual really mean? And like, can I wear this? And how do I approach and talk to someone this senior? You know, all of those sorts of questions that you wouldn’t want to ask someone who has, I guess, a decision on your final hiring job decision. Yeah, I think that the mentors were really important and amazing to have a sounding board to bounce ideas off and then also ask advice throughout the internship on certain projects or things that you’re working on. So I definitely recommend everybody to get a mentor, and then hopefully if/when I get into the industry, I’d love to be in that role and provide mentorship and guidance to other young women hoping to break into the industry as well.
Aoifinn Devitt: Thanks, Ellen, for giving us some insights into what GAIN does, because obviously that’s a huge part of this podcast is to, I think, to highlight this internship program and some of the supports that are in place throughout the year. Some fantastic events, some panels, career advice, and just really of sort showing the path into the world of investing. And the wonderful thing I think is that GAIN is just one piece of the global initiative on these fronts. Han Yu or Eva, do you have any thoughts on mentorship and its importance?
Speaker C: Yes, and it’s from GAIN. They’ve done a very fantastic job. So I wasn’t a GAIN ambassador, so I’ve— but they assigned me a mentor for my summer internship. I believe they do for all the interns that’s involved in this summer internship program. So she was the point of reference because again, I wasn’t very familiar with this whole sector before the internship. This might be a stereotype, but I’ve always find more comfortable, you know, to ask questions and approach someone who is a girl, who is a female, than counterparts. So she did give me a lot of advice in terms of maybe preparation into the industry and confidence in working in the industry. So she’s actually the one that’s talked to me about diversity in this industry that I mentioned just now. And yeah, what Alan said, you wouldn’t want to ask some of those questions that’s from your internship firm. So I do ask her a lot of specific questions as well, even during my internships, and how to first talk to people. Should I ring them up? Because it was a virtual remote working style. So stuff like how do I first approach the people, how do I organize a coffee chat with people, things like that. She has been very helpful.
Aoifinn Devitt: Great. Thanks for bringing this up, Ellen. And I think that’s where ESG is coming in with finance, in that it is definitely smoothing some of the rough edges of finance. Instilling across the board a commitment to change, to positive change, and as well as also integrating achieving a return with fulfilling a mission, doing good, and ensuring that that return is sustainable. Just, I would be curious if anyone had found that the ESG element was of particular interest, and maybe whether that might be an angle through which more women are attracted to the industry.
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: I definitely think it is an angle that is attracting not only more women into the industry, I guess, but just more people of our generation. I think our generation is a lot more sustainability focused, you know, we all want to do our bit to help the environment. And I definitely think, I completely agree with what you said about it softening the edges of finance, and I think that, yeah, that softening of the edges will attract a lot more women. And one of the things about the firm that I’ve been interning with as well, and one of the things that I absolutely love about it, is that it’s a family office and it manages these assets, but the returns on the assets are donated to various charities. And the family whose assets we own are some of the biggest philanthropists in the UK. And it just has that feel-good factor, you know, that the money and the returns that we’re making are not just padding out someone’s back pocket, but are really funding really genuinely good causes and really doing good. And I think that that is definitely an angle that has attracted me into the industry. And the ESG side of things is something that I’ve been really interested in in the past, and I’m hoping to explore further going into the future. But I definitely think investing to do good is an amazing movement and one that I hope will continue into the future.
Aoifinn Devitt: So, Han, what are your impressions on the ESG question?
Speaker C: Yeah, so I was trying to say, because as chemical engineers, you know, engineers have a very different role to the society as compared to the finance sector. So entering to the university, I’ve always thought that I hope to be able to use my expertise to contribute to the society, and engineering can easily play that part. But then I’ve been thinking about how finance sector can actually help. So that’s something that’s very motivating and also completes my career goal in terms of contributing myself, using my expertise to contribute to the society. So ESG is something that’s not just for the girls, but for our generation.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, that’s just so impressive. Well, as we’re getting close to the end of our time, I’d love to just go around the group now and have— I’ve got 2 questions because I’ll never ask just one. And the first one is around, was there any kind of key takeaway from your internship, either something that surprised you or maybe a mistake you made and a lesson learned, kind of a little bit of wisdom that you picked up? And then if you could also let me know whether you’re intending to stay in the industry and what your future hopes are. Ava.
Speaker D: So for me personally, because of the environment that we’re in because of COVID I didn’t really get to go into the office, like have in-person experience during the internship. I was only able to go into the office for the last 2 weeks. So I did go 3 times in person. So what I would say surprised me the most is how important it is to go in person into your office environment wherever you’re working. Because being an intern, like, this is what my boss told me. He told me being an intern is hard and being a remote intern is even harder. So for me, I found it quite difficult at first to really know how to balance my time as I was working from home. And I didn’t really know how often I should approach my portfolio manager or how often I should reach out or do my own thing. So for me, what surprised me is how important it is to go into the office, basically, and also talking to other teams. Because even though I was in the risk arbitrage, which was investing money when there’s a merger or acquisition, when I went into the office, I did speak, as I mentioned before, to the legal and compliance team, and some other convertible bonds and some other teams. And it was so helpful to just get to know different people, as well as when I spoke to the receptionist and the human resources team. And also another thing I wanted to mention, which I would say this is advice or something I would have wanted to know before starting my internship, which is don’t be afraid to reach out when you are lost or when you don’t know what’s going on. Because as an intern, there’s nothing expected from you in the sense that you are like a baby to them, to the industry, to the firm. So reaching out when you feel like you’re not understanding exactly what you have to do or how you should portray your work, then I feel like for me it’s the most important because the last 2 weeks of my internship I had the amazing opportunity of— I reached out to this other manager in the firm and I got a whole new insight on the industry, which was so useful to me. So that’s what I would say was what I learned the most and what surprised me the most.
Aoifinn Devitt: And will you stay in the industry, Ava? Is that your plan?
Speaker D: I’m definitely very interested in learning more about the industry. My manager recommended me a book which was specialized in risk arbitrage, and I’m reading that at the moment. And I’m definitely looking into, like, for instance, Engain, to go into some of the events during the year to try to maybe learn about other areas in the finance world. But I’m definitely very interested in it. So I would love to learn more about it. Yeah.
Aoifinn Devitt: Fantastic. Who’d like to go next? Han, can you?
Speaker C: Yeah, um, so I do agree with Eva’s advice, and you know what, I should have known before I joined I should heed her advice because talking about how you should ask people when you are stuck, because again, I was doing half remote, and actually my first 2 weeks was actually a remote working style because I had to do my quarantine at home when I just came, so I think first 2 weeks having it— doing it remotely is not the best plan because like what all the challenges that Eva mentioned, you just don’t know how much research you should do yourself until you should ring someone up to ask a question, or you should like just write a list of questions and ask it at the end of the day. But in terms of what surprised me the most, although it’s not about people but about the work, because I’m doing this investment analyzing, meaning finding stocks to invest in. And I’ve just realized that there are just so many industries in the world that we can invest in. So maybe some industry that you never thought of it, but it’s— it could be some industry that’s a good investment, might not be thrilling. So for example, doll manufacturer, it’s not the most thrilling industry ever, but it could be a good investment. Some of the companies might gain a lot of money from it. So yes, that’s one of the eye-opening things that I’ve learned from the internship.
Aoifinn Devitt: And do you think you will stay in the industry? Would you like to do that after graduation?
Speaker C: I’m very open to it, and I love the job I’ve done so far because I’ve been learning all these different industries every day. One day I’m looking at insurance company, the other day I’m looking at banks, the other day I’m looking at doll manufacturer. So it’s a very steep learning curve, and I find it very challenging but interesting at the same time. So I’d love to learn more about the industry, about the sectors. So maybe another internship next year, learn more about the sectors before going in as a graduate job.
Aoifinn Devitt: Fantastic. And Ellen, anything that you take away now and your plans?
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: Yeah, I mean, just bouncing off the other two as well, I’ve been really lucky in that I’ve been able to go into my office for most of my internship. So I’ve been working Monday through Thursday in the office and just Fridays from home. And yeah, my kind of heart goes out to both of you guys because I found it so amazing to be in the office, and I think I’d have really struggled doing an internship virtually. And some of the really tiny questions that you have, like, I can just nip over to someone’s desk and say, oh, you know, how do I find this piece of information, rather than send them an email, which feels far too important for such a small question. So I’ve really, really loved that aspect of it. And again, I think that one of the things that surprised me is how much I’ve learned in 8 weeks. But then as a side effect of that, they always say that the more that you know, the more you realize you still don’t know. So I’m just here realizing that there’s this whole world out there that I still don’t fully understand, and there’s still so much more to learn. And I guess that’s one of the interesting things as well. Like, some of the directors that I speak to say that they still learn things every single day, and even having been in the industry for 15, 20 years, you know, they’re still learning, still expanding their horizons, and still loving the diversity of the job. And yeah, to that end, I’m still really interested in going into the industry after graduation. I hope to go into the industry, and I think that it’s, yeah, really appealed to kind of my curious side as well as my innate need to do something different all the time. I don’t like focusing on just one thing for too long, so I love that you’re in a meeting and then you’re researching one thing and then you’re looking into another thing and then you’ve got a whole different sector altogether. And yeah, so much diversity and so much that really is applicable to the world around you, and I find that all just so interesting. So yeah, hopefully in a year’s time I’ll be moving to London for a grad job, but that’s a fingers crossed at the moment.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, I think the key takeaway for me as a senior person here is not only how important in-office working is and just being present for the younger generation and for incoming talent. And I hope that those not only in the senior level but in the mid-ranks take this to heart, how important it is for you that we are in the office training you and being visible for you. So I think that’s been a real eye-opener for me to hear that. So thank you. Well, I think what we’ve learned here is a lot about breadth, breadth in the industry itself, perhaps that doesn’t do a good enough job at revealing just how rich it is in terms of opportunity, and also breadth in terms of the skills that you need to function well in there in terms of writing skills, analytical skills, looking for evidence, analyzing it, critiquing it, and obviously dealing with people. A big part of that skill, you mentioned that the skill to ask questions, the skills to network. Clearly a wide range of skills needed, but that should open up many doors. Second, I’m learning also about the importance of mentorship and role models, as well as just pure visibility of women and diverse faces in the roles you might want to go into. So thank you for sharing that. And I think also thinking about the advent of more and more ESG-based investing and ESG initiatives across finance, hopefully that will do something to humanize the world of finance for the whole next generation So very much looking forward to that. Each of you has been an inspiration, and I will say that as a somewhat senior person in the industry, I am absolutely delighted to see such talent, such enthusiasm, and such generosity for you coming here and sharing your insights with us. So thank you very much to Ellen, Han Yu, and Eva, and to GAIN for collaborating on this podcast series. And we will have in the show notes all references to the internship programs and the wonderful activities that GAIN puts on. And thank you for sharing your insights here with us.
The GAIN Summer Internship 2021: Amazing. Thank you.
Speaker C: For Thanks your time.
Speaker D: Thank you for having us.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn and David, and thank you for listening to this 50 Faces breakout room brought to you with the kind support of Plutius Capital.
