Back

Trust is the leadership and organisational trait for the times 

A special Roy Morgan survey on ‘Trust’ and ‘Distrust’ of government leaders showed New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern scores the highest ‘Net Trust Score’ of all. This means that the ‘Trust’ felt toward the New Zealand leader far outweighs the ‘Distrust’. New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern has highest ‘Net Trust Score’ of all political leaders while Australian PM Scott Morrison has a ‘Net Distrust Score’ to overcome.

At this very challenging time, Jacinda Arden has stood up to the task. Her ratings are off the charts. How did she do it?

She has built a trusted personal Prime Ministerial brand through her casual clothes and addressing of the people via youtube, whilst sitting on her couch at home, after putting her kids to bed.

It’s the trust that gets you through the dark times when you have to ‘furlough’ and somehow retain the commitment and loyalty of thousands of your people

For big-name consumer brands, your customers are both the people in the store buying your products and the people who want to work for you. When you only have so many jobs to go around and your candidates are an extension of your consumer reach, give them dignity. You can do even better and give them a hand up, just by changing how you recruit.

For any relationship, trust starts early. That means trust starts to grow from your very first interactions with your future employee – from your application process through to how you conduct your interviews.

In our current reality of having to work from home and to interview remotely, building trust can be even more of a challenge.

If your Recruitment and HR team are looking to grow trust fast, here are 3 shortcuts by which our customers swear.

1. It’s the end of the black box era – give every applicant feedback

With technology now in the market that ensures every single applicant receives fast automated personalised learning from their interview. There is no excuse for black-box recruiting.

Historically, recruitment is laden with ambiguity and secrecy.

Requiring a live conversation with an org psych if you ever wanted to know your results from sitting your 3-hour psychometric test

Receiving the ubiquitous reject email or call – you don’t meet the requirements of the role, or worse, ‘you are not a good culture fit’

The known unknown- that it could be weeks or even months until you know whether you get the job

2. Expectations have changed enormously for job seekers too.

Even a few years ago, we wouldn’t question the black box of recruitment, the lack of a reply. We wouldn’t expect to receive feedback from an interview. Or to be asked to give feedback

Any company can introduce a feedback request into their recruitment, but giving feedback requires real smarts if you don’t want to kill trust.

And that feedback needs to be meaningful, relatable useful and ideally immediate. A feature enabled only by AI and only by smart human AI.

Today you can access smart AI to give every applicant that learning opportunity. And why wouldn’t you make that a priority in a world of growing unemployment and more disappointed candidates?

Plus, for a consumer brand, their candidate pool is usually also their consumer base and the bigger the brand, the more rejections they give out. In some cases, they are rejecting candidates in 6 figures. Which makes the candidate experience vital for the business even more than for your EVP.

No matter how many candidates apply for a job opening, enhance trust by giving every one of them automated personalised feedback.

3. Kill the bias – commit to genuine blind screening

Barb or Buddhi? Who do you think has a greater likelihood of getting the interview? I don’t like my name much, but I don’t believe it’s ever been a factor in my career opportunities. Unlike Buddhi, my co-founder. When I interviewed Buddhi for the role, he said he had experienced the ‘name’ discrimination himself.

An NYT article reminded us that simply having a ‘white name’ presents a distinct advantage in getting a job. Call-backs for that group being 50% higher. We have already written about the fact that no amount of bias training will make us less bias.

We worry intensely about the amplification of lies and prejudices from the technology that fuels Facebook. Yet do we hold the mirror up to ourselves and check our tendency to hire in our image? How many times have you told a candidate they didn’t get the job because they were not the right “culture fit”?

The truth is that we humans are inscrutable in a way that algorithms are not. This means we are often not accountable for our biases. And bias training has been proven not to be an effective guard against biased hiring.

Enhance trust with your applicants by committing to blind screening, at least at the top of the funnel. While it’s tempting in a world of ‘zoom everywhere’, video interviews are the opposite of blind screening.

Similarly relying on AI that uses deep learning models to find the best match, also don’t endear themselves to building trust with your applicant pool. They make explainability a real challenge for the recruiters.

