Tag Archive for: diversity

Leveraging neurodivergence for national security

If we can predict an adversary’s next move, we already have an advantage.

Over millennia, those analysing warfare have identified rules, moves and countermoves, but also strengths and weaknesses on both sides. While sovereign capability continues to grow, the numbers available for compulsory service in burgeoning populations lead to a distinct imbalance. Australia cannot match like for like, and predictability creates vulnerability. Our national security and intelligence agencies must be innovative. Harnessing all of the skills available in our nation can help drive that innovation.

Diversity strategies have come into play for this reason. However, these strategies often focus on demographic details—not on how people think.

When those in a cohort of intelligence practitioners are cognitively similar, there’s a propensity for homogeneous thinking. This fuels confirmation bias, reduces critical thinking and increases predictability, making things easier for our adversaries.

To ensure innovative thinking, we need individuals who are less susceptible to groupthink. We need people who are neurodivergent.

An individual is considered neurodivergent when they interact with external stimuli, process information, learn and/or behave in ways that are inconsistent with society’s determination of ‘typical’. With the human brain having more than 86 billion neurons, the possibilities for wiring differences are astronomical. Unsurprisingly, the human population includes multiple ‘neurotypes’. Like biodiversity, these variances are essential.

Unfortunately, in diversity initiatives, neurodivergent folk tend to be overlooked and undersupported.

Neurodivergence such as autism, dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can bring a lot to our national security and intelligence agencies.

Autistic individuals exhibit attention to detail, an affinity for sorting and an ability to spot trends in ambiguous information. Essentially, autistic brains see information that may not be noticed by the neurotypical. As technology advances, so too will intelligence-collection capabilities. The ability to quickly sort copious data, think spatially and intuitively see patterns means autistic individuals make exceptional cyber analysts.

Intelligence practitioners are expected to have high degrees of literacy, which often excludes dyslexic individuals from recruitment. However, lower literacy doesn’t equal poorer intellect. Dyslexic individuals tend to be highly visual and holistic thinkers who see connections that are invisible to others. They are also exceptional narrative thinkers, highly entrepreneurial, great problem solvers, and more intuitive and empathic than most.

ADHD carries negative connotations around impulsivity and inability to focus. But ADHD individuals do focus intensely for long periods when working on their interests. They are outcomes-focused, can manage multiple inputs and work better under stress than other neurotypes. They also process environmental stimuli faster, making them ideal near-real-time analysts.

OCD is widely misunderstood as having an unnatural propensity for organising and preferring certain numbers. Yet, OCD individuals are highly perceptive about risk, are conscientious and work hard to ensure tasks align with procedures. Unsurprisingly, military pilots are screened with a preference towards OCD. When it comes to the art of intelligence, they are particularly adept at assessing threats.

There’s a clear overlap between the skills needed in national security and intelligence agencies and the strengths embodied in neurodivergent individuals. Agencies should reconsider what personifies the ideal intelligence practitioner and expand diversity strategies to include neurodivergence.

Diversification is only helpful, however, if the strengths of those recruited are leveraged appropriately.

Getting the most out of these individuals is not just about getting them over the recruitment hurdle—ongoing support matters.

From the outset, traditional recruitment processes can derail neurodivergent individuals. Evidence suggests that only 30% return for second interviews. The stress of unfamiliar settings or anxiety can prevent many from articulating their strengths. That’s why the Department of Home Affairs’ Apollo neurodiversity program is already using an inclusive recruitment process. Other opportunities to demonstrate role suitability include non-verbal interviews, remote assessments, internships and problem-solving tests.

It’s important not to refer to neurodivergence as a ‘disability’—it’s a difference.

Neurodivergent individuals see life through different lenses. Yet initiatives to recruit them are usually combined with initiatives aimed at employing people with disability. Certainly, there are individuals whose divergence is so great that they become incapable in most environments, but divergence is not a disability or a disease.

Seeing neurodivergence as a disability means that only those with severe needs are accommodated, leaving the majority to adapt to neurotypical practices, mask divergencies and tolerate visceral discomfort.

Ability doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The society to which one belongs determines ‘fit’. Rather than an individual’s constitution, it’s lack of inclusion that makes a world inaccessible.