Aoifinn Devitt: There’s a popular narrative that women are less confident than men, but is this borne out in the data? Find out from our panel of experts from areas of coaching and executive search why lack of self-confidence can be an issue for far more people than we might think, and how the stories we tell ourselves, visualization, and building a personal board of directors can be keys to confident personal growth. I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to this 50 Faces Breakout Rooms podcast. This podcast is a joint initiative between 50 Faces Productions and Girls Are Investors, or GAIN. GAIN is a community of investors with charitable status set up to change the lack of gender diversity in investment management from the ground up. In the UK, women represent just 8% of decision makers in investment management. At entry level, it’s not much better. It’s understood that only 20% of applicants to the industry are women. I work in the investment industry and we frequently come up against the concept that women have a deficit in confidence when compared to men. Recently, I presented to a group of university students who are members of a women in asset management club, and it seemed to me in a somewhat troubling way that the popular narrative that women are less confident than men had become accepted as a truth and had even become internalized by young women at a young age. I set out to gather a group of professionals who have firsthand experience with these kinds of issues in the workplace: 2 executive coaches and 1 executive search expert. We are gathered here today in this breakout room to discuss the issue of confidence more generally, whether there is a deficit, and what we can do about it. I’m delighted to introduce our panel today. Kate Grussing works in executive search at Sapphire Partners. Katherine Hesselin is an executive coach and management consultant. She’s managing partner of Change Associates based in Dublin, and I’ve been lucky enough to have been working with Katherine myself. Brian Hillary was introduced to me by Katherine and is also based in Dublin. He’s a partner and head of coaching at EisnerAmptner, a specialist accountancy firm. Let’s kick off with the fundamental question: what does it mean to be confident? How would you define that, Kate?
A: Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. I think it’s such an important topic. The question is a fascinating one. I’d say to be confident means to know that you’re likely to succeed at something. Could be that you’re confident in preparation for a job interview. It could be you’re confident in the context of a promotion. But, you know, there— it also could be you’re maybe making a big public speech or presentation. I think for most people, confidence ebbs and flows. It’s not static.
Aoifinn Devitt: Thanks for that, Kate. Catherine, how about for you? How do you define confidence?
Speaker C: Well, again, thank you for having me on. And like Kate said, it is interesting. It does ebb and flow. I think for everybody, even in the hours of the day, it can ebb and flow. I define it as self-confidence is about how you feel about yourself and then your ability to take action about it. I do think that self-confidence and self-worth are different, but I’m not sure that most people make that themselves. Differentiation Themselves. And I think when you ask them the question, they kind of roll everything into one: self-worth, self-esteem, self-confidence. And I don’t really think the definitions matter. If they feel it, it is it, whatever that it might be for them.
Aoifinn Devitt: Thanks, Brian. How about you?
Speaker D: Yeah, similarly, I think Catherine mentioned self-worth there as well. I think self-confidence and self-worth are very closely linked. What I think is self-confidence, the way to think about it is it’s trusting maybe believing in our own abilities, our ability to execute a task. So if we have a healthy sense of self-confidence, it might be we’re more willing to take on a new challenge or an opportunity. We mightn’t be afraid to express our opinion or to be wrong, or we might be more inclined to ask others for help when it’s needed. I think self-worth is something that’s a little bit deeper, and I think it’s about how we feel about ourselves and the value we place in ourselves.. And I think if we have a healthy sense of self-worth, we might feel more centered, balanced, safe, and secure. And I think maybe if we have a lower sense of self-worth, it might be manifest as not— we’re we just feel we’re just not good enough for this job or this interview, or maybe we’re not worthy of a relationship. And I think if we have a lower sense of self-worth, it might manifest itself as issues with self-confidence in other parts of our lives.
Aoifinn Devitt: So Brian, just getting back to that point about self-worth, I’m just going to ask you this first. Is it possible then to have a sense of self-worth but not be confident? Or do you think that they always go together?
Speaker D: I think none of us will be confident in everything. We can’t be good at everything. And I think even acknowledging that is a step forward. I think if we have a low sense of self-worth and maybe connected to a low sense of self-esteem, I do think that then that can manifest itself across different parts of our lives, almost to a point where we might withdraw from opportunities, that we can be kind of closed in ourselves.
Aoifinn Devitt: And I’m just going to stay with you and then we’ll go back around the popular narrative that women are less confident than men. Is that something that you’ve seen in your practice? And do you think that it’s justified to to say, say that, that it’s general as a general rule?
Speaker D: So another really interesting question. I think everyone will struggle with issues of self-confidence throughout our lives. So almost everyone anyway. And I think in my own experience, it’s something that I’ve had to work on. And in my experience as a coach, it’s something that I often work on, or it’s an area of focus with both male and female clients. And maybe to get a little bit more of an objective view, I did speak to a number of my colleagues and clients before today. And what came out of those discussions was that it isn’t the case that women are less confident than men.
Aoifinn Devitt: Absolutely fascinating, because right from the beginning here, we’re starting to debunk that popular narrative, which is great. How about you, Catherine? What have you seen in your practice? Does the narrative bear out?
Speaker C: Well, it’s funny. So when you put the question to me, I kind of had to think about it. The metadata doesn’t support the narrative. So what’s out there in terms of Harvard studies, etc., doesn’t support the narrative that there is a difference between gender on confidence. And I have found the same thing like Brian in my practice. Both male and female present with having lack of confidence in certain things. So I haven’t found it to be gender specific. And everybody feels it at certain points in time. I would have felt, had a sense of, oh my God, the confidence level to even come on. Am I the right person to come on this podcast? I think we all feel it at certain points in time.
Aoifinn Devitt: Very interesting. That’s certainly what I’m learning on imposter syndrome. It is by no means confined to women and/or confined to status or age throughout an organization. It can happen at any point. Kate, how about from your perspective, and especially as you’re in the executive search arena, So you see perhaps that we have this classic other narrative that is, for example, that women tend to ensure that they are fully qualified for all the points of a job description, whereas a man may be happier with only meeting a few of those criteria. Maybe what are you seeing from your perspective in search?
A: No, well, there is lots of research that shows that men will apply for a role if they have approximately 60% of the qualifications, and women will only apply for a role if they have 100% of the qualifications. There have been many studies looking at that. I do see it in my search work. And when I pick up the phone to a candidate, I’ll typically know something about them. They will have been recommended. I will have looked them up on LinkedIn perhaps. And a man and a woman with identical profiles, the woman is less likely to say, “Oh, absolutely. What took you so long to find me?” She’ll say, “Well, I’m not ready. It may not be the right time.” Whereas her male peer is much more likely. And, you know, won’t— he the male peer is less likely to say, oh, well, I don’t have these two aspects of the candidate description. I think some of that, from my perspective, is healthy in women, where women candidates can perhaps be less arrogant or can be less overconfident. But it can be a double-edged sword in terms of if my female candidates are self-doubting, that can come across in their interviews. So, part of my and my colleagues’ and fellow recruiters’ job is to make sure that our female candidates blow their own trumpet and understand why they are as qualified as their male peers.
Aoifinn Devitt: Let’s get into a little bit more detail there. So, just say you have this highly qualified woman who you’ve approached, perhaps. You think she’d be excellent for the role, but she’s hesitant and she has self-doubt in certain aspects. How do you encourage her to address that situation?
A: Well, I will typically go through quite forensically the items in the role description and ask her questions against each of them. I will hopefully have her CV or enough background in front of me so that I can try and unpick her answers. Now, you know what? My job as a search consultant is to find great candidates. It’s not to boost her confidence. But I know through my decades of work in this field that I am more likely to have to nudge or prod or encourage female candidates over male candidates. I will typically ask a candidate for, can you give me an example of some time when you have done this? And so, ask for quite practical things. And then a woman is quite likely to say, oh yeah, well, I did do that. Or, oh, I have another example. So, it’s getting them to go back through their CV or their education where you help them find the evidence so that it’s not a matter of their bravura or what they think. It’s let’s look at what have you done that would help you be qualified in this domain.
Aoifinn Devitt: Really interesting. I think not only a database of that, but also really focusing on case studies and granular examples, which obviously everybody is always going to be more readily able to identify with an actual case study than a theoretical ability. That’s very interesting. Just going back to the coaching side now, because Kate, obviously you said that your role is not to bolster someone’s confidence. On the coaching side, it may not be your role, but it may be how some clients see your role. Katherine, how does that manifest itself when a client might come to you with a confidence issue? How often do other issues that maybe people seek coaching about come down to confidence?
Speaker C: Before I answer that question, I might just go back to Kate’s point. The data is really clear on, men tend to overbelieve in their competence levels, which has fed out for Kate in her experience in the search world. And women tend to underplay it. And unless you kind of do that granular, go after the granular, give me the data or give me some examples, there’s loads there, but they just don’t put them on the table. To go back then to your question around on the coaching front, how do issues relate to confidence? Oftentimes clients don’t come with the confidence. They don’t come and say, I have a lack of confidence issue. They might come with something else. But quickly, it kind of comes out, well, I want to go for a new role, or I want to try something different, or I want to speak up more. And ultimately, when we kind of— when you peel back the layers from it, they ultimately say, you know what? It is about lack of— I’m not confident enough to speak up or to put myself forward or to go for it. So they don’t often call it out. But then eventually, as we feed things through, it comes out that, yeah, it is about lack of confidence. And then we talk about that and how that manifests itself for them. And there’s physical manifestations of that lack of confidence. You know, they’ll say, I have sweaty palms, my heart is racing. There’s a whole load of manifestations. So we talk about it and we kind of figure out, okay, well, let’s talk about what it is today, what you’d like it to be, etc. And we go from there. And it’s all bespoke. So it’s all related to the— there’s no kind of grand plan. Everybody’s definition of confidence is different. So you go with their definition because the coaching belief that I have is they have all the answers. My job is just to help pull those out of there.
Aoifinn Devitt: I think it might be interesting just before moving to Brian about maybe looking at how— because some of the perception is that not everybody suffers from these issues. How many people say who come for coaching do you think have issues about confidence? Maybe not in every domain, but in certain domains. I suppose I’m trying to get at how pervasive is lack of confidence as a problem?
Speaker C: I think nearly every client that I have, male or female, at some point we touch on the topic of lack of confidence. I don’t think I’ve ever had a client where it doesn’t arise.
Aoifinn Devitt: Now, Brian, how about you? I would imagine it’s a similar observation.
Speaker D: Yeah, and actually just I’d echo what Catherine was saying there, that I think it would be an exception where it didn’t relate in some shape or form to self-confidence. And I think coaching is something that is kind of a tool mechanism that can just be a great way to help someone with their self-confidence. And while some people, as Catherine said, some people I work with may explicitly state, I’d like to work on my self-confidence, very often they have a goal or an area of focus that if that’s achieved or worked towards, it actually has a positive impact on their self-confidence. So whether it’s explicit or not, it’s almost always a theme. And I think in terms of how self-confidence or issues with self-confidence can manifest itself. I think sometimes issues around self-confidence stem from deep-seated beliefs that we hold about ourselves and the stories that we tell ourselves on repeat. And if the stories that we’re telling ourselves is that I’m just not good enough, I’m not worthy, I’m winging it, I’m going to be found out, I think those beliefs about ourselves can impact the decisions that we make. So then we don’t go for a job interview or a promotion. We don’t express our view or opinion in a meeting, or maybe we don’t say no enough. So we always say yes, and we work really long hours at the expense of other parts of our lives. And something else I was thinking about, I think sometimes if there’s a recurring theme of self-confidence or issues with self-confidence, is it so sometimes that we can take ourselves out of the race before the starter gun even goes.
