How do executives ensure their decisions uphold fairness and equity, even under commercial pressure? Employees expect those decisions to be fair, even under commercial pressure. For Cheree Dyers, CEO of Prescient Investment Management, equity means ensuring capable people can advance and addressing barriers that exclude them. She explains how CAs(SA) can use their influence to challenge exclusion and improve access to opportunity, and why trust in the profession depends on how they exercise that responsibility.
Policies can set clear standards for fair treatment and help leaders make consistent decisions. But they still have to consider how they apply those standards and whether their decisions provide fair access to opportunity. For Cheree Dyers, CEO of Prescient Investment Management, that requires careful judgement and a willingness to listen to the people affected.
After leaders make a decision, they need to review the outcome. Dyers says that means checking whether it has achieved what they intended and considering its effect on those involved. If the outcome raises questions about fairness, they need to understand why and be willing to reconsider the process.
A consistent promotion process does not, on its own, ensure a fair outcome. Clearly defined criteria help employees understand what a role requires, but their prospects also depend on the opportunities they have had to gain relevant experience. Assessing everyone against the same standard can disadvantage equally capable employees who have had fewer chances to take on demanding work.
Dyers joined Prescient in 2005 as a newly qualified CA(SA), building her expertise across compliance, finance, risk, and stockbroking before being appointed CEO of the investment management division in 2018. Under her leadership, the South African asset manager relies on data and systematic models to drive investment decisions.
As CEO, Dyers balances high-level strategic oversight with active engagement. While she often steps back from granular details to focus on the broader business, emerging risks or critical client issues require her to zoom in and work alongside her team.
“Fairness doesn’t mean treating everybody identically,” she says. “Sometimes people’s hearts get broken, but it has to be the right decision, and you need to be able to defend it.”
Transparent criteria help staff understand the reasoning behind promotion decisions. At the same time, leaders need to take a step back and look at who actually got the chance to build that experience in the first place. If you don’t, you end up just rewarding the people who were handed the best opportunities while overlooking what someone else could have done with the same shot. When a decision has a huge impact on someone’s career, Dyers believes they deserve complete transparency on the standards used and the reasoning behind it, even if it’s a tough pill to swallow.
Even when candidates share similar qualifications, they don’t always start on equal footing when it comes to high-visibility assignments or professional networks. Employers deepen this disparity when they rely on slick resumes or polished interview styles that have traditionally impressed them. As Dyers points out, investment management has evolved. Companies now depend on sharp critical thinkers who can analyse data and adapt on the fly. A flawless CV might grab attention without showing real capabilities, whereas a less confident interviewee might actually be the perfect fit.
“If we keep looking for the same kind of profile that we always did to get the right skills, we’ll be missing out on great people,” Dyers warns.
She refers to this bias as the “halo effect”—where an applicant who checks traditional boxes, like an Ivy League degree and a sharp suit, automatically looks like the top choice before anyone has actually tested their abilities. To break that habit, Dyers advocates for hiring criteria tied strictly to job requirements and evaluation methods that let candidates actively demonstrate the precise skills the role demands.
“If you’re missing out on great talent because you’re not giving them access, that talent is going to go somewhere else,” she says.
What leaders reward
Dyers urges executives to examine promotion patterns and staff turnover, and to listen to what employees say in exit interviews. That feedback can show where the company falls short of its stated values. But people who stay have something to tell you, too. What helps them do their best work? What makes them want to remain with the business? Their answers can help executives understand what employees value about working there and make sure those working conditions remain a priority.
When a company rewards a top performer whose behaviour harms the team, it signals that results matter more than conduct. That person may meet every target while making it harder for others to work well and driving capable employees to leave. Dyers says companies need to give conduct as much weight as results when rewarding employees. Honest feedback and coaching can help, but if the person doesn’t change how they work with colleagues, executives may need to let them go. “If we are not being brave and holding people accountable, then that’s not building trust. That actually erodes trust,” she says.
Handling exceptions requires the same level of courage. For example, if a key employee asks to report to a different manager, accommodating them might retain their talent, but it could also disrupt a structure their colleagues rely on. Leaders need to weigh the immediate fix against the broader message it sends, and there are times when they should refuse the request and accept the risk of losing that employee rather than managing the fallout of a special exception later.
This level of accountability also applies to leadership fit. When a top producer struggles in a managerial role, leaders must offer clear feedback and support. However, if things do not improve, they cannot stall indefinitely; ignoring the problem risks driving away other valuable team members.
Ultimately, board members should expect executives to recognise the wider effects of these decisions. Dyers stresses that directors need to ask whether management is actively addressing cultural red flags, and she advocates for diverse, independent board members who bring distinct perspectives rather than falling into groupthink.
Judgement behind the models
Prescient bases its investment decisions on systematic, research-backed models rather than an individual’s market predictions. While the firm thoroughly tests these models across various conditions, Dyers emphasises that the team must continuously question their performance.
Because humans choose the underlying data and build the core assumptions, changing market conditions require constant re-examination, especially when a model comes under stress. A result that appears reliable in one environment may demand a closer look in another, and fresh evidence may require the team to revise its approach.
To build stronger models, Dyers encourages teams to seek diverse perspectives during development. When a team shares the exact same viewpoint, they risk agreeing too quickly and overlooking critical flaws. She advises actively seeking out the biggest sceptics to avoid premature consensus and catch hidden weaknesses before moving forward.
This same level of scrutiny applies to governance. CAs(SA) serving on boards and investment committees can leverage their influence to promote fairness—questioning whose interests were considered, ensuring proposals receive a fair hearing, and challenging unnecessary barriers. While no single decision will eliminate entrenched inequality, Dyers notes that professionals can drive meaningful, lasting change one meeting and one decision at a time.
The work of earning trust
In recent years, corporate