Agencies should establish zero tolerance for bias and emphasise that nobody will be discounted for disclosing their neurotype. When we create psychologically safe environments and remove stressors, we enable best performance.

While most agencies have compulsory training in equity and diversity, the groups discussed are usually limited to gender, sexuality and culture. Including neurotypes would improve awareness and support zero tolerance for bias.

For autistic individuals, external stimuli can cause sensory overload. Crowded spaces, excess noise, bright lights and certain textures can cause discomfort. Reducing stimuli where practicable is desirable. That can be helped a great deal through workplace design and ergonomics.

While secure facilities impose some limitations, adjustments like noise-cancelling headphones, desks away from high-traffic areas and flexible attire are possible. As no one package fits all, leaders should seek to understand individual needs. No matter what someone’s neurotype is, reducing ambiguity, providing individualised attention and accommodating idiosyncrasies all help maximise their contribution.

Clearly, people with neurodivergence have much to offer in the national security space. In a time of constant flux, national security and intelligence leaders should be seeking out and supporting neurodiverse employees so that they can effectively leverage their skills to help keep Australia safe.

Getting serious about diversity in Australia’s security discourse

‘There’s been lots of recent shouting about Australia’s national security policy,’ Matthew Sussex wrote recently in The Conversation. Indeed, the clamour reached astounding, almost dizzying heights following the AUKUS announcement last month. Sussex is right to argue that Australia needs to grow up and have an informed and mature national security conversation.

That might start with recognising that gender is a big part of it—after all, much of the shouting in these recent discussions has been by men.

It’s not just the strong opinions and reactions to AUKUS over the past few weeks that have been mostly male dominated. Unfortunately, despite some great strides, there’s been a regression in gender and diversity in the overall security and foreign policy discourse in Australia in recent years. Male-dominated panels (even the occasional ‘manel’) remain common at conferences and other public events. Journalists often only quote or seek comment from male experts for media reporting. Social media posts by male experts are often the most frequently engaged with and amplified. Major publications and reports by think tanks and research centres often have a majority of male authors. Much like in other industries, there aren’t enough women or people of colour in leadership positions in Australia’s national security sector.

This has a significant impact on the overall culture of Australia’s security discourse—not to mention on the quality of ideas and perspectives being debated.

Of course, we should value diversity and different perspectives regardless, but as we navigate a challenging strategic environment, having a variety of voices is all the more vital. Yet we seem to fall short when it comes to making that happen. Just as it’s high time Australia had a mature security conversation, it’s high time we got serious about improving gender and diversity.

We should start with getting a number of basic things right.

It shouldn’t need to be said, but organisations should not, for example, run all-male panels or events dominated by male speakers. If you are invited to speak, ask who else is on the panel or at the event before accepting. Don’t agree to speak if women and underrepresented groups aren’t included. If your organisation hasn’t got one already, instigate a ‘no all-male panel’ policy.

Actively set targets for women and underrepresented groups as speakers at your organisation’s events. Aim for more than 50% overall to ensure a diverse and inclusive line-up—particularly in the event someone declines or is a last-minute drop out. Make sure there isn’t an overall line-up of all-male keynotes, either. Don’t relegate women to panels about women, peace and security. It might surprise some people, but not all women work on women, peace and security or feminist foreign policy—as much as they are important issues that need a stronger focus. We need women and underrepresented groups working across the full spectrum of security issues.

As with events and panels, don’t commission, publish or contribute to reports or other publications with all-male authors. If you are researching and writing an article or report, are you citing mostly male sources? Or are you consciously seeking out a diverse range of contributors?

The same goes for the media. If you are a journalist, don’t just seek or include quotes from male experts. With deadlines and a race to get comments, it’s understandably easy to go to established, well-known leaders in the security field. Yet when only (or mostly) men are quoted in the media, it helps perpetuate a sector in which male voices are the most valued and deprives women of the chance to build a profile. Actively cultivate a diverse network of sources you can turn to.

Likewise, if you are a male expert and you are approached to provide media comment, ask who else has been approached and will be included in the article or segment. Pass on opportunities to speak or provide comment if you can. This might feel awkward when you have the expertise and your job is to influence policy discussions, particularly if your organisation uses metrics to help demonstrate that. But perhaps you could keep a tally of all the times you were approached for comment (or to speak) and recommended a woman to speak instead. Knowing when your voice or contributions aren’t needed is important.