Aoifinn Devitt: I know that when we had our talk at the beginning, we’re going to go around and ask about, well, how do we, I suppose, break away from this? What are the kind of action plans that we can put in place to instill confidence? And I think you mentioned the stories we tell ourselves. How much of this is kind of a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset problem? That they say, well, I’m just not confident. Or is there, I think, an increased recognition that people can develop confidence and build it, that is not something that’s fixed? About their personality? I’ll maybe start with Brian and we can go around.
Speaker D: Yeah, so I would think it’s not fixed, but it can take time to shift our sense of self-confidence and self-worth. And maybe just on action plans, kind of in my experience, what works well is to have a plan that’s focused and very achievable too. So take for example, if I was working with a client and self-confidence which manifests maybe with a fear of public speaking, we might have 3 steps to it. And the first step might be just understanding and demystifying the underlying fear or anxiety. So what is You it? Know, talking about what is fear, talking about the sympathetic nervous system being activated, adrenaline flowing through our system. Where does it manifest? As Catherine said, is it shallow breathing? Is it racing thoughts, sweaty palms? And then maybe talking about why we experience it. So is it a fear of judgment, a fear of failure, fear of rejection? And I think talking about it in this way helps to in some ways demystify it. And it helps the client to realize that they’re actually okay. And in some ways, it loses its grip. So the first step is just understanding, you know, demystifying the fear, anxiety. The second step would be developing an awareness or helping the client to develop an awareness of how unique and special they are. So their own values, their strengths, their capabilities. And some of the exercises there are around developing and clarifying core values. I think when we know our core values, it helps us to make better decisions in our lives based on what we value most. I would encourage clients to actually write them down and keep them visible. Something else when I’m working with clients, sometimes with their permission, I speak to some of their colleagues. Sometimes I notice some of the feedback is very positive, but a client can be very slow to— they can downplay or minimize that feedback. Again, I encourage them to take bits of that feedback and actually write it down and make it visible. Someone might be a great communicator, a valued colleague, And I think these exercises help the client develop their sense of self-worth. And the third step would be taking specific tangible action to be, say, in this example, to become more comfortable with public speaking. So it’s to pick an event that they’d actually speak at, reframe the event as not a dreaded challenge, but an exciting opportunity. And some of the things we might look at is internal dialogue. So as opposed to saying, this is scary, this could be terrible, this could be a disaster, to reframing that, that this could be exciting, fun, an opportunity to learn and grow. And we try to focus on the process as opposed to the outcome and to enjoy the process as much as possible. So they’re just some of the things we might work on. But I think approaching, say, a public speaking event in this way, the client can approach it with a sense of excitement and enthusiasm as opposed to fear and worry.
Aoifinn Devitt: Really interesting. And I love that reframing concept. I’ve heard people should even reframe the sense of butterflies in your stomach or anxiety as not perhaps worry there’s something about a negative outcome, but actually that’s a sign of how important an event is to you, is that that’s how your body is reacting. So it’s a sign that you’re taking it seriously, it’s important, not necessarily something that should lead you down a spiral of lack of confidence and poor performance. Catherine, over to you. And when you speak about maybe action plans, I’d love you to touch on a point you made earlier, which is around the answers being inside yourself, because some people might attribute lack of confidence to others, maybe how they’ve been treated in the past, but maybe even their family background What action plans do you think of and where does the answer lie? Always within or sometimes externally?
Speaker C: I believe that the answers always lie within you. I mean, obviously how you frame things come from your family of origin, your experiences. All of those things do have an impact on what you think about yourself. But then I would use techniques like Brian talks about, like reframing it. So that’s how it was that time. It doesn’t have to be like that. What possibilities are out there for the next time? And that was, you know, that was the feedback that you got from Boss A. Do you think that the 4 other people in the room had the same feedback to give you, for instance? In terms of plans, action plans, I’m very much again of that belief that you decide, you are the person who calls out, like, do you want to work on confidence? And then if you do, then we kind of talk about it. So I often use metaphors. So I say to somebody, when you’re having a bad confidence moment, what would you call it? And I try and get them to put something on it. And often I’ve got, well, I feel like a mouse, and it could be a cornered mouse. So we talk about, okay, so how does that feel? What are you doing as a cornered mouse? All of those things. And really getting into how they feel. I feel terrified. I feel like I’m looking from A to B. I might be so frozen in the moment I can do nothing. And then I say, well, do you want to stay in that place? Because it is important to validate that is a place that they feel. And most people will say, no, I don’t want to stay there. And I physically get them to move. Right, where do you want to go? Well, I want to go to a place where I’m totally confident. Okay, well, let’s move to that place. And what’s the metaphor you put on it now? And what I’ve often heard is, I feel like a lion, the pride of a lioness. And they put the character on it, I don’t. And then, what does that feel like? Well, I’m very proud. You can see it in their body language, their whole shoulders go back, their voice might go up. What are you doing? How are you feeling? All of those things. And then we talk about, okay, so if you want to move from the mouse to the lion, what are 2 things that you can do between now and the next time you meet to facilitate that movement? So they have— there’s their action plan set, and then we reinforce, like Brian had talked about. We talk about, okay, what did you try? What worked? How did it feel? Will you try— and really kind of emphasize and acknowledge the fact that they’ve done something with us, and that acknowledgement will reinforce, hopefully, them going to do it again. It’s a process. This will take time. I mean, if they suffer from lack of confidence, it didn’t just happen overnight. So it can’t be rectified overnight.
Aoifinn Devitt: Very interesting. And I’d say as a client of Catherine’s, she does actually make you move. So you be prepared to start moving around the room. It’s always been very helpful in terms of mindset. And just before I come to Kate in terms of the effect she’s seen of that kind of coaching on some of the clients she works with, let’s get back to Brian to ask you about The point about confidence coming from within or being influenced by external forces and what can we do about that?
Speaker D: I think ultimately it does come from within. And I think that’s where, you know, it comes back to the deep-seated beliefs that we hold about ourselves if we struggle with self-confidence and it’s connected to that sense of self-worth. And I think it’s creating a shift in those kind of deep-seated beliefs. And as Catherine said, I just think that’s something that actually takes time to shift those beliefs. Catherine made an interesting point there. It’s, say, I took, for example, a public speaking event, but it’s only when you do the— you repeat the event that you go again and you build up momentum as well. I think that’s where self-confidence is generated. I think certainly you can find support via a coach or maybe a mentor to help you develop self-confidence and just talking to people about it. But ultimately, I do think it’s probably something that ultimately the shift has to come from within.
Aoifinn Devitt: Very interesting. I think the other point, getting back to Katherine’s point about a mouse and how does it make you feel, I think that’s the difference between feeling that the situation doesn’t feel right, perhaps, or an introvert who genuinely doesn’t like perhaps big events that involve a lot of public speaking. I think it’s possible to be very comfortable in your own skin and not like that, but equally, the lack of confidence is a negative effect that we don’t like that situation and want to move. I’m just going to go back to Kate on the executive search front. So you’ve worked with clients, and I certainly— do you see clients who’ve benefited from this kind of coaching? And how do you ensure that women can really have the most, I suppose, productive career trajectory that they deserve?
A: I think it’s really important that women do own their own achievements, and having a coach or a mentor is a fabulous way to have an external perspective because sometimes we can have these little demons or parrots on our shoulder. And we do need an external catalyst reminding us of our strengths or what I like to call our superpowers. And as Brian said earlier, no one’s good at everything. And you certainly, know, not all at the same time. I think women are so talented. There are more fabulous women than ever in the pipeline coming out of universities at all levels of companies. And certainly, as we’re recruiting for roles, we see more women than ever. Who get recommended to us, who we think really merit being on longlists and shortlists. In addition to coaching, I think it’s important that you think about who are advocates you can enlist, who are your champions. It could be a group of girlfriends, it could be former colleagues, it could be a sister or a sister-in-law, but it is important that you have those people in your corner who you can turn to when maybe you’re trying to negotiate a pay rise or thinking about a stretch assignment or considering a change in role and having that group of your own directors. And obviously, it can be men and women. It’s whoever really understands what makes you tick and what you’re good at.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s an interesting point. And also, I think sometimes there may be a bit of a misnomer in the term executive coaching because there’s a sense that it’s only reserved for executives and that if you know, kind I’m, of making my way up the ladder, I don’t I can’t ask for any. I know, Brian, that you’ve worked with people right across their career at every level. It seems to me that coaching is something that should really be available and certainly accessed at almost every stage. Would you say that?
Speaker D: Yeah, I totally agree. And I think just on that, while maybe a company or an organization has a finite amount of resources, one of the things we did in the last number of years was we kind of set up a coaching function within our business. And as part of that, our management team have access to coach, and I head up that service. But what we’ve done over the past kind of 18 months is we do coaching skill sessions for everybody in the firm. So during the pandemic, we actually bring the whole firm together, and people go into breakout rooms, and they take it in turns to be the coach, the coachee, and the observer. And they have 10 minutes each, and then they give feedback to each other, and then they go and they rotate the roles. And we find that that’s really helpful, that it’s a way of kind of embedding a coaching culture, and it kind of has a ripple effect as well. And then just to say, I think people who have the opportunity to be coached, I think the positives of that is when you’re coached yourself, and I’ve been coached, that actually enables me— the people that I’m a better manager because I’m coached, and the people I’d like to think the people that I work with, actually it helps their management skills too. And that way it kind of, it can permeate through the firm.
Aoifinn Devitt: Really interesting, especially the point about the observer. And I think I’ll bring this point up later, but I think we need a lot more observers in our meetings, especially now when most of them are being held by Zoom. Observers to ensure that people are getting their voice heard and getting a chance to speak when they can.
Speaker D: Sometimes people find it very hard to be the observer, to give the feedback, and that’s something where we encourage— because this is right across our firm, from trainees to partners— it’s encouraging the trainees to give candid feedback too.
Aoifinn Devitt: Catherine, do you see coaching as a career-long I think it’s a career-long pursuit.
Speaker C: And I think it should be provided to everybody all the way through. Brian and myself were talking about this at one point. Even though I work as a coach, I still engage a coach to work with me and have done for a long, long time. I think you always need, as Kate said, you need a lot of people in your corner who will be advocates for you, be that a coach, a mentor, pal, a sister-in-law, but anything that will help you bring out the best in yourself is worth investing in. I often hear women say, but it’s very expensive and the firm won’t pay for it. And my retort is always, well, would you buy a handbag that costs you a lot of money? And the answer is, of course. Well, then it’s worth investing that amount of money in yourself because it’ll last a lot longer than the handbag.
Aoifinn Devitt: Absolutely. Well, I’d like to just do a sort of final roundup of maybe— here we are still, unfortunately, at this time, not all together in one room. We’re all doing this. We’ve got very good at Zoom, but we’re all working from home. Still on Zoom. Is there any kind of one thing that we could have our listeners take away that they can work on in the near term to just maybe boost their confidence, even in a certain area or more generally? What would you say would be kind of a tangible takeaway action plan? Maybe I’ll start with you, Brian, since I know you have done a lot of this quite recently in your firm.