 


Suggested Reading:

https://sapia.ai/blog/age-discrimination-mature-hires/

To book a discussion with Sapia – click here – we would love to chat


Blog

The new kind of battle in the war for talent

Before COVID, the conversations I was having with HR executives were about how Sapia might help them with the volume of candidates they were receiving for job openings. For every job posted there were often over a thousand candidates, and it doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to understand how overwhelmed many big organisations were. Our Ai was seen as the solution to automate dealing with candidate volume in a way that found the best people, but also touched base with everyone who applied as part of their brand building. In a nutshell, before the pandemic, efficiency was the key driver in looking for automated hiring solutions like ours. 

Now that we’re emerging from the disruption of COVID, no one is talking to me about needing help with the volume of candidates they receive. In fact, they are asking how we might help them get any candidates in the first place! All around the globe, and across multiple industries, there is a need for candidates. It’s certainly been an abrupt change that has left many scratching their heads, but there is almost no time to wrap your head around it if you want to stay in the game. This is a new war for talent unlike any we’ve seen before, and candidates have the upper hand. It’s created a need for a solution to solve two things: firstly, to identify skills in candidates that traditional ways of hiring failed to identify (I call this cohort “undiscovered talent”) and a strong candidate experience (you are the one being interviewed from the moment they hit “apply”). 

I thought it was worth looking at how the “war of talent” has evolved since it was first coined by Steven Hankin at McKinsey & Company in 1997. At that time there was a shift in the way that companies valued their talent, and it became seen as important to attract the best in order to have a successful organisation. It’s hard to think about this now, but at that time the whole idea of cultivating company cultures that aimed to elevate and value employees was new. At this stage though the “war” was largely for executive talent with recruiters focusing on building their brand by poaching star C-Suite talent off competitors, wooing them with big sign-up bonuses and lavish overtures like unexpected gifts and trips. 

As tech companies started to become the big players in the market, the focus turned from business acumen to the need for the best digital and technical talent. Recruiting became less about material perks (though many engineers still commanded high salaries) but also about giving talent things they wanted besides just money. Flexibility, free lunches, unlimited holidays and creating cultures that were about “working hard and having fun” were how the war for technical talent was won. This was really a time of culture wars between companies, but also meant that many companies hired only for culture-fit. This resulted in fairly homogenous teams that were largely white male techbros, and eventually many large tech companies were called out on it. Beyond tech, corporates were also waking up to the fact that they had some serious diversity issues that needed to be addressed. This led to a new war. The war for diverse talent.

Pre-COVID, hiring more diversely was a strong focus for companies to find the best talent. We all know that diverse teams result in better business outcomes and anyone who had a “pale, male and stale” executive team was seen as minted in the past. Coupled with Black Lives Matter, which became a global movement to address racial inequality from the C-suite down, finding more diverse talent through reducing bias in hiring, was where the war was being fought. This is not a won battle by the way, and remains a large focus for many companies that we work with and help. Importantly, finding diverse talent is still a key part of this new and emerging next phase of the “war on talent” … the one where workers have the upper hand. The one where candidates are in short supply, and people want jobs that suit them just as much as whether they are seen as just suited to the job. 

Recruiters have been forced to look at people differently – and this is not a bad thing. Factors like age, ethnicity, education, gender and even past experience that obscured our understanding of someone’s ability to do a job have all been cancelled as qualifying factors. Soft skills, or human skills, have become the focus on what we need to understand in order to assess someone’s suitability to do a job. Are they a team player? Do they like to problem solve? How aligned are they to our company values? Are they self-aware and in touch with their emotions? Can they put stress aside to achieve outcomes?

“What we recruit for” has significantly shifted for many already, but there is still some catching up to do on the “how we recruit”. To be blunt, CV’s and cover letters begging recruiters to “pick me!” serve no purpose in this new battle. They ask too much of candidates from the outset, serve no valuable purpose in the information they provide, confirm our biases and just create work on the HR manager’s side. 

We need to walk in a candidate’s shoes and make sure that our recruiting process puts them first, treats them fairly and without bias, meets them where they are at, and is both friendly and informative. And, HR teams need to do this all while working efficiently and fast. Speed is crucial when talent is in short supply.

Impossible? No, not at all. Recruiters need to understand that Ai platforms like ours exist to solve all these problems. We’re not a “technical” solution, but a human one, in that we can accurately identify soft skills immediately and engage with candidates in a one-on-one way, at scale. 

You cannot win this war on talent without chat-driven Ai technology. Technology like ours is the only way you can quickly understand the real human skills that every candidate brings to the table, without dismissing anyone upfront. 

