 Thanks, Nuna, and happy International Women's Day, everybody, and thank you for inviting me to speak about workplace culture. It's been great to see in the chat all the great insights from a lot of young people, and so I would recommend to Brian to maybe form an advisory group with all this massive amount of insight, and I'm sure you're going to move ahead fast. But let me get on to my presentation. Let's see whether this works. It doesn't. OK, I can't seem to. Can you take control, Leah, or? Yeah, thanks. So my background, I'm an astrophysicist. I'm definitely not a sociologist, so I'm a practitioner. I do, I like to solve difficult problems, mostly in cosmology, where I've been leading a center of excellence, in which I always try to do my job, do the science and do it in a great way, recruit fantastic people. And I see diversity in my team, equity and inclusion as a vehicle for excellence. Here in this presentation, I really don't want to, I feel a bit uncomfortable because I don't want to preach or judge or brag or whatever I've done. But I'm here to share the insights that I've gathered, and it's sort of, you know, you can take it or leave it, but this is my experience. And Leah, can you, I don't know, next slide please? Yeah, thanks. So just to let you know where I come from, I have a bunch of sort of basic guidelines in what I do, and this is probably the main one. This is Brian Schmidt, a Nobel Prize winner in cosmology, who basically reminded us that the point of trying to fix the leaky pipeline, there's only one solution, and that is to actually hire women. And, you know, if you have an action plan that does not put this center stage and ensures that you will be hiring women at a certain pace in the future, then don't be surprised if it doesn't work. Next slide. I have done a bit of studies myself. This is one of them, and it sort of has shaped my view of the situation. What you see here is a precursor, ERC grant scheme, and I show the fraction of men and women at different stages of the scheme. Initially, the recruiting pool, and you'll see a board of 30% women, and then the initial applicants dropped a bit, then the applications were then selected for further progress to the international level, or the European level, and at the European level, some applicants were selected for interviews, and then finally there was selection. And at each stage of this process, there are four steps. There is a nutrition of women, but if you compare each step, this is not significant. And so at each step, there's a non-significant change. But if you add up the four steps, you'll see a big difference between the initial and the final fractions of women. And I believe that this is a major aspect of the leaky pipeline, that people encounter, say, slightly biased, but non-significant selection biases. And we know in academia that we always get evaluated, we always get selected, and over time this can add up to a significant effect. I just want to remind you here that here there was no women getting pregnant, no one deciding to drop out doing something else. This was just over half a year and so, and the selection was based on what other people did based on the same file. Okay, next slide, which leads me to this important aspect that if there are biases or unfairness in the system, we really shouldn't talk so much about equality, but rather equity, to allow people to compete on a fair scale, taking into account any differences in capabilities or situations. So, you see here that equality doesn't really allow the small guy to watch the football game, or the baseball game, yeah. Okay, next slide. Now, my approach is that this really isn't rocket science. Let me move on. Although if it was, it's no big deal because I work with rocket scientists. And in this business, if you want to launch a rocket or fly to the moon, you definitely hope this wishful thinking is not a strategy. How do you move ahead? Next slide. Well, I always feel that you just treat it like a project. You set a goal, you make it a priority to reach it, even if it's difficult. Of course, you inform yourself about what's known in the field, make sure you know what you're doing, you create a strong and dedicated team, and very importantly, you make yourself accountable. If you don't fly to the moon, maybe somebody else should take over. And then, of course, on the way, it's going to be a long and bumpy road, be ready for change and surprises. Next slide. Now, this brings me on to the workplace, which is the subject of my presentation. You cannot be an alien at work. If you want to perform at work, you need to feel that you belong there. And there are various studies that show that, for example, if you are less than 15% of a given population, then you do not perform as well as you should. And if you move on, other studies show that you don't really gain the most out of, in this case, women, if you are not at the 35% level. What I want to say with this is basically that you cannot just try and say, okay, let's create a welcoming workplace culture, a nice place, and then hope all the women will join. Because if they still feel like they're aliens, and this goes for any kind of minority as well, it's not going to work. And therefore, we need to turn this kind of negative or downward spiral where people don't apply if they don't see that they belong into the opposite. And so that's the next slide, which is trying to do a positive feedback loop, which should fix the leaky pipeline. And also, as I mentioned, that we have a broken meritocracy. And so we need to make sure that people get evaluated in a fair way. And so you need to create excellent science and then make sure that you can renew your team and then hire in a balanced way. And I can speak at length about how to hire and how to promote and how to recruit. What I'm going to talk about here is another aspect, which is the work environment. And so I'm going to focus on that in the rest of the talk. And so these are aspects of what we've done at DAAC. And I'm sure out there, there are tons of good practices. And I don't claim that this is the right way of doing it. I'm just sharing what we have tried to do. And I think most of all, it is about explicitly, openly, and concretely care about your employees and their well-being and their progress. And that requires some awareness of what's going on and the biases. And as somebody showed the fact that in the workplace assessments, women don't feel as well as men in the workplace. And you need to be aware of that and try and fix it. It requires actually daily focus. It's not something you do in a conference and then hope things will be fine. And probably also requires some courage and decisiveness in what you do. Something we've done is to create a mental health initiative to address mental disease, stress, well-being, coping, sharing, imposter syndrome. That will help some. But I think it also just sends a signal that we care about people. What we also are doing is that we are mentoring. We have an immense scheme that allows for mentoring at all levels from professors to associate professors to assistant professors, postdocs, PhD students and master's students. It there's a mentoring aspect, but there's also just the fact that people get to know each other and can relate to each other. We created a code of harmonies, a sort of a code of conduct, but really it's about harmony. We have formulated and articulated workplace values. Of course, in