Speaker D: So I think everyone’s had a really tough year, and that’s, you know, no matter who we are, what we do, everyone’s had a really tough year at the the pandemic. And I’d say if people could just be— I’d encourage people to just be a little bit kinder to themselves. And that might sound a bit vague. So in terms of how you might do that is encouraging people to just take a little bit of time out of their day to do something that brings them a bit of joy, peace, happiness, and fun, whatever that is. And for me, that might be 10 minutes of meditation first thing in the morning. And that helps me to be more present, a little less reactive. And that can have a ripple effect in the rest of my day. But for others, it could be getting out into nature for a run or a walk or a swim in the sea. It could be meeting a friend for a walk or a coffee. And I think the benefits of that aren’t just that we’re getting exercise. It’s actually more about putting value on ourselves and our well-being. And I think if we do that, that can have a ripple effect, and I think we could feel better about ourselves. So I’d say try to be kind to yourself, and maybe how to do that— carve a little bit of time out of your day to do something that brings you a bit of fun and joy.
Aoifinn Devitt: How about you, Catherine? Is there any one thing that our listeners could take away to boost their confidence or start working on that in their daily lives?
Speaker C: I have a tagline which says, ‘Be kind, be brave, be safe.’ So I don’t give advice as I believe that it’s all within you, but a thought: if you are feeling uncomfortable about saying or doing something, do it or say it.
Aoifinn Devitt: Absolutely. Kate, any takeaway or piece of advice you’d give our listeners?
A: I love what both Brian and Katherine said. I might add to it in terms of saying, ask yourself at the end of each day, or maybe it’s at the end of each week, what went well? What am I proud of? What did I accomplish? You know, maybe it was something big, maybe it was something small, but I’m also of the camp, I believe a lot in, you hear people talk about gratitude journals. And so thinking about how much we have to be thankful for. Often helps really put things in perspective. Often, at the end of a day or a week, you’ll realize, “Wow, I really tackled that well.” I think that act builds upon itself.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, great. I’m going to add one of my own. While I’m speaking, if any of you has anything else you’d like to contribute to this, I think, very important discussion on confidence, please come in at the end. For me, it’s about listening and visibility. I’ve been doing these podcasts for a year. I’ve really developed a listening muscle, I think, and it’s kind of sad to think I had to wait this long in my career to develop it. But actually, that has been profoundly life-changing for me to be able to now empathize more readily. It is certainly— one identifies with everybody’s insecurities and we see that we’re not alone. Listening is a great skill. Tied to that, the point I made about meetings, having maybe a second— Brian mentioned the notion of an observer. I do think that all chairmen or chairwomen need to have a second chair of a meeting, which is an observer. Is everybody speaking in this meeting? Is everyone being heard? We’ve had the concept of the ancient tribes passing a stick from one to the other so that people speak when they get the stick. There doesn’t seem to be that function on Zoom yet, but I do think that having that and the ability to speak when you’re given the stick and then pass it on, just to ensure that there is that visibility and that we’re all listening to each other, I think that will be very important, I think, in shoring up our own confidence because we will see that we’re really more alike with our peers than we are different. So that’s my contribution as a non-expert to this discussion. Just before we finish up, does anyone have anything that we haven’t said so far on the topic of confidence that they’d like to share?
A: I might just add that I think it’s a good thing to talk about. So if you’re having a day or a week where you’re not feeling particularly confident, don’t hide that. Ask for help. Enlist your supporters. Maybe no one else saw it in you that particular day or week. But as Catherine said early on, everyone feels this at some stage of their career— men, women, junior, senior. And I think you’ll find that people will really want to help you.
Speaker D: I think that’s a great point, Kate, because even in the lead-up to today, I had lots of great conversations over the past 10 days or so with my colleagues, male and female, on the issue of self-confidence. And it was just some really healthy and honest conversations between us as well. So I think opening that dialogue is a big step forward.
Speaker C: I would agree. And I think the best thing you can get out of all this is you can gain from us. Excuse the pun.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, that’s a wonderful place on which to end. Yes, we all need to gain. Well, thank you so much to all the panel, to Kate Grissom, for listening, Kathryn Heslin and Brian Hillary. It’s been a real pleasure to discuss this with you today. Clearly, this is a discussion that we need to keep having, but I think we’ve certainly set us off on the right path now. Thank you for sharing your insights with us.
Speaker C: Thanks, Aoifinn.
Speaker D: Thanks, Aoifinn. Thanks, Kathryn.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn and David. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces breakout room made in collaboration with Girls Are Investors. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring investors on their personal journeys, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: If you look at the way that it seems social mobility works, is once you’ve established a beachhead from an underprivileged community, generally speaking, that beachhead becomes one in which other members of that community land and then can spread around into the areas they’re trying to break into.
Breakout Room 5: That was Sakir Nashebi, Chief Executive Officer of the International Business of Federated Hermes, whom we thank for supporting the production costs of this episode. Welcome to our breakout room, a spinoff of the 50 Faces podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the world of investment by focusing on its people and their stories. I’m Aoifinn Devitt. The UK unemployment rate has risen to 4.9% in the 3 months to October 2020. With 370,000 people made redundant. Official data recently published shows that the annual fall in employment is the highest in a decade, with the number of people in paid work 280,000 lower than a year earlier, taking the employment rate to only 75%. The government has said after the figures released that protecting lives and livelihoods is our number one priority, and they particularly underscored the Kickstart scheme for unemployed young people as they meant to ensure that nobody is left without hope or opportunity. Employment is also an important source of dignity, and as we all know, the focus on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, SDG 8, looks to decent work and to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. With this focus on youth unemployment, this, we have here in this breakout room, a rare opportunity to see the impact of a program which targeted unemployed youth 7 years ago. Many of the programmes and initiatives that we see are focused on now, but it’s very rare to be able to look back and look at the impact of a programme that had already happened, to look at the impact it’s had on participants, but also on those who sponsored and delivered it. Youth employment has always been a large focus for the UK government, particularly in 2011 after the financial crash. At that time, the government launched a Futures Job Fund in a bid to provide opportunities for a growing number of unemployed youth. That was also the year that summer riots took place across the UK. In Croydon, we saw the image of a burning Reeves furniture store featuring on news stories across the world. It was at that time a groundbreaking programme was put together by our panellists here in order to focus on the problem of youth unemployment. I’m joined here by Stuart Heatley, Managing Director of Capita Pensions, Suzanne Taylor, Senior Consultant at LCP, Salomon Beyoud, who was a participant in that youth unemployment programme, and Derek Brown, Chief Executive of Entrepreneurs in Action, whose brainchild the programme was and put together the programme with Stuart. I’d like to first start with Stuart to speak about why at that time, 7 years ago, he was interested in the area of youth unemployment and what it was about it that triggered an interest in him. Stuart, welcome. Can you tell us about why you decided to invest in a programme targeting unemployed young people from Croydon?
Speaker C: Hi, thanks very much. I just start by saying this is one of the most interesting and rewarding things that I think I’ve done in my career, and certainly as a senior leader within business. It was a time of significant growth, and we needed to look at a different way of recruiting and bringing people into our business. And I met with Derek, and I was really interested in what he talked about around CVs and getting past CVs. I’ve always been a great believer in bringing people on, and when you talk to people, that actually, really, if you’re relying only on their CV, then you’re not really getting to understand about the person that you’re bringing on. And Derek talked to me about the program that he had, the potential that he was seeing on a day-to-day basis amongst some of the the people that he was working with, and it really captured my imagination. It really made me think, you know, we need to approach this in a different way. And with the support from Suzanne, who had taken on the, the new office as part of her overall leadership, we embarked on the program. And really, the program was about tapping into a pool of potential that I think conventionally employers wouldn’t look at. And like I say, one of the most interesting and rewarding things that I’ve done.
Breakout Room 5: And just in terms of your own personal experience, I think that you have always been focused on recruiting based on potential and talent and not necessarily on a narrow definition of academic success. Can you just talk a little bit about that experience?
Speaker C: Yeah, and it starts with myself. I didn’t I left school, and I didn’t go to university. I started splitting print. That was my job with a ruler. And I was given an opportunity, and I joined what at the time was a very entrepreneurial business. And I got great opportunities to work my way through the business and learn a lot of different things that ultimately meant that at the time, I was the managing director of the Aon pensions and benefits business. I think as I’ve approached recruitment with both senior leaders and also bringing people into the businesses that I’ve worked for, I’ve tried to look for that potential and look beyond necessarily people who have been to university and specialized in, in a particular subject. It doesn’t mean that we don’t recruit graduates, of course we do, and that is definitely something that will continue for good reason, but But what we’ve also got to do is we’ve got to be mindful of either through circumstance or will. Mine was more through will. I decided I didn’t want to go to university. I wanted to do a whole lot of other things. But through circumstance or through will, people won’t go on to secondary education. But it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be channeling that talent and channeling the potential into our business, because that’s going to be great for business.
Breakout Room 5: And just moving to you now, Derek. Thanks, Stewart. What was your pitch? You heard, you were obviously witnessing the situation in Croydon. You’ve been focused on youth unemployment for some time. What’s your view on how corporations currently recruit versus how they should recruit? And what was your pitch to Stewart?
Speaker D: Thank you, Aoifinn, and Stewart’s sort of given you, set the scene really. Yeah, so I was introduced to Stewart, and we had a conversation around recruitment. He was talking very much about the Croydon office, and I pitched him and said, look, you’ve got the office here, Stuart, would you not be interested in recruiting some local talent? The old adage of a big global insurance company looking to and engage with local talent. And Stuart said, you know, he liked the idea. And then I pushed and said, wouldn’t it be really interesting if we recruited in that old traditional way by talent and not by numbers? And what I mean by not by numbers, I think we’ve become obsessed then and today in recruiting young people into jobs by numbers. Numbers of the A*s that you get at GCSE, number of A-levels, what grades you get, have you got a first-class degree, did you go to one of the big Russell Group universities. And I, you know, I said to Stuart that there are lots of talented people who would get, who’d really value the opportunity being recruited on their talent and giving the business leaders the opportunity to have a hunch and recruit. And Stuart’s already talked about somebody giving him an opportunity, and I think the present recruitment, the existing and today’s recruitment process, processes focus predominantly on academic resource, academic results. And I’ve often asked leaders Many of them wouldn’t get a job today if they were going to be screened on the academic qualifications that their HR departments are looking at for entry-level jobs. So huge number of people who have got into business and proved themselves, and Stuart and many others are like that who will be listening to this podcast. So I pitched Stuart that we would design the UK’s first CV-less recruitment process, and he liked the idea, he liked the idea, but he did give me a warning that if it didn’t work, he did give me that look, and unfortunately we can’t see Stuart, but he is over 6 foot and a big rugby player, and I knew that I had to get this job right. So he set the scene in a really polite way that, you know, I’m going to back you, but go ahead and do it. And The opportunity to work in Croydon was a fabulous opportunity. As you mentioned, huge amounts of negativity about the Croydon brand. We, you know, the Croydon was at the height of every news report, the burning Reeves building, but there was a lot of talent in Croydon. And I think that it’s just about giving young people a chance, an opportunity, and getting their confidence up so they can apply for a big global brand such as Aon. So from our perspective, we put together the program, we partnered with Jobcentre Plus and the Croydon Council, and I’ll talk about that a bit later. But essentially the pitch was to Stuart, give these young people a chance, move away from CVs, move away from recruiting and numbers, and let’s create a level playing field where people, young people, could be recruited based on their talent and accept the opportunity.