I can’t help but think that these issues we’re facing as recruiters and HR managers right now, where workers have the upper hand, while unchartered territory, will only serve our industry for the better. It’s a chance to give everyone a fair go, truly understand them, treat them with the dignity they deserve … and still hire better teams. 

Maybe it’s not a battle after all. Maybe it’s a win-win. 

___________________________________________

For more on how to improve candidate experience using recruitment automation, we have a great eBook on candidate experience.

Read Online
Blog

Why Emotional Intelligence (EQ) needs a rethink, and fast

How do you measure emotional intelligence | Sapia candidate experience software

Here’s a hot take: The science of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is dubious, confusing, and anything but settled. When it comes to talent identification, that can be a problem.

First, what is Emotional Intelligence (EQ)?

We tend to measure EQ in the same way we do IQ: Using a test with a series of questions. But emotion and cognitive ability are totally different, and as sciencealert.com points out, ‘It’s much more difficult to measure EI scores as often emotion-based questions do not have one correct answer.’ Add to this the fact that many EQ tests rely on self-reported data, and you can see how IQ and EQ are not simply two equal sides of the coin that make up a person.

That’s not to say that Emotional Intelligence doesn’t exist, just that it’s a roundabout way of measuring personality traits and behaviours that other mechanisms, such as the HEXACO personality inventory, do more reliably and effectively. EQ also carries the issue of ranking certain traits as more desirable or ‘better’ than others – for example, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness.

The trap of over-weighting agreeableness

When we say someone has good or high EQ, what we tend to mean is that they’re friendly, kind, self-aware, and generally speaking, extraverted. They can adjust their tone and approach depending on who they’re talking to. They’re not known to be rude, or brash, or talk too much.

That’s an estimation of someone with good EQ, and this is the problem: It’s an empirical judgment. And while we think we’re describing someone who is emotionally intelligent, we’re really describing someone who is high in agreeableness, emotionality, openness, and other more valid measures of personality. Sounds like a great person, sure, but not necessarily a better type of person for every situation.

Consider this: Many studies have shown that disagreeable people tend to perform better over their career than people who are polite, kind, and friendly. A great proportion of CEOs, be they women or men, are high in disagreeableness. It’s easy to see why: though there are many downsides to disagreeableness, it pays, in many situations, to possess the ability to be combative, straightforward, and brutally honest. To think of disagreeableness as inherently worse than agreeableness is misguided and, at worst, discriminatory.

And even if that is not true, and all of the varied and ever-changing definitions of Emotional Intelligence lead to better job performance, how do we even measure it accurately?

How do you accurately measure Emotional Intelligence (EQ)?

In the context of hiring, EQ is often used as a gut-feel heuristic we apply to people with whom we gel. Even in structured face-to-face interviews, it can be very difficult to assign as score to the different measures of EQ. 

Imagine someone is sitting across from you in an interview. By sight, they appear to be an average person in every way. So, by your questions and their responses, how do you measure their:

  • Self-awareness. What are the repeatable, verifiable signals of someone who is aware of themselves? Is it their propensity to correct statements mid-sentence? Is it the way they ask you where to sit before committing to a position? Is it the way they maintain eye-contact? How much or little eye-contact do you need to be satisfied of above-average self-awareness?
  • Adaptability, teamwork, or ability to influence. Sure, you might ask them about a time where they had to apply abstract thinking to resolve a stressful situation, but how do you rate their answer objectively? Experience may tell you that they have been adaptable, and that’s all well and good, but how do you rank that against someone who is, personality-wise, highly geared for adaptability, but has not had the opportunity to prove it? In other words, how do you assess potential fairly, from candidate to candidate?

The alternative to measuring EQ badly

Again, aside from face-value judgments of agreeableness and social tact, it’s near-on impossible to assess EQ in any fair or meaningful way. That’s not even accounting for the many biases we, as humans, bring to the hiring process. You might, with some accuracy, be able to appraise a person’s EQ once it’s been proven, but that’s not useful at all in recruitment. In hiring, you’re hedging against unknowns, hoping for the best.

That’s what makes accurate personality assessment so critical – and why we built our Ai Smart Interviewer. It finds you the people you need based on an accurate, HEXACO-based assessment of their personality. One interview, via chat, is all it takes.

We look at the critical power skills – communication, emotionality, empathy, openness, and so on – and profile all candidates fairly against one another. So you’re ranking suitability on objective and repeatable measures. No guesswork involved. No bias.