Much of Australia’s day-to-day security discussions take place on social media. Check your social media accounts for diversity in the experts you follow and engage with. Are you only or mostly following male experts? Do you mostly retweet or engage with men on Twitter? Retrain your algorithm and actively follow, engage and amplify women, people of colour and other underrepresented groups.

Everyone should consider how the workload is distributed across their team or organisation. Are women and people of colour doing the majority of administrative or organising work? Are they doing a disproportionate share of the unglamorous and time-consuming (but essential) work, which may prevent them from building their expertise or doing higher-profile work that will get them promoted? How can you help address this, share the burden and create opportunities for underrepresented groups to focus on higher-level work?

Indeed, everyone should consider how they can be a better ally and help dismantle the institutional and systemic barriers that continue to hold women, people of colour and other underrepresented groups back. It’s not simply a matter of women ‘leaning in’ and speaking up more in meetings or roundtables.

As we confront the complex and evolving challenges of the 21st century, it’s crucial that we draw upon the full range of perspectives and experiences that our society has to offer. If we don’t, at best we get treated to shouty opinions like we’ve had over the past few weeks. At worst, we risk a deterioration in the creativity and dynamism of our strategic thinking as a nation.

Agenda for change: building resilience while celebrating diversity

On 2 February, ASPI released Agenda for change 2022: shaping a different future for our nation to promote public debate and understanding on issues of strategic importance to Australia. The key message in Agenda for change 2022 is that we need to embrace uncertainty, engage with complexity and break down the silos. Our economic prosperity, national resilience and security depend upon it.

In the lead-up to every federal election, ASPI looks at the big challenges facing Australia and what’s needed to address them. In Agenda for change 2022, Teagan Westendorf and John Coyne co-authored the chapter ‘“You will never tear us apart”: building resilience while celebrating diversity in Australian communities’, which highlights the need to recast our social-cohesion policies to create social, economic and political conditions that ensure difference doesn’t divide.

The authors suggest that the ‘11 September 2001 attacks on the US that gave rise to the two-decade “War on Terror” were also the catalyst for the gradual securitisation of social cohesion in Western liberal democracies’. They point to the ‘vast scope and number’ of laws passed in Australia to address terrorism as evidence of increasing securitisation.

Westendorf and Coyne acknowledge that social cohesion is linked to mitigating security threats but also point out that ‘social-cohesion policy in Australia was focused on homogeneity and tying society together’. They recognise that social cohesion ensures domestic security but question whether policy measures focused on social cohesion should be classified as security related.

The links with security mean that for those arriving in Australia, the ‘value statements as on-ramps to cohesion’ are often interpreted more as statements of exclusion.

Westendorf and Coyne suggest that these factors ‘present a vexing policy challenge for Australia’s next federal government’ that has become even more difficult given the declining public trust in governments, the ‘social impacts of Covid-19’ and the increasing socioeconomic divide.

During the pandemic, we’ve seen anti-lockdown, anti-vaccination and climate change protests by groups that were ‘mobilised by this perceived trust deficit’. The authors acknowledge that high levels of compliance with health mandates, as well as the high rate of vaccination take-up, suggest that a ‘functional level of trust has been maintained’ in Australia. However, they also point to consistent polling, predating the pandemic by a decade, that indicates declining trust by Australians of the political and government systems.

Westendorf and Coyne say the INXS song ‘Never tear us apart’ provides a metaphor for social cohesion in Australia. The key message of the lyrics is that ‘these two individuals from different worlds’ won’t be torn apart by the challenges and pain of life.

‘A socially cohesive society works towards the wellbeing of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalisation, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity for upward mobility. In doing so, it creates economic, social and security benefits for individuals and the nation. In its absence, fault lines within our communities could result in domestic security impacts and national security vulnerabilities.’

The authors propose changing the aperture of social cohesion and acknowledging that it ‘is a long-term adaptive aspirational activity’. Specifically, ‘the next government must focus on setting stronger policy foundations for social cohesion, which should be understood as connection and belonging enabled by greater equality and equitable representation’.