Breakout Room 5: Thank you, Derek. And let’s move to Suzanne to talk about translating this ideal into reality, because I understand that you managed the program and oversaw the entire recruitment process from day one to the final presentation. Can you walk us through, first of all, your initial thoughts as you went into that? What the selection process was like and how you managed it.
Speaker E: Hi, yes, so I can remember the first conversation that I had with Stuart, actually. We were sitting down having a chat and he raised with me the idea, and I think very early on I became quite excited because I live locally in South West London and really understand some of the challenges that was faced by the young people. But at the same time, I was living in this corporate world going through the process as Derek described, where you have this CV approach to interviewing. So, instantly, the whole approach of the programme really became quite exciting because it felt that you could do something locally for local people. And as Stuart touched on, we were setting up a new office, so it was a great opportunity. So, the first point really around what we started to do was I started to talk to my wider management team And really early on, I realised that I wasn’t the only one that was quite excited about this. It was being received really positive with the existing staff that were working in the office with me. So, I think from very, very early on, it was a really new opportunity, quite exciting, and to make a difference in the local community, and that really stood out. In terms of what we did with working on the programme, I think what was really great for us when I look back on it was having that opportunity to see individual candidates for more than an hour. So to get to actually build a programme with EIA on how you could come together with a group of young people and really understand what they had to give. And I think it would be fair to say that on the first day where we worked in the college, we were really overwhelmed with the enthusiasm and the motivation and the commitment from young people. It was pretty amazing.
Breakout Room 5: That’s great. And in terms of the number of candidates, I understand that you started with 10, but you did ultimately increase to 15. Can you just talk us through that?
Speaker E: Yeah, I can actually remember when we were sitting at the end of the boardroom session with the leadership team, we were trying to decide who the final 10 would be. And it would be fair to say that that wasn’t an easy conversation. There was lots of conflict in discussions. And in fairness, I think Stuart instantly agreed that we would increase that number to 15. But, but I think even at that point, we were quite disappointed that there was so much talent in that room. We would have liked to have increased that number further, because what you really saw from the young people was all of the strengths that they would bring into an organisation that you wouldn’t necessarily see through an interview process, even if you went through one or two different stages. Because what you were actually seeing was these young people working in that environment as if they were placed in that business with you. So it was absolutely It was quite overwhelming, actually. I think it would be fair to say I found it very emotional to see what young people had to give.
Breakout Room 5: Well, thank you. And moving now to Solomon, I’d love to hear your personal story in terms of, are you a son of Croydon, for example, and how you came to hear about this program and what you felt during this process?
Speaker F: Thank you. So for me, actually, I have quite a different experience in terms of I was in a bad place, really. I had, um, just finished uni, couldn’t get a job. I studied accounting and finance and was just struggling to get an interview. Like, I’d applied for so many jobs, but one thing I didn’t do, which my mom insisted I did, was sign up for the job center because I had some savings prior, because I had worked at the London Olympics the year before. So I had some savings, and I really didn’t want to going to the job center. In my opinion, it’s just not the place you go if you want to get a job. That was my perspective. And, um, so I avoided job center. But what was interesting was just I woke up one day and I decided to take my mom’s advice and actually just go into the job center. And I remember going in the first day and thinking, oh, what am I doing here? Don’t like this place at all. And I remember signing up with an advisor who looked at my CV and was like, what are you doing here? Like, you’ve got a degree, you seem to, you know, like this place isn’t for you, essentially. And it was even more depressing. So I remember that first week not going great, and then came back the next week and my advisor was ill. It was someone else. And she looked at my CV again and she was like, do you know what, I’m going to give you the advice that I gave my kids. Stop looking for a job, look for an employer that has room for you to grow and for you to eventually get to what you want to do. And then she um, mentioned, the, the program with EIA backed by Aon Hewitt. And she— I’d never heard of Aon Hewitt at the time. And she said, trust me, just apply for it. It’s a completely different process. All you need is your GCSEs and they’re going to take you through the process and just, just go along to it. I was like, okay, sure, why not? Got nothing to lose. And that was pretty much how I ended up on the program. I almost didn’t go to that, um, meeting that day, which was— now thinking about it, it’s, it’s, it’s almost crazy. And I would say it was a great decision, Derek, to partner with the job center because I almost imagine it could have been anything else. It could have been with an agency and so on and so forth. I think doing it with the job center was actually the perfect way to go about this in order to meet what the actual— what you were trying to do with this program. So that’s pretty much how I ended up on the program. And I must say, one thing that the program did for me was motivate me. I remember, um, I say, I think it was like just a couple days into, um, the process. I remember thinking, wow, I’m actually excited to get up now. I’m excited to go and do this. So every day I went, I was more— I was motivated. So that was the one thing it definitely gave me, which I didn’t realize, that I was demotivated. So, it motivated me.
Breakout Room 5: So, our other panelists have spoken about feeling overwhelmed in that room by the sheer talent, the energy, the enthusiasm. How did you feel when you were dealing with this potential employer? Did you feel overwhelmed? Did you feel that your confidence was growing in that setting?
Speaker F: Yes, I’d say, actually, I remember the first stage, there was actually quite a lot of people. I don’t remember what the number was, but I’m tempted to say it was hundreds. And I remember walking in thinking, seriously, 10 jobs? There was quite a lot of people in the room, and I remember feeling overwhelmed thinking, wow, that really, really have to be you a, know, special 10 to get the job because it’s quite a lot of people in there. And I remember feeling overwhelmed at that stage even before we got to the final 25. I think when we did the group activities in the breakout rooms that I remember feeling overwhelmed and almost couldn’t speak because there’s just so many people and so much going on.
Breakout Room 5: No, it’s definitely, it sounds like quite a unique experience. And what I think is also very interesting is that you had a university degree, but even still, you weren’t aware of programs like this. And this is something that has come up in other breakout rooms, that perhaps the industry doesn’t do enough of a good job in getting itself out there to potential talent. And it’s only through programs like this, maybe, that we can plug gap. So how did you feel when you were offered the position, when you were one of the lucky 15, I suppose, if there was 15 positions?
Speaker F: Yes, I’m actually— I’ll go further and say I was one of the even luckier 5 because I didn’t get one of the jobs that was originally advertised. I got an even better job, which has pretty much set me up for what I’ve achieved right now. So it was an analyst, analyst job, and it was something that even till today I get friends and family questioning me, like, how did you get that job? And when I told them the story, they’re like, oh wow, because I didn’t study anything to get that job. It was pretty much, um, um, I’d say it was Ian, um, Ian Bloxham, who’s not here today, but he wanted me in his team He, he was involved in the process and he saw my presentation and he wanted me in his team. So I ended up getting a different job to what was advertised, which was amazing. And that’s been the perfect job because I guess that talent that he saw in me, I didn’t see myself. And since then it’s just grown. Like, I can’t explain to you or express how much it’s changed my life completely. It was something I never considered doing. And just from this program and this process, I’ve been able to develop a skill and develop a talent that had always been there, I guess, but I wasn’t aware of.
Breakout Room 5: Great. I’d like to just go back to some of the other panel members in terms of their— maybe the impressions it made on them personally, whether it be the initial day or the program as it evolved. Back to you, Stewart. Can you maybe speak about some of the presentations you saw that day? And how the program evolved in your eyes.
Speaker C: Yeah, sure. So I wasn’t involved in the initial selection day, and as Suzanne said, that she, she really was the sponsor of this and really, I think, made this successful for us and also for the people that were involved alongside Derek. But, you know, we had a session where we, at the end of this, where we got the presentations and where this was where we were going to select our 10 people. And I’m not sure I was overwhelmed, I was just, I was absolutely, I found it incredible that we had managed to get such a wonderful group of people that wanted to be part of our organization, that wanted the opportunity, and had not just done the day with Derek and then come along to have a conversation with us, but actually they’d done a lot of preparation. And they’d been separated into groups, and they’d been given particular topics that were close to our heart in terms of how we served our clients or how we could see the market moving. And they’d come in, and they presented as groups, and they’d done the work together. They put a lot of effort into it. And I was just amazed. And it felt like such an affirmation of the direction that we had taken. But the affirmation was nothing to do with us, the affirmation was to do with the talent that had come into the room, the enthusiasm that was there. I think Suzanne mentioned enthusiasm, the enthusiasm, the desire to learn, the desire to be part of our organization. Give me that any day over a group of people who are kind of just looking at a whole number of jobs to see and throwing their CV out. And give me enthusiasm, give me a desire to learn and a desire to be part of an organisation. And we did expand the group, know, you and I think Suzanne is giving me the credit for that. I think it was Suzanne’s idea, but we all agreed immediately because, and do you know what, if we’d had 25 jobs, we would have taken probably the group of people who were in the room if we could have, but we expanded to 15, and it’s great to hear Solomon with the impact that the role that Ian had picked out around the analyst job around Salesforce and the work that he was doing. But it’s great to hear that. But yeah, I would have— if we could have, we would have taken more. And I think to a certain extent, we felt great for the roles that we were going to offer, and we felt a little bit sorry that we didn’t have more potential vacancies to bring people in on. But, you know, just absolutely fantastic. And as I say, down to the people that came into that room, they were such a great bunch of people.
Breakout Room 5: I want to move to Suzanne in a minute to speak about the program and the training involved in it once those offers had been made. But I want to circle back to Derek because some words I’m hearing here, I’m hearing about people being amazed, overwhelmed, stunned, maybe even surprised at the talent they saw coming into that room. Derek, I got the impression you perhaps would not have been surprised and that you knew about this great well of talent out there. Were you surprised or did you know it was there all along?
Speaker D: Hi, Aoifinn. Great, great question. And if I’d be really honest, one of the most magical days in the 17 years, I think now, of running Entrepreneurs in Action was the first day that Solomon mentioned when we had 125 young people arrive for a 9 o’clock start in the pouring rain. I remember it was pouring with rain and somebody said to me, can you go downstairs? Just look outside of the doors of the college and see what— just look and see what’s going on. And I remember coming downstairs and I was like, ‘Why are you calling me to watch, to see what’s happening?’ And I looked out in the pouring rain, and there was 125 young people queuing patiently whilst we started the registration process at 8:15 in the morning. And for me, you know, sometimes we get caught up with this narrative about what’s wrong with young people, I just looked at it and said, this is what is right about young people. They wanted to work, they had their— they were suited, they were booted, they came there, they just— they were just so well mannered. They filed through, nobody complained that it was raining. I remember doing the opening speech to the group and I scripted something and I just tore it up because I was so overwhelmed by all the young people in the room that I just said that today is the start of a journey, it’s not about your CV, it’s about your talent, you know, give it your best shot, this program could change your life. And lots of people say that, and I think the beauty of it, and listening to Solomon today is that you never really get an opportunity to see the impact of the work that you do and, and hear it firsthand from somebody. You, you kind of think you are making a difference, but I honestly believe that the work we do changes lives. And essentially, this program is underpinned but and what Solomon’s demonstrated or shared in his journey is that if you’re given an opportunity, it can truly change your life. Work changes lives because he’s— and we must find out, you know, what he’s— I’m really keen to find out what he’s gone on to do. But, you know, just Ian having that opportunity to spot talent, not by CV, you know, just through this process of seeing somebody coming in and actually performing at a task. And Ian had a hunch, which I said at the very beginning, that this process gives employers a chance to have a hunch, to look at somebody and say, we want to take that person. So I couldn’t have written the script better for Solomon to say that he hadn’t actually thought about the job. This was somebody’s hunch to give him the opportunity to do it. So to answer your question, Aoifinn, I wasn’t surprised, but I was pleasantly really happy by the journey and that everybody’s been on and especially what Solomon’s shared.