You bet it works. 94% of the 2+ million candidates we’ve interviewed found their personality insights accurate and valuable. On average, 80% of the candidates who experience our interview process recommend you as an employer of choice, even if they don’t get the job.

Someone with an ostensibly high EQ is, in most cases, someone you might want. But appearances can be deceiving, and humans, by nature, are not good at objectively assessing personality. We’re just not, period.

Get the help you need, and you’ll quickly hire the people you want.

Read Online
Blog

Business leaders react to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s 2020 Federal Budget

See how leaders, including Sapia’s CEO Barbara Hyman, reacted to the Treasurer’s 2020 Federal Budget, and their comments on how it will impact Australian businesses.

Featured in Business Daily Media | Wed 7th October 2020


Dr Benjamin Coorey, Archistar Founder & CEO

“The R&D incentives initiative is a game changer for us because it provides the very thing that all start up businesses want – certainty. These changes are strongly supported because it means we can, as a business, confidently invest in more people to deliver innovative solutions and provide material outcomes for economic growth.”


Andrew Johnson, ACS Chief Executive Officer

“ACS is delighted to see the recognition of the importance of technology professionals in Australia’s recovery from the COVID-19 downturn with the emphasis on IT and cybersecurity in this year’s budget.

The 50,000 new higher education short courses which include IT subjects is an important part of addressing skill shortages across the Australian economy.

Coupled with this, the announcement of $240m to support female cadetships and apprenticeships in science, technology, engineering and mathematics will go some way to address the under-representation of women in the ICT sector.

Along with the measures announced in last week’s advanced manufacturing and Digital Business plans, the budget lays firm foundations for a tech led recovery.”


Leica Ison, CEO of regulation technology provider Skyjed

“I welcome the Treasurer’s announcement that the government will provide $231m over four years to support economic recovery by employing more women in the workforce. The funding to increase the number of co-funded grants to women-founded start-ups, and to establish the women in STEM industry cadetship program is a fantastic step in the right direction.

As a female tech founder of an emerging RegTech provider of a digital product governance platform, these initiatives are refreshing and will certainly drive growth in our digital economy.

Australia has over 80 emerging RegTech providers supported by the RegTech Association, and if each of them plans to create around ten new jobs in next 12 months, we are well on the way to not only supporting modern manufacturing and the broad range of Australian industries (clean energy, MedTech, IoT, retail) but also to building a global RegTech export sector.

There is a substantial opportunity for high export potential of RegTech right at the time when our country needs it most. Global RegTech spending is predicted to exceed USD $127 billion.

I would however encourage the government to go harder on looking at initiatives to promote commercialisation. In Australia, a gap exists in commercialisation – after R&D when a start-up needs to find product-market fit and scale-up. Australia needs more effective incentives for this ‘cliff’ to ensure commercialisation and that jobs of the future stay in Australia.”


Dr Silvia Pfeiffer, CEO of Coviu

“I highly commend the government’s decision to double the number of Medicare funded psychological services through the Better Access Initiative. We’ve seen a huge spike in mental health related problems since the outbreak of COVID-19, and this is projected to get worse. Better Access funds telehealth mental health consultations, and thus enables equitable access for all Australians.

But there are more challenges than just mental health. I would have liked to have seen a broader approach to the digitalisation of healthcare. The global pandemic has accelerated digital transformation in healthcare. However, the Federal Budget was missing any concrete indication from the government to properly see this through; the digitalisation of our system starts with a long-term pledge to the reimbursement of telehealth items.

Healthcare businesses aren’t going to invest in the necessary training, hardware and infrastructure setup for digital transformation if there is no long-term government commitment.

We all want to live in a country where quality healthcare is accessible to all. However, it’s going to take more support from the government to get there. I’m hopeful that it won’t take us another pandemic to realise this.”


Carl Hartmann, co-founder of HR technology platform, Shortlyster

“While the JobMaker Hiring Credit and the $1.2bn investment to support apprenticeships and trainees are strong initiatives to boost employment, neither of these measures holistically address employment with thousands of Australian white collar workers looking for work who could be utilised more effectively now to help further stimulate the economy. The JobMaker Hiring Credit will be paid at a rate too low to seriously help any business pay the wage of a skilled worker, of which there is high demand for amongst small to medium businesses and this ranges from everything from tech engineers, accountants, marketeers, IT and business professionals.