The way forward? A new government should start by emphasising ‘its commitment to social cohesion and trust in government’ by moving responsibility for social cohesion (excluding ‘security-focused responsibilities for countering violent extremism’) from the Department of Home Affairs to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Westendorf and Coyne’s big idea is to establish an ‘independent social cohesion commissioner who would be responsible for coordinating federal policy measures with a clear social-cohesion focus’. They also suggest that the government identify ‘more inclusionary principles for social cohesion and drivers for trust in government’ which would form the basis of a broader social-cohesion agenda.

In the long term, the next government should develop a national strategy for social cohesion that incorporates policy measures that ‘contribute to fighting exclusion and marginalisation, create a sense of belonging, promote trust and offer people the opportunity for upward mobility’.

The closing message in this chapter is that social cohesion can’t be forced onto Australians and shouldn’t exclude those who don’t agree. We need to ‘seek out differences and give voice to their proponents’ through ‘initiatives that promote the democratic process’. We shouldn’t allow Australia to be torn apart.

Innovation in policing: culture and cognitive diversity are key

The future is certain to present challenges not yet envisaged by police and law enforcement agencies. The fourth industrial revolution is affecting all aspects of society, and is forecast to so radically alter the policing landscape that any solution developed today is likely to be outpaced by changes in the operating environment. Resolving future critical incidents will require the capability to develop innovative solutions in real time, in a dynamic environment. Fixed mindsets and a reliance on old operating models will prove ineffective in the face of increasingly complex threats, particularly those leveraging emergent AI capabilities.

The community will expect the police to remain accessible and digitally enabled by the same instantaneous and on-demand data that people use in their personal lives. If police continue to depend on traditional operating paradigms and technology, their capabilities, and indeed even their relevance, will be challenged, as they are outpaced by a faster, more networked society. In this circumstance, it would be easy to jump to technology solutions to keep pace with society; however, the temptation to seek immediate demonstrable solutions by acquiring new physical assets or technology must be resisted as a stand-alone solution. Instead, technology must be layered with equal investment in the human workforce and both must be aligned to future capability.

At its core, policing is about human interaction, and future capability depends on the people who comprise the operational workforce. It is the women and men working in general, investigative or specialist areas, and the professional staff who support them, who will ultimately determine success. Police agencies should therefore consider culture and cognitive diversity as two key elements that will be pivotal to future capability and invest accordingly. If these elements aren’t firmly embedded in their organisational DNA, police agencies won’t be able to generate the level of innovation required to meet future challenges, regardless of any help from technology.

Daniel Coyle, a New York Times bestselling author, describes culture as the relationships that exist between those sharing a common goal. To meet new challenges, police agencies must develop a culture that supports a cognitively diverse workforce. Such a culture would allow members to challenge prevailing norms in a safe environment where divergent views are encouraged. This could foster the development of innovative solutions to challenges that remain unresolved by traditional approaches. The collaborative relationships formed will harness individual expertise and capabilities, synthesising them into a new entity in which adaptation and agility are prized. The resultant culture will foster a dynamic approach, where team composition becomes fluid, capable of adapting and morphing by combining capabilities as needed.

Cognitive diversity refers to the differing ways in which people think about and analyse information based on their worldviews and experiences. Groups that are made up mainly of people from a single gender and background, who look, act and think alike and have had the same sorts of experiences, will generally develop similar approaches to resolving a complex problem. Often referred to as closed loops or echo chambers, these groups are less capable of generating the level of innovation needed to solve complex challenges. To prepare for the next level of complexity that emergent and future challenges will present, police agencies need to embed cognitive diversity at senior decision-making levels. Agencies that fail to embrace cognitive diversity will be unable to innovate at the scale and pace required, and will continue to rely on suboptimal historical practices.

Cognitive diversity also encompasses gender and identity diversity, and while progress has been made at entry-level recruitment, police agencies need to take a longer term view. That must include real investment in the careers of members from groups which are generally underrepresented in policing, yet overrepresented in their interactions with police. Such investment should include career educational pathways in preparation for senior ranks. It is at the senior level, where long-term, high-impact decisions are made, that their voices would provide divergent views and perspectives. For such an approach to be successful, underrepresented groups need senior-level role models they can emulate.