Breakout Room 5: Thanks, Derek. And I want to move now to Suzanne and Stewart to talk about the actual program. Once those hires have been made, that people are now in the firm being trained. Was it all plain sailing? Were there areas perhaps that, perhaps because there wasn’t maybe the awareness of these schemes before, that extra training was required? What was your experience in implementing the programme?
Speaker E: We were fortunate in that I think from day one what you saw with the group coming through the door was two things really. Firstly, the proudness to be chosen, and I think what that gave each of those candidates as they started their training program was the confidence to know that they deserved their place, they had earned their place. And I think the second thing that you really saw was the hunger, I’m going to describe it as, and the motivation to get on and do a good job. And in a lot of respects, I think the induction was probably smoother than it traditionally would have been because they had worked with the management team. So the management team had been part of the selection process down to the final 25, so they all were already familiar with a large group of the people that they would be working with. And in addition to that, I think that the pensions administration environment worked quite nicely with a programme of this times, such as lots of admin, I believe, would do the same, in that it’s quite structured as to how you would induct a candidate into the role, and you would move through the various stages of training. But I think my overall view of how did this work and did it give us extra challenges, I think I’d have to say no. I think it gave an advantage, and the advantage was that you really knew that each of those candidates they wanted to be there, so they wanted to be part of the organization, because part of that program had enabled them to learn more about the company they would be working with, so understand a bit more about Aon. So, I actually feel that it gave everybody an advantage rather than a disadvantage, because that knowing each other was already in place.
Breakout Room 5: And is this something that Aon has continued to do over the years, and will you continue to do it? How has it changed, if at all?
Speaker E: So, I’m not sure what Aon are currently doing working for LCP, but what I can say is that we have recently done a classroom-to-boardroom programme, and following on from that, we’re exploring other opportunities with Derek, so hopefully there’ll be some exciting stuff from the future. But from a personal perspective, I most certainly would get involved in running a similar programme again, because I think what it actually gives you as an employer is a real insight to the strengths and the talents that the individuals have. And Solomon’s story on how Ian chose him to be within his area, I think that really demonstrates that in those sessions, you get to see what someone can bring to your business. Which you wouldn’t necessarily see through the traditional interview process where you might have nerves or a limited amount of time. So I think, yeah, most certainly I would definitely get involved again. Some key points from the programme and the whole process that might be worth adding, and that’s really, for me, it was about watching the journey through from day one right through to those, the talent embedded in the workplace, and looking at that day-to-day interaction and the value they were really bringing to the business. And that wasn’t just because we were fortunate enough to have a great talent pool that we brought in, but I think it was two-way learning. I think there was a lot of learning for the current teams within the organization on what they could learn from that group of young people that came in with that enthusiasm and that commitment, knowing that they’d been successful. And I think what that really did was across the whole, whole office within Croydon, it uplifted the motivation of the whole team. So the wider team, which at that point was about 100. So I think they really added quite a lot of motivation to the location. So it wasn’t just us being fortunate getting that talent pool, it was what they brought into the wider office. And I think that’s something that people wouldn’t expect to achieve for a programme such as this, but it actually had that real positive results for the whole location, and I think that was quite an important piece for me.
Breakout Room 5: So Stuart, would you agree with what Suzanne said? Would you have had a similar impression?
Speaker C: The only thing I was going to add was pretty much along what Suzanne was saying. I think the impact that this group, that that process, and I think the impact that the group had on the business, not even in just Croydon, I think across the board, I think was just so positive. And I think it brought a real drive to our Croydon office, which was a new office that was being built out. As I said, we were putting new clients in there, so it was a growth, it was part of our growth. And it just, I think it contributed to what was a really, really positive time and a really positive period, I think, within the business and certainly within my own career experience. I think it was good that you should never underestimate the impact of compact enthusiasm and just a great group of talent and what those people have on the people that are around them and the business that they’re in.
Breakout Room 5: So, Suzanne, you have a lot of experience in recruitment. Is it your experience that certain people perhaps are less well suited to the traditional CV and interview recruitment process, and perhaps are well suited to this kind of more of a session that Solomon has just described.
Speaker E: So, when we were sitting down making the decision after the presentations, there was a particular individual who— what became very clear throughout the whole programme was that they probably would not be successful through recruitment via this traditional CV approach. They were quite an introverted character. And I truly believe that there are people out there that this works for far better than, you know, going into a room, a buildup of nerves, because actually that period of time working with an organization allows all of that fear to be removed. So, you can actually see what they really have to bring. And this particular individual, who I won’t name, it became quite clear that they would be quite successful in an environment working with techie and systems-type work, and was actually successful as part of the programme. And I truly believe without a programme such as this, they would have struggled to find a place. And in fact, following up, having conversations with the individual after they were successful, that became clear that that was part of their journey. They had been trying to get through that interview process, and for whatever reason, with their personality and confidence, it just wasn’t possible. But this programme gave them that kickstart they needed with their career, and I think that’s quite an important message too.
Breakout Room 5: And just to clarify, in those sessions, how much time was spent perhaps between Salman and Ian? Maybe, Salman, you can answer this yourself. Was it a kind of a case study, an example of what you would do for him? How did you know that that was an area that you were suited for?
Speaker F: I’d say it was just, we had to do a final presentation as a group, and I remember my part was around technology and how we could use technology to, I guess, get people interested in pensions. And I think that was it. I don’t remember seeing him at any other session. It was just that one session, and I think I spoke for about 5, 6 minutes, and that was it.
Breakout Room 5: It was actually seeing perhaps, you, in a— you could maybe visualize you in the role that way, as opposed to a straight kind of an interview technique. It’s very interesting. You, Stuart, so you were involved in this program 7 years ago. Would you do something like this again, and do you think it has potential for broader application?
Speaker C: So would I do it again? I absolutely would do it again. I think it’s, you know, when we did this and the circumstances under which we did it, I think were just perfect. I think there was a symbiotic relationship. We had a group of talent that were looking for an opportunity and we were looking for a group of people who were looking for an opportunity. I’d love to do it again. I think now, and particularly as we go into a post-COVID environment, I think that locations have become also less specific to business, and I think that opens up the UK to recruitment really across the whole of the UK, and let’s be honest, could be the whole of Europe and the whole of the world. But I think if we focus that on the UK, absolutely. I think if we’ve got pockets of talent as we had in Croydon. I think we’ve demonstrated we’ve got pockets of talent that if we can unlock that talent, we can create, I think, a great outcome from a business perspective and an even better outcome, I think, from an individual perspective, giving people confidence and giving them the ability to deliver something back to business, but also, I think, to build themselves. So I would definitely do this again. Derek and I keep in regular touch. I’d love to work with Suzanne and also Solomon again more locally, but I would love to do it again, definitely. And I think what we need to do is we need to think about how we adjust what we did from a Croydon perspective to a UK-wide, and I think if anything, the opportunities are greater in our post-COVID environment.
Breakout Room 5: Thanks, Stuart. So, Solomon, I think we’re all interested to hear what you’re doing now and what you have gone on to do after this experience. Can you tell us about that?
Speaker G: Yes. So from that job as a client analyst, I gained very important skills. Say the most important skill I gained was problem solving, and that’s pretty much what I do today. So I ended up actually building databases. That was one of my first experiences with Aon. I built databases in Microsoft Access and SharePoint just to gather information from colleagues, from client service managers at different parts of the country, just basically to reduce the amount of time spent doing admin and create some sort of reporting tool, essentially. And that’s literally set me up for every single job that I’ve been into since. And it’s just that problem-solving, reporting, making data easier to gather and analyze, and automating that whole process. That’s pretty much what I do. So I currently work for a consultancy called Kainos, and we do digital transformation. So what’s interesting about my tool and I— about my job right now, and I link it back to my first day, is I remember on that first day I didn’t have a clue what I was going to be doing or how I was going to be doing it. And what was great was I had a manager who pretty much gave me creative freedom in terms of how I solved every single problem. So the job that I do currently requires me to pick up new tools, tools I’ve never learned before. So we could go into a client’s environment and clients’ offices, and they might be using a database or tool or reporting tool that I’ve never seen before. And one of the primary reasons why I got this job, as I was told, was my, I guess, my interest and ability to pick up new tools without any prior knowledge on the fly. So I’ve recently just finished a 6-week project, burn project, that I had to learn every single technology that we used on the fly. And it was successful. So I would say what the job has set me up for is that ability to go into the unknown with an open mind, very optimistic, very positive, and succeed, essentially.
Breakout Room 5: That’s great. Thank you. So Derek, looking to the future yourself, one of the areas I want to ask you about is, did this program— we haven’t touched on diversity in this discussion yet. And did the program and the group you employed, did it reflect the local diversity in the Croydon population? And was that one of the objectives? And would programs like this perhaps be one of the keys to unlocking some of the underrepresentation we have in investment jobs or in financial jobs in general, in terms of diversity?
Speaker D: Aoifinn, that’s a really good question. So we didn’t open it up as a diversity-led program. We focused on talent and we said that we would recruit based on CVs, based on what we saw in terms of young people’s performance in front of the executives over the two phases of the program. What was very, very interesting is that although it wasn’t a diversity program, we delivered diversity. So one of the interesting stories about Croydon is that there’s South Croydon and there’s North Croydon, and North Croydon has a higher level of social people within that social deprivation bracket than South Croydon. We delivered, I would say, 90% of the young people who came through the job centre and made it through the assessment phases were from North Croydon. In addition to that, the ethnic mix was really balanced. I think it was about 50% Black and Asian who got through, and, and the gender mix was brilliant as well. It was 50/50. And what I really enjoyed is that we had a talent-based or talent-led recruitment process, and it delivered everything that we try and engineer in terms of recruitment without trying to engineer it. So we just focused on not on the CVs and just that conversation with Ian, having 6 minutes to observe and speak. Well, he had a bit longer. He would have spoken to Solomon after the presentation, but it was about seeing how people fitted within the organisation. And the other observation I’d love to share is that when I spoke to— we did a follow-up session 3 months into the roles, and we went back and we filmed everybody. And what I found fascinating— what fascinated me about that was that every young person who we spoke to was working to for Aon said that they would never have applied for Aon as a role because one, they hadn’t heard of Aon for some, but two, many of them didn’t have the confidence, saw it as too big an organization to recruit them. And I think that’s also one of the challenges for young people is that they kind of switch off and a little bit around that comment which Solomon said, ‘You know, there’s 125 people there. Am I going to be the one who gets a job?’ And it’s, you know, it’s really important, especially in these times that we’re in with, um, the huge unemployment figures, that young people keep that hope, have that self-belief, have that confidence in themselves that anything’s obtainable and it’s up to them to obtain it. And if they have that self-belief, they will achieve.
