Julianne Schultz, an experienced board director and deputy chair of the Sydney Writers’ Festival, has drawn a powerful parallel between a childhood playground rebuff and a systemic issue plaguing corporate and public governance. Her reflection comes in the wake of the government's release of the Lynelle Briggs ‘jobs for mates’ review, a report that scrutinises appointments to government boards.
The Schoolyard Echo in the Boardroom
Years ago, Schultz was encouraged to apply for the chairmanship of a significant government board. Despite feeling like an outsider not belonging to any particular "club," she allowed her name to be put forward. The response from the selection committee chair was blunt and dismissive: "Sorry Julianne, it's just not your turn."
This phrase instantly transported her back to the schoolyard, where exclusion needed no justification. Skill, knowledge, and merit were irrelevant; a decision had been made based on an unspoken order. Schultz notes that, historically, it was even less likely to be "a girl's turn," highlighting an entrenched bias.
The Perennial Tension: Merit vs. Favours
The Briggs review, released after lengthy consideration, confirms that the tension between genuine meritocracy and a culture of favours is persistent and damaging. Schultz observes that while the chosen candidate in her experience was respected and qualified, the process seemed to lack deep critical curiosity about what the organisation truly needed to tackle complex challenges.
She argues that while process and transparency are vital, they are insufficient on their own. The over-reliance on ticking boxes in a skills matrix—ensuring expertise in law, finance, or governance—misses the crucial human element. The most effective boards become more than the sum of their parts, thriving on a dynamic built on respect, trust, and shared wisdom.
Beyond the Tick-Box: The Human Dynamic of Success
Drawing on her extensive experience, Schultz contrasts boards at war with themselves, often those stacked with political appointees viewing the organisation as a proxy battleground, with those where a generosity of spirit has been transformative. She notes that some of the best members have been former politicians who left party allegiance behind.
In today's Australia—more diverse, educated, and bound by process than ever—the shrinking of shared social spaces like community organisations and political parties makes it harder for talent from different worlds to connect. This isolation, Schultz warns, can make a new meritocracy resemble the old world of mates, leaving many wondering how to crack the system.
The key, she concludes, is recognising that while prior associations can inform good appointments, the decisive factor is often the intangible feeling from a direct, challenging conversation, not an AI-aided LinkedIn profile. The fight is to ensure that "turnism" does not prevail, allowing boards to be genuinely shaped by merit and the dynamic human qualities that drive real success.