The development of cognitive diversity currently focuses on the entry point into policing and will take time to mature. Generating cognitive diversity at senior levels in the short term could be done by adopting a model comparable to the US Army War College, which would enable senior police to undertake a year of immersive study focusing on critical thinking and solving complex problems. They could then use those skills to challenge prevailing beliefs about policing, while simultaneously developing innovative approaches to tackling existing and emergent challenges.

Addressing the gender gap in Australia’s intelligence community

Traditionally, the realm of intelligence-gathering and espionage has been associated with men. Perhaps we can thank Ian Fleming’s characterisation of James Bond for that. However, the recently released review of administration and expenditure (2015–16) by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) paints a different picture and gives an insight into an area that’s rarely discussed. In fact, women are being actively encouraged to join Australia’s intelligence community (AIC) and a range of initiatives are being introduced to address gender equality and diversity.

According to the PJCIS review, in June 2016, 59% of employees in the Australian public service (APS) were women. By comparison, the proportion of women to men in the AIC was significantly lower.

For example, approximately 45% of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s (ASIO’s) workforce on 30 June 2016 were women, a slight increase from 44% the previous year. The gender gap continued to be most pronounced at senior levels, consistent with patterns in the broader APS. However, there were some signs of improvement in the statistics: 36% (19 of 53) of ASIO’s senior executives were women, up from 33% the previous year.

At the end of 2015–16, approximately 44% of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service’s (ASIS’s) staff were women, steady on the previous year’s figure. Around 39% of the Office of National Assessments’ (ONA’s) staff members were women—a slight decrease from the previous reporting period. Nevertheless, ONA reported that it had made ‘significant progress on gender and diversity initiatives’.

Disappointingly, the review revealed that, in comparison with the other members of the AIC, the defence intelligence agencies continued to have a low total proportion of female staff members. The Australian Signals Directorate reported that 33% of its staff members were women as at 30 June 2016, consistent with the previous year. At the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO), women accounted for only 29% of the overall workforce in 2015–16. However, encouragingly, the AGO reported that 73% of its new arrivals in 2015–16 were female. And, while women comprised 43% of the Defence Intelligence Organisation, they continued to be most underrepresented at senior levels.

The review also detailed a number of initiatives that the AIC has instituted to create a more gender-diverse workforce, including the AIC Gender Equity Steering Committee. ASIO launched a gender equity strategy in 2016 and established a gender equity reference group in 2015. In 2016, ASIS established a diversity committee. ONA released its diversity action plan for 2015–18 and appointed a dedicated diversity officer to drive and coordinate the plan’s implementation. However, the review did not outline specific initiatives undertaken by the defence intelligence agencies to increase gender diversity.

Our British counterparts have a somewhat similar state of affairs. In 2015, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which oversees the intelligence and security agencies, published a report titled Women in the UK intelligence community. It found that 53% of civil service personnel were women and 37% of employees of intelligence agencies were women. The report concluded that the value of gender diversity:

holds even more true for the intelligence community, given the nature of their work. Logically, if all intelligence professionals are cut from the same cloth, then they are likely to share ‘unacknowledged biases’ that circumscribe both the definition of problems and the search for solutions. Diversity should therefore be pursued not just on legal or ethical grounds—which are important in themselves—but because it will result in a better response to the range of threats that we face to our national security.

Of course, the critical role of women in intelligence is nothing new. While the figures detailed in the PJCIS review are encouraging, more work clearly needs to be done to address the gender gap across the AIC, especially at the senior levels and in the defence agencies. Interestingly, the issue of gender diversity and equality was only very briefly mentioned in the recent 2017 Independent Intelligence Review. If the AIC wants to attract more women to a career in intelligence, it should examine its recruitment policies and practices and continue to collaborate on gender-related issues. Specifically, it needs to look at maternity-related issues, childcare and flexible working arrangements, and career advancement and promotion, as well as cultural and behavioural issues.

Arguably, intelligence agencies have a greater need for a diverse workforce than the rest of government, given the nature of their work. A professional, capable and gender-equitable and diverse AIC could play a vital role in securing Australia’s future in the decades ahead. Without recognising gender diversity and equality as an imperative, the agencies risk being left behind. Perhaps, in time, it might be the norm rather than the exception to see a woman play the role of M.