Speaker E: Great.
Breakout Room 5: Well, thank you, Derek. The last thing I want to ask you about is the partnerships. You mentioned before that this was done in partnership with Croydon Council. What exactly did that partnership entail?
Speaker D: Yeah, so we worked with the CEO of Croydon Council to promote the job opportunities. So around the table, the stakeholders were Croydon Council, Jobcentre Plus, which we had very senior level buy-in, and Jobcentre Plus helped in the screening. I think 1,000 young people wanted to get a role, and we got it down to 125. We also worked with Croydon College, who supplied the venue, and they were a brilliant partner to work with. And through the council, we’re able to also give the program some high-profile support at the GLA, and we had the local MPs also getting involved in the program. So I thought it was a very positive experience for Aon in that one, they got the employees that they were able to recruit, but also they got some very positive profile which they were able to reference in business pitches, etc. In terms of lots of people talk about doing socially based activities, they were able now to reference something which they’d done in Croydon and the impact that it had. So partnerships were critical, and the most important partner was AON and the flexibility of Stuart and Suzanne in terms of working together. And you collectively, know, we were able to make a real difference.
Breakout Room 5: Well, that’s certainly something I’m hearing, that it really— whereas everybody may want to create hope and opportunity for young people, it really does take a village and everyone showing up and making an effort and making it happen. And thank you to all of you, to Stuart, Suzanne, and Derek, for showing up and making it happen. And thanks in particular to Solomon for coming that day and for being a great example to a whole new generation of youth as to what exactly is possible. Thank you very much for listening to the 50 Faces breakout room. I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Since recording this breakout room, Derek Brown has participated in a further CV-less recruitment pilot, this time for Fidelity International. The program was conducted during lockdown in January 2021 and resulted in the employment of 13 apprentices who were recruited without reference to their CV. The participants described the program as life-changing and said that it had a positive impact on their mental health. The Fidelity executives found it to be an innovative and effective way to recruit entry-level talent into their business. And now let’s hear again from Sakir Nusseibi to talk about an apprenticeship program that the International Business of Federated Hermes is putting into place this year. Once more, we thank the International Business of Federated Hermes for production support for this episode.
Aoifinn Devitt: When Mr. Floyd’s death brought to everybody’s attention, including ours at Federated Hermes International, that despite thinking that we’ve done as much as we could for particularly ethnic integration, we fell far below the mark when it came to integrating Black communities. We had a very close look at why that is. If you looked at our BAME representation, it was pretty much where we’d want it to be, which is higher than the national average and higher than the London average. But when you looked at the Black participation in our company, it was very, very low. And all the efforts that came afterwards in trying to create opportunities to allow fellow citizens from Black communities a step up the ladder into the corporate world kind of approached it in a traditional way. And by that, I mean, there was many excellent projects, but all of them aimed at graduate trainees. Now, that presupposes that you have somebody who has decided, in fact, to go to university. That presupposes two things. One is that they’ve had the opportunity both at home and at school to get the grades to go to university. And secondly, that you’re presuming that they, in fact, believe that submitting themselves to the debt that university entails will pay back over time, even though we know that in fact many times opportunity does not do so. And so we were trying to get to the heart of the problem, in fact, and get around this traditional way of approaching it. And like everything else in investment management, our approach was simply to go back in history to the way that asset management used to do it many, many years ago for the privileged, funnily enough. So if you go back to the ’70s and the ’80s, quite often people from privileged backgrounds would come straight to the city from schools, sometimes from the army. And the idea was that as they joined, they would be trained on the job. Nowadays, of course, most people who come to the city have done finance at universities, are really interested in finance, mathematics, and so on. So what we decided to do was, look, let’s use the same system that was used all these years ago to entrench privilege and actually turn it on its head and use it to break down privilege and promote diversity. And so our program is to go to high schools in the United Kingdom and in London and to try to see who’s really interested with no prerequisites and bring them on board and train them as an apprentice. And if they like the job and they find that they have an aptitude, to then sponsor them. Through a CFA program. And so that becomes an equivalent of a degree. And that way you break the barrier because you open up the opportunity for people who had not looked at finance as a way of a career to actually really come into it. We’re excited by it. It’s new, and I hope it works. But I think at the very least, it will help some people break the glass ceiling and come into the city from more deprived communities in and around London and the UK. So we’d like to go for 10 apprentices per annum, and then you have to assume that they would leave you after a while, but actually one of the best things that you can do is if they then leave you to go to other firms, so you start feeding them into the system.
Breakout Room 5: This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: This podcast series is brought to you with the kind support of Darwin Alternative Investment Management Limited, which offers innovative, alpha-driven investment solutions that are uncorrelated with traditional asset classes and feature business areas which have not previously been considered by investment funds. The firm aims to create new opportunities for investors to further diversify their portfolios and achieve stable absolute returns. I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces Podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the world of investment by focusing on its people and their stories. I’m joined today by Charlotte Gibson, who’s a coach, actuary, and pensions consultant. She’s a senior manager at Isio and the founder of The Rewirement, which is focused on redefining retirement through coaching. She previously worked in management at KPMG, and prior to that was an actuarial analyst at Aon Consulting. Welcome, Charlotte, thanks for joining me today.
Charlotte Gibson: Thank you, it’s a pleasure to be here.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, let’s start by talking about where you grew up, what you studied, and what led to your interest in pensions.
Charlotte Gibson: Yeah, so I grew up in Hitchin in Hertfordshire, which is quite near London, and I had a real passion, I suppose, at school for maths, and I went to university and studied maths and physics. And I think if I’m honest, the reason I did that was I liked the logic of maths. I like the safety that I found in the formulas being right or wrong. And so there was something about the beauty of the rules that it was black or it was white. And I guess I needed that safety. I can’t really think of any other reason why I would have gone to university and studied that, but I did, and I really enjoyed it. And then in my third year at university, you get your careers officer come in and give you a discussion around what do you want to be. When you leave university, and the two that I went to, accountancy and actuarial. And actually, I thought the actuarial discussion sounded really interesting. I’d never ever heard of what an actuary was before, like probably many people today even don’t, but that’s what I chose to be. So I trained to be an actuary, and as part of that, you specialize in an area, and I specialized in pensions.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s really interesting. I didn’t think of that before, but math of course does give the ultimate closure and a sense of resolution And funny, when I was in university, actuaries were one of the few strands that were guaranteed a job afterwards, so that was always a certain amount of security and closure there. So probably the two are related. Would you say there were any surprising turns over the course of your career and to date?
Charlotte Gibson: So the first 10 years of my career, so started in 2000, first 10 years were fairly standard. So I started as a junior analyst and then progressed really quite quickly through the ranks to senior manager at KPMG. And then in 2010, there was quite a significant couple of events that totally changed everything that I believed in. So, you know, I said I kind of believed in logic and rules, and I taught myself that, you know, you work hard, you get this solution. And in 2010, there was a couple of things that happened that really challenged that. So one was my dad passing away at 57, very suddenly. I was on the way home from work, and I got a call to say he, you know, literally sort dropped down dead from a heart attack. And at the time, I was pregnant with my first child, and that was something that sort of got me through that. And then unfortunately, we lost our baby as well. So there’s two huge, huge events that happened in 2010 that kind of challenged my whole view of the world, and all the rules and beliefs that I had were just thrown out the window. So it was tough. I have to say that KPMG were hugely supportive at the time, And what it meant— so I guess there was two things that kind of emerged for me after all of that. One was that what I valued in my career really changed. So it wasn’t about progressing quickly through the ranks anymore, it was more about the process and enjoying my job, and the variety became really important. And the second was that I was kind of open now to all these possibilities that, that life could throw at me, and, and I wanted to embrace that a bit more than I, than I had before. So I stayed in my job. I still continued as a pensions consultant, and I’m really glad that I did. But alongside that, I took on different roles, and one of the roles that I took on was training to be a coach, a transition coach for women actually coming back into the business after they had been out, um, for maternity leave, which was brilliant. Very different to my day job, very different to the consulting role that I was doing, but it brought a sense of purpose to my job. It was less structured than the consulting role I was doing. Coaching can be, you know, messy at times, but it’s very, very powerful. And I did that alongside my day job, supporting women back into the business. And I think that that probably was quite a turning event in my career because now I was a coach and I was also a pensions consultant, which brought kind of a certain set of skills to me.
Aoifinn Devitt: Very interesting. And we’ll move to speak about the relationship between coaching and how it can help in retirement or rewirement or whatnot. But just since I find it fascinating that it was in finding your own purpose that you sought to give purpose to others. And just on the coaching point, I’ve always found I get so much from coaching. Is it a zero-sum kind of game? Do you find coaches gain from that or does it drain you? How do you find coaching? I suppose, how do you feel when you are a coach?
Charlotte Gibson: I think it’s a real privilege to be a coach, partly because, as you say, I think as you go through coaching training to be a coach, you learn a lot about yourself in terms of how you manage yourself. You’re very aware of your judgments and how you show up for other people, and I’m really privileged to have gone through that. The other bit is the coaching community that you then become part of. It’s a really lovely, often very like-minded group of people that you then become part of your network and That’s meant the world to me since I started that journey. And I think thirdly, it is, as you say, you, you have this sense of purpose. So when you’re in coaching sessions, yes, it can be you giving a lot to that coachee. And I do find that afterwards I do need to take a good hour or so to recharge, because when you’re coaching well, you’re very much in that moment and you’re giving a lot of attention to the coachee. But actually what you get back in terms of a sense of purpose of how you’ve helped them is absolutely worth it. So I think as long as you do look after yourself as a coach and you listen to yourself when you need to recharge, then it is very energizing, it’s uplifting, and yeah, as I say, it’s a privilege to do it.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, let’s talk now about the origins of The Rewirement. Can you tell us what that is and what your mission there is?
Charlotte Gibson: Yeah, so 18 months ago I set the business up, and it was born out of the desire to, I guess, bring my two worlds together. You know, on the one hand, I’m a pensions consultant and I work a lot with individuals that are trying to understand pensions and financial education, etc. But what I was noticing as part of that is actually that’s one part of it. Absolutely understanding your pension is really important, but the other part of it that was coming up was how scary the retirement transition can be. So, you know, it’s throwing up lots of issues for people. So what am I going to do after I leave my full-time career? What’s my identity now that I’ve left, you know, the label that I’ve given myself? What’s my purpose? There’s so many things that are wrapped up in that that are not just financial. And I saw a lot of parallels to the work I was doing on the transition coaching. So I saw a lot of the models and lots of the skills and techniques that I was working with women coming back into the business, thinking actually there’s lots here that can be taken to the retirement transition to really help people go through that transition, plan for it, be ready for it from a mindset perspective. So I launched The Rewindment to do that, to bring the two together. So to bring coaching skills and coaches to that retirement world and pensions world and, and marry the two together. I called it Rewirement because I couldn’t get away from using the word retirement in some of my branding, even though I don’t like that word because I think it feels quite final. And actually, retirement’s anything but, you know. It’s exciting, it’s the start of something. It might not even be finishing your full-time career or leaving work completely. So I use the word retirement in my literature, but it needs to be rebranded, it needs to be rewired. So that’s where Rewirement was born, in the same way as I think we need to kind of almost rewire our brains when we’re thinking ahead to our retirement so that we can go into that with a sense of energy and vitality.
