WOTC Asia: Allyship goes beyond policy when leaders challenge bias in everyday decisions

Women’s advancement depends on sponsorship, flexible work and consistent leadership, while male allies must be prepared to challenge bias even when doing so carries a personal cost.

Allyship in the workplace only becomes meaningful when it shapes everyday leadership decisions, from hiring and promotions to sponsorship, flexibility and how leaders respond to bias.

Speaking during The Channel Company’s Women of the Channel (WOTC) Asia event in Singapore, Ananth Lazarus, managing director APJ, Global Technology Distribution Council (GTDC), and Simon Bernie, board advisor and global growth strategist and founder, Goh Bernie Advisory, made the case during the “Men As Allies” panel, moderated by Rosie Cotterill, VP International Communities EMEA and APAC (Media and Events), The Channel Company.

The discussion, led by Cotterill, focused on how leaders can turn allyship from a stated commitment into action, including the decisions they make when supporting women’s progression comes with resistance or personal cost.

For Lazarus, allyship starts with accountability and consistency rather than simply agreeing with the principle of inclusion.

“It comes down to individual leadership,” Lazarus said, arguing that organisations may already have policies, pay structures and manuals in place, but the outcome ultimately depends on the leader.

He recalled his experience as a country manager, where candidates for open positions went through several rounds of interviews before the final decision reached him. After receiving only male candidates during his first three months, he decided that at least one woman had to be among the final candidates.

“There was an uproar. ‘We’re never going to fill our headcount,’” Lazarus said, recalling concerns around headcount and revenue.

His response was to continue with the decision rather than change the requirement.

“You’ve got to stick to your guns,” he said.

The experience, he argued, showed why leadership consistency matters more than simply having a policy in place.

Sponsorship must move beyond mentoring

The executives also drew a distinction between measuring activity and measuring whether leadership intervention actually changes outcomes.

Lazarus said organisations can easily fall into the trap of measuring how many people a leader has mentored without asking what happened as a result.

“How many moments have you mentored this quarter or this half, and you fill it up with a tool, and everyone’s happy?” he said.

“To me, mentoring is a milestone. What’s the outcome? What did you deliver?”

That distinction becomes particularly important when women are being considered for senior roles.

Bernie described a situation at a large technology company where a technical team leadership position became available. A woman from his project management team was interested in becoming a manager but was concerned that she was not technical enough for the role.

Bernie supported her candidacy. There were two male candidates and one female candidate, but after his peers selected the two men, he chose the woman.

The next obstacle came from HR, which initially determined that she was not eligible for the role because of her salary level.

Bernie challenged that decision and took the issue to the company’s senior HR leadership.

Within two days, the decision was approved, according to Bernie, and she received a 55 percent increase in salary and became a manager.

“I then committed to her that every day I would talk to her,” he said.

He said the woman later became an expert within the team and is now the CIO of a large company in Malaysia.

For Bernie, the experience demonstrated what sponsorship looks like in practice. It was not simply about encouraging someone to apply for a role, but continuing to support that person when organisational processes created a barrier.

Culture cannot become an excuse

The discussion also turned to the differences between countries and cultures across APAC, and whether those differences can make it harder for leaders to apply consistent approaches to inclusion.

Lazarus argued that cultural differences should not be used to justify lower expectations around leadership and sponsorship.

“The underlying principles on leadership and sponsoring movement don’t change based on where someone’s from or what their culture is,” he said.

He gave the example of a person being considered unsuitable for a regional role because their English was not considered strong enough to work with US-based leaders.

“That’s nonsense,” Lazarus said. “We need to adjust. Others around that person need to adjust.”

His approach, he said, is to treat people consistently while remaining sensitive to differences and listening to employees.

Bernie focused on another area where cultural expectations continue to affect women’s progression: flexibility.

He argued that flexible working should be assessed through productivity and performance rather than attendance.

“There is more work produced when you allow a person to do it in their approach,” he said.

Bernie acknowledged that some people may misuse flexibility, but argued that the longer-term outcome can be stronger when employees feel trusted and valued.

“Their productivity is greater because they feel valued as a person,” he said.

The discussion also highlighted the difference between formal pay parity and the practical ability to earn.

Bernie cited Australia as an example, saying that even where hourly pay may be similar for men and women, men can still work more hours because women are more likely to take responsibility for childcare and family needs.

“So whilst there is a perceived greater parity in Australia, there is still a disparity in the actual ability to draw income,” he said.

He argued that leaders should respect cultural differences without allowing them to limit women’s progress.

The real test comes when allyship has a cost

The panel also addressed what happens when supporting a colleague has a commercial, organisational or personal cost.

Bernie said he has experienced situations where standing behind the right person or decision has affected his own career, but argued that the principle should remain unchanged.

“At the end of the day, you need to continue to push for the right person, the right role, or the right support,” he said.

Lazarus was more reflective about his own career, acknowledging that there had been situations earlier in his career where he saw repeated behaviour and did not challenge it.

“Today, when I look back, maybe I should have stood up. I didn’t. I just didn’t, and that’s a regret,” he said.

That reflection is central to the broader question of male allyship, which the executives said cannot simply be delegated to HR.

Lazarus argued that HR can create policies and frameworks, but leadership has to own the outcome.

“HR is more policy,” he said. “It comes down to topmost leadership.”

For Bernie, becoming an ally also requires leaders to create space for conversations about career ambitions, setbacks and change.

He said male allies should be willing to ask colleagues where they want to go and what support they need, rather than assuming they already know the answer.

“It’s having a conversation, and being open about it,” he said.

He also pointed to the importance of language, recalling how a term used by his former boss to describe a female colleague had initially seemed endearing but later made him reconsider the language used in professional environments.

“I’m going to be very conscious of making sure that the language that I use is the right language,” Bernie said. “There is endearing language which should not be used in a corporate environment.”

For Lazarus, the responsibility also extends to women leaders themselves. He urged women in senior positions to actively support and promote other women rather than waiting for organisational systems to change.

He recalled seeing succession planning processes where senior women were included as candidates, but those same women were not necessarily putting other women forward in their own teams.

“That’s an injustice,” he said.

“Don’t be shy about it.”

The panel’s broader argument was that allyship cannot be reduced to a target, a mentoring count or a policy document. It is ultimately reflected in who gets the opportunity, who gets sponsored when the process becomes difficult, and whether leaders are willing to challenge decisions that reinforce existing patterns.