a workplace, you need to figure out what are your values and there are no, there's no one size fits all. I think it's also important to try and limit hierarchical boundaries. And, you know, just because I'm a professor, I don't need the biggest office or the biggest desk, sit alone and so on. We do a lot. One minute left, Jens. Thanks. We try to have an inclusive and transparent internal communication and a great physical working environment. I need to fast forward. I want to encourage and explicitly support our people and their initiatives. And part of this is as Eva also mentioned, you know, the recruitment process is a team building process. And if we move forward, the results of such initiatives can be that you create a helpful and caring environment. You eliminate all the microaggression and stupid jokes. You empower a younger generation and you gain competitiveness in recruitment, funding, evaluations, citation rates, and so on. Next slide. Since we started, we actually now have three female professors move on. I just wanted to mention you as well in all who's one. Yeah, so that's why I'm trying to fast forward. We have another program at University of Copenhagen, which is about career development for for fairly senior people. We call them young scientists, postdocs and professors. It's something I'm doing with Marie-Louise Laun. Nosh, and the challenge really is to how to perform better. Do more original research and at the same time, escape the hamster wheel and try and cope better with the challenges, find balance and create sustainable careers. So basically it's working smarter and not harder, but at the same time be extremely competitive. The one of the aspects that we are increasingly looking at is how we can share and be vulnerable in what we do and as a way to beat the burnout and toxicity in workplaces. The hope, of course, is that with this program, the participants will go out in their local environments and improve the local workplace environment. Next slide. So there's this booklet. I encourage you to take a look at the messages on a sustainable career at the University of Copenhagen. Next slide. OK, so I'm done. So I hope I've inspired you to on diversity, equity and inclusion to try and do it yourself in your environment and feel free to connect. Thanks. Thank you very much, Hans. Thank you very much for joining us. That's a question for you in the chat. Yes, it says, what an excellent talk. I'd like to know in the many years, dark has been pioneering gender equality. How do their numbers look like with respect to productivity? How did the inclusion of more females affected, for example, publication rate or external funding acquisition? You know, I mean, that's an experiment we can't do. So I don't know, but we've got great evaluations. We're doing fine. And as I mentioned, the citation rates of the female we have we have hired at the level of the males we have hired. And so that's indicative that we are not. We are not compromising on quality. And that's another question for you, Jens, saying what kind of resistance, if any, did you encounter? Lots. And that's actually I'm going to attend the the the the NET breakout session, where I'm going to talk about resistance. I think resistance is is there. And there's a lot of it. And I think a lot of it has to do with the old boys club. Aspects. I. Much of it can be addressed. I think one of the things that is very difficult to address is just has to do with human personality, a person personal traits in that some people just don't like change. And I think we need to accept that some people love change and and some people just actually find the way it is. And so I think that's actually a very sort of mundane reason for why there may be resistance in some cases. And you also mentioned or you showed the the well known slide, the difference between equality and equity. Does that mean that women should be treated differently? And and and in that case, how? I think everybody should be treated as they are. You know, I think anyone needs support. In fact, anyone and university, anyone who ever became a professor had help along the way. And so I I'm a strong advocate that we're not looking for innate talent to just, you know, throw them out there and see whether they flow. But rather that we try and develop the talent and look at, you know, what are the strengths? What are the weaknesses? And no, I don't think that women need special treatment. I don't think men need special treatment, but I think we can all benefit from from developing the people that we are investing in. And that's another dilemma. Yes, I think because because I mean, universities and research areas are competitive environments as a competition for publications, for citations, for for for jobs, not least. And that doesn't necessarily create a very communal atmosphere. Do you think that dilemma is is solvable because everybody would like, you know, a nice communal atmosphere at their workplace? I don't think that is much. I mean, unless unless, you know, you have a workplace where you you have favourites and you you move them on to the next stage, I, you know, everybody is in competition with the rest of the world. And so, you know, you might as well support each other in the in the local environment. Of course, there are places where, you know, there's this guy down the down the corridor who is the next in line for a job. And so, yeah, I mean, if this is the situation, then that's not a great working environment. People people thrive if they feel that decisions are made based on on fairness and on well-defined criteria that are open. Like, you know, we don't like moving goalposts. We, you know, if we define what are the criteria, then people are fine. Not getting a job if really who got the job was a better candidate. But but if yes, we should move back to the to the slide you used, you know, the kid having a larger box standing on. So I'm just trying to to to figure out, you know, where can we sort of change our our standards when we recruit or when we have a developer workplace culture when it comes to women, because we have to move a bit closer to to what you're actually doing and how we can change some of the levers here. Yeah. Yeah, I think Eva was very clear on that, you know, if if your search community comes comes up with 20 men on the on the on the shortlist, then, you know, send it back and see whether there's talent out there that can also come in play. That's one way. But would you would you be willing to, for instance? I mean, we discussed earlier whether a research they are brought after postdoc is pivotal for for for development of your career. I mean, could you get a position as a associate professor, even though you haven't been been abroad? I mean, clearly it's an issue to many women, but they can be excellent researchers anyway. Yeah, I think, you know, I mean, the whole issue of careers of young people and the career track at universities is a is a big issue on its own. Lots of men burning out, lots of women being not treated as fairly as they should. This is a big problem in itself. But yes, of course, you know, it's all about can can a can a given person contribute to the science quality, to the workplace in an excellent way. Then they are qualified, whether or not they have 150 or 130 publications, whether they have kids or not and so on. Right. You know, I personally, I feel that people with kids are I certainly not worse scientists.