Aoifinn Devitt: Does this relate to how you say our traditional 3 stages of a working life is changing? Can you maybe just explain what you mean by that?
Charlotte Gibson: Yeah, so I think probably many of your listeners have read The 100-Year Life by Linda Gratton and Andrew Scott, and in that— that book I read quite a number of years ago now— and it really struck me in that, that they make this point that the three-stage life that a lot of us have grown up with, assuming that we’re going to have an education, we’re going to work probably for 40 years, for about 20 to 60-ish, and then we’re going to retire, and that’s the third stage. So education, work, retirement is the typical three-stage life, and I think that is hugely changing. So particularly now in the UK, we’ve got defined benefit pensions are becoming less prominent. So you’re having people retiring in very different ways. People are living a lot longer, which is great on one hand, but it kind of means that that three-stage life doesn’t work anymore for a lot of people, and it’s much more fluid, you know. So you might kind of take sabbaticals partway through your career, you might totally change careers 2, 3, 4 times. And I think society is slowly catching up with that. But actually, if you look at our role models lots of people that have retired recently will have still been doing the sort of more traditional route. So I think that, that we are moving away from that three-stage life, but it’s sort of a transition in a sense that we’re doing that as a society.
Aoifinn Devitt: And if you think about, say, the clients you coach in this rewirement, is there a kind of an average profile? Do you find that people are traveling the world, or are they still doing something involved maybe in their previous career? Are they volunteering? If you were to say, what is a typical retirement today, is that even possible?
Charlotte Gibson: No, I think that’s the point. I don’t think there is a typical retirement nowadays, and I, I’m seeing a trend to people wanting to do some kind of work. So even if they’re moving out of their full-time busy job, how do they get a sense of purpose after that? And it can be through volunteering. So there’s lots of discussions around, can I volunteer Can I do charity work? But also, can I do some part-time, more flexible working that could also bring a bit of income? That’s a sort of a secondary part of it, but it also gives me a purpose and a sense of belonging to a career that can be quite scary to leave behind. So in answer to your question, I don’t think there is a typical way to retire now. I think that’s quite exciting in itself, but it also can be quite overwhelming to people because they haven’t got this well-trodden path anymore that they’re following. But I would say that people are tending to want to stay in work longer, but it to be on a part-time flexible basis and something that they might kind of find enjoyment and energy from, perhaps more than they did so from their full-time jobs.
Aoifinn Devitt: It’s interesting, I’ve used the expression aha moment a lot in this particular series. I think it’s because we think that we know everything there is to know about aging, retirement, and the fact is there’s a lot we don’t know. And I suppose when you work with your clients, do you find anything they learn maybe surprises them about the coaching, maybe about their own potential, about their energy they’re going to have at this stage, what they’re going to want?
Charlotte Gibson: Yeah, I think the most common question is this assumption that they’ve had about their retirement is totally being sort of challenged as part of the work that we do. And I think people are kind of coming to me going, well, I don’t feel like I want to retire, but if I don’t, then what do I do? And I think that’s an interesting discussion. So What we’ll often do is we’ll look back at the career they’ve had. There’s loads of rich data there, you know, about stuff they’ve enjoyed doing, what their strengths are, what’s energized them. And we’ll take all of that learning and then play with it. So, okay, you know this about yourself, you’ve got this really lovely picture of yourself now. How do you want to take that forward? And often they’ll have come with an idea that it’s something very simple, like, I don’t know, retiring and, as you say, moving overseas, and then going ‘But actually, is that going to make me happy? Is that going to make me fulfilled? And if not, how can I design something that does?’ So it’s lovely because there’s been quite a few coachees I can think of that have changed their plans because they’ve realized that’s not going to fulfill them. And I can see that as a real kind of really adding value, because without it, they may have just kind of set— walked into their retirement with the assumption that they had and not been happy. And you do hear a number of stories of people like that, that retire, think it’s going to be wonderful, and aren’t happy in the first few years and sort of waste those healthy years of retirement. So, so that planning ahead, I think, has been really useful for people.
Aoifinn Devitt: And just tied to that sort of modern notion of retirement, I’ve had some guests on other podcast series who’ve spoken about how they have basically decided to do now in their lives what they maybe thought they would always want to do in retirement. Whether that means maybe moving to a farm, moving to the countryside, and they’re learning a new language. Have you seen some of your coachees or people do that?
Charlotte Gibson: That’s a really brilliant point, actually. And what often some of my coachees are people that are thinking about retiring in 10 years’ time, so it’s not an immediate transition, but what they want to do is think about what they can do now to make that future more of a reality. So we often talk about where can you invest your time and your energy to do that. And as part of that, people have talked about, well, how can I experiment now? Because, you know, I’m making an assumption that I want to, you know, live on a farm when I’m 60. How do I know that? How do I know that unless I try it? So what sort of I encourage my coaches to do is, well, experiment now into the constraints that you’ve got. What could you experiment with today? So just as you say, there’ll be people— I had one lady that really wanted to be an ice skating coach when she retired, and she was thinking about waiting until then to do the training. Well, now she’s decided to do it now, so 10 years before, and do it on a part-time basis just to experiment with it. Actually, is that how I want to live that life? So absolutely. And I think that’s kind of quite a, a nice way of bringing that into today. So what can I do today to make that a reality? We’ll experiment and try it, try it out on a smaller level. And that’s been really helpful for a lot of coachees.
Aoifinn Devitt: And it’s interesting because I suppose the norms maybe that prevailed in their thinking maybe were that of the generations before them. And for example, when I look around today, I see many older women not taking on roles maybe of minding grandchildren into their retirement. That’s actually not something that they want to do or that it’s not even feasible to do if children have moved away, et cetera. So do you think society is set up for this new kind of form of retirement as it has evolved?
Charlotte Gibson: I think that there is a lot of work to do and that’s why I find this space really exciting. You know, even if you think about kind of the way we advertise and the way that we market to people that we assume, you know, over 55, over 60, have retired, and how they’re spending their time, I think there’s a lag there in actually what’s happening, happening in reality, how those people actually see themselves and how they’re kind of being marketed to. I think that people are making assumptions about how people want to spend their time. So I think, you know, you’re right that there will be people that want to spend time, more time with grandchildren, but actually That’s not possible for a lot of people. So then therefore, if you take all that away, then, then what is that? So people that are retiring now in this more flexible, fluid way, they’re pioneers, I think. And, and I think, yeah, society hasn’t caught up because we’re almost sort of carving that society out as, as we do that, as we go through that transition, which I think, yeah, why that support, you know, it can be really helpful because you, you don’t necessarily have the role models that you have before.
Aoifinn Devitt: And tied to that, the topic of this podcast series as a main topic is ageism and discrimination against older people in the workplace. If there are some of your coachees perhaps who want to enter or re-enter the workplace or stay there longer, have you seen ageism in practice?
Charlotte Gibson: I think there is this assumption that over a certain age you don’t want to sort of train and upskill and relearn. And I think that actually that does get reflected in the workplace. So lots of the courses and the training will be for people that kind of up and coming through, you know, more junior grades. And I, I think, you know, if you tapped into that really kind of rich, experienced group that are perhaps a bit older, then you could get a lot more from them. But yeah, I think in, in practice at the moment, the resources aren’t spent on training and retraining at that level, and as such, you perhaps don’t get the energy that, that you could do. I think the other problem we’ve got, especially in the financial services industry, is that, as I say, typically people have retired on defined benefit pensions and fairly early. So you’ve got people that have had a really good career in financial services and have retired at 50, 55 entirely and left the industry. So what we’re not seeing is people that are older that are doing that sort of last latter stage of their career in a way that is inspiring. And so I think, again, going back to that sort of lack of role models or lack of visible role models is, is a really important point. And there are some emerging. I spoke to a brilliant guy recently that, you know, had a really kind of quite high-profile job in financial services. He didn’t want to fully retire, but he didn’t want the high stress that he’d had to date. So he took a sabbatical, he took some time to, you know, really think about what it was he wanted, and then he came back into a job at the same firm, different role, probably a lower pressure role, and on a part-time flexible basis. And so if you think about that business, they’ve retained a brilliant guy, but also then the rest of the business is then seeing a, a brilliant energized guy that’s come back and doing some really cool stuff. So I do think it’s changing, but I would say that that example is more the exception than the norm.
Aoifinn Devitt: And I just saw an article in the Wall Street Journal today— here we are at the end of June— about people working into their 80s. Particularly in the financial services industry. So I think it’s starting, the role models are appearing, but yes, slowly but surely. I would love to go back to some personal reflections now. In the work that you’ve done, have there been any highs or lows that you can speak about so far?
Charlotte Gibson: In terms of the retirement coaching, I mean, it’s a fairly new focus for me, so it’s been about 18 months I’ve been doing this. I’d say the high, if I’m honest, is having the confidence to launch the business 18 months ago, and that, that’s a kind of a culmination of support that I’ve had from various people that’s given me that confidence to go and try something. There have been some learning points. It’s a really quite fledgling industry in the UK, so I understand that in the US and Canada retirement coaching is fairly commonplace. So if you said to somebody, if you’ve got a retirement coach, they would know what you meant, whereas over here it’s less so. And so the big part of what I’ve been doing is almost kind of educating or letting people know what coaching is and what career coaching can be, and then how it can apply to the retirement transition. So there have been some sort of like, oh, this is, this is going to take some work moments, not necessarily lows, but just realization that it is quite a big undertaking. But then, you know, that will be peppered with some real highs where I’ve had some brilliant clients that have really appreciated. And as we said before about coaching, kind of bringing stuff to the coach as well, I hold on to those moments and really appreciate them.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, we’ve had a lot of guests on this podcast who’ve spoken about coaches, more often the traditional type of coach such as sports coach, and they still, you know, decades later are left with some wisdom that that sports coach maybe sowed for them. My last question is around any words of wisdom, creed or motto, advice, maybe whether you give your coachees or that you would give to your younger self. Is there anything that you can leave us with?
Charlotte Gibson: Oh, that’s a lovely question. I think that I guess the main thing that I’ve learned through all of this, through the kind of the low point I talked about in 2010 and also kind of more recently starting the business, is something about trusting the process. And, you know, I talked earlier about wanting there to be rules that you follow, that, that you do follow, and everything’s okay. I think kind of sometimes throwing that out and just simply saying to yourself, trust the process and it will, it will work out, can be really liberating. And it certainly sort of helped me take a few risks recently and embrace that. So yeah, that would be my motto, I suppose, now, is that trust the process and back yourself.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, thank you so much, Charlotte. I’m seeing someone dedicating themselves now to rewiring of careers and restarting is just such an overwhelmingly positive notion to think of that as an exciting next stage and somehow seems so much more filled with promise than how we might kind of typically conceive of retirement. So thank you for coming here and sharing your wisdom with us.
Charlotte Gibson: Thank you. It’s been a real privilege to talk to you and yeah, thank you for inviting me on.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces Podcast. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring people and their personal journeys, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Thanks to our sponsors and partners for making all of our podcasts possible