“To get Australians back to work we need to get more creative in how we view people’s skill sets. The JobTrainer package announced earlier this year is a step in the right direction for helping upskill Australians, but we need more investment in the learning and development space for programs to help job seekers transfer their skills into new industries. The job market is down, but the reality is that there’s still a lot of businesses operating. When they are hiring, they need to be able to screen applications for transferable skill set. All this while making the right hires quickly.”

“It is positive to see reinforced support for mental health initiatives, but this focus needs to be on preventative measures that can help support the wellbeing of Australians before it reaches crisis level. While support for organisations like Beyond Blue is necessary, we also need long term investment for mental health in the learning and development space to create initiatives that can be delivered at a workplace level to support the wellbeing and resilience of Australians as an ongoing priority.”


Arun Maharaj, CEO of HashChing

The expanded First Home Loan Deposit Scheme is a fantastic step in the right direction – too many people living in expensive cities have been missing out for for too long. Increasing the caps on the price of homes that can be purchased to as much as $950,000 will go a long way towards helping to kick start the building boom which is absolutely critical to our economy.

However, it is a shame the HomeBuilder scheme was not extended. This would have been a fantastic way to rejuvenate the property market.

 


John Manusu, cofounder of Aegros

“The Federal Budget is rightly looking to stimulate the economy. It is pleasing to see that more funding for medicines is being injected into the Modern Manufacturing plan. Unfortunately, the breakthroughs we need to overcome the current pandemic will, and are coming from, the smaller companies like Aegros.

To date, we have not seen any targeted support for Australian innovation sectors. This plus the cut in innovation company grants has really cut into Australia’s innovation engine. It may well explain the decrease we have seen in Australia’s productivity over the last 10 years.

Despite this, the Government still hasn’t considered reactivating the SME company R&D commercial project grants,. Those grants provided up to 50% funding to cover the cost of bridging the death valley between prototypes and a commercial product. There’s still much to learn for the Australian government, particularly from Israel, whereby this model of funding has been used to have successful companies repay sales grants. The beauty of this approach is the funds have to be spent first before the Government co-funds. Ensuring only worthwhile projects are supported and ensuring the funds are spent and not used to pay down debts.”



Barbara Hyman, CEO of Sapia (Formerly PredictiveHire)

“It is comforting and critical that the government has recognised the important need to invest in thIs younger generation. They are both the worst-affected as a group by COVID in the short term. They are also likely to beat a larger cost of the impact of COVID on the economy and employment opportunities for the next 5 to 10 years.

Despite this, the investment in training only pays off if the individual has a good idea of what jobs they are best suited to. And we all know that career counselling from school and beyond is pretty much non-existent.

The more understanding for the kind of role and environment that brings out the best in an 18 or 25-year-old and the deeper self-awareness they have about their strengths, the more ROI both the government and the individual will get from this massive investment. Scaleable career discovery should really be a part of this and the R&D backing in this year’s budget should be used.  This technology is here now through AI-led personalised scaleable career coaching. Perfect for the scale of the challenge we face in a world where face-to-face contact is becoming less necessary.”

Find out more about PredictiveHire

 

 


Jason Waller, CEO of InteliCare

“While any increase in funding is welcomed for the aged care sector in crisis, it seems the Government’s 2020-21 budget comes without fundamental structural changes.

The government mentioned an increase in-home care packages alone – and when we already have an average of nearly $8,000 per person unspent, and over 100,000 on the waiting list (almost as many as the 136,000 receiving a package), it does feel a bit like putting a bandaid on a shark bite.

Care providers are already overworked and understaffed, and Australia needs to be spending the money more effectively and efficiently. The aged care sector is clearly in crisis. Thus, instead of adding more funding or policies to what we are already doing, we need to stop the bleeding at the source and become preventative rather than reactive. The government should be enabling families to take charge of their own care to relieve the over-stressing and this could be achieved through technology.

The first contact is via general practitioners and the existing healthcare network. We need to make assistive technology MBS approved and put the power back into the hands of the individual, and save on higher cost services that are, simply put, too little too late.”


Mandeep Sodhi, CEO and founder of Effi

“It’s encouraging to see $2 billion injection in R&D incentives. The mortgage broking and the mortgage sector overall is rapidly digitising and this program will only help support its disruption and drive efficiency in the mortgage market. However, there’s still no support for software-based R&D activities which is going to drive the next phase of growth for Australia. AI will be the key for driving productivity of Australians and companies like Effi will be investing heavily in R&D to develop right AI solutions and compete at a global level – but this is only possible if companies like Effi can access R&D incentives easily.

On the other hand, tax support for businesses and incentives for hiring are also good, as they are also needed to help businesses sustain growth.”


Dirk Steller, founder of fintech VC firm Seed Space

“The federal government’s move to invest $28.5 million in expanding Australia’s world-leading Consumer Data Right is an excellent move forward that will help Australia move closer towards realising its open banking transition. The Consumer Data Right and Open Banking is an important initiative that serves up plenty of advantages for Australian customers. It will allow fintech entrants to provide new and improved products by offering data-driven insights and more compelling, tailored and personalised offerings for Australians, all of which will drive economic growth and improved customer outcomes.

At Seed Space, we believe that collaboration is a key driver of success and the $9.6 million proposed by the government to expand the Fintech Bridge program is a welcome initiative that builds on the government’s ongoing multilateral fintech expansion initiatives that are all aimed at helping Australian fintechs grow and scale into key offshore markets such as Europe and the UK, as well as learning from international counterparts to ensure our home grown fintechs are at the operating in line with global best practice.

We also strongly believe the $11.4 million for Australian regtech companies to help ease regulatory burdens is an important initiative. The government is also making available $6.9 million in funding for two blockchain pilots to test how the technology could be used to reduce regulatory compliance burden for businesses. These pilots will complement the National Blockchain Roadmap and will allow the development of successful use cases in how blockchain can help reduce frictions and pain points right across industry verticals.”


Bill Fry, managing director of Eve Investments

“The federal government has stepped up to the plate and provided critical funding support that would allow local manufacturers to continue to innovate, particularly in critical export sectors like retail and health and wellness.

The R&D initiatives will be most welcome to Australian emerging companies seeking to grow and realise their export potential. With regards to this, EVE are currently working on new product development with our honey and tea tree and the development of strains of probiotic that work synergistically to maximise the gut health benefit to consumers. R&D assistance from the government in this process would enable innovation by bringing these products to market much quicker and into the hands of everyday Australians.

Support will also be given to manufacturers to upgrade and improve manufacturing equipment to expand production. At EVE, we are firmly focused on identifying new opportunities for scale, and dovetails nicely with our expansion plans for new export markets and the need to increase our manufacturing capacity. It also is a critical step in providing new employment opportunities for Australian businesses in manufacturing.”



Joe Demase, managing director of listed telco 5G Networks (ASX:5GN)

“The budget saw the federal government go much further in recognising what is going to be leading the engine room of the Australian economy both now and in the months ahead: small business.

Many SME businesses across Australia have been left ill-equipped to respond to COVID-19 and we must provide these businesses with a clear path for recovery and getting back to operating very quickly. With over 2 million SMBs across the country, accounting for more than 97 per cent of all Australian businesses by employee size, this business segment is the beating heart of this country.

What we would have liked to see more is additional consideration for helping businesses in regional areas, particularly those looking to adjust to operating in a new normal and supporting their digital footprints. The message is clear: if you’re in any business, you’ve got to be investing in digital resilience.”


Maz Zaman, co-founder of TaxFox

 “I’m happy to see that this year’s budget includes a number of great outcomes for the startup community. In particular, we welcome the $2bn boost for R&D as this is the lifeline of the tech sector and will provide greater certainty for investment and help support the development of novel technologies within Australia.

 The investment in the 5G network and infrastructure is another win for us as better internet means improved connectivity for startups with their employees, customers, partners and networks, ultimately speeding up growth capability.

 The $9.6M investment for fintechs will enhance support for businesses to expand internationally and encourage foreign investment and job creation in Australia. The investment in blockchain technology will also help support the fintech community through encouraging broader uptake of blockchain by these businesses which can help improve transparency and rescue regulatory compliance costs.

 We welcome news of the personal income tax cuts which will be of great support to many founders who are working full time to support their side hustles. Tax relief will lower the cost of living and allow founders longer runways.

 Investment in measures to improve STEM gender equity in Australia is another positive outcome for startups as this will see startups have access to larger talent pools and new perspectives which previously impacted startups having ‘male blinkers’.”



Source: Staff Writer at Business Daily Media, October 7 2020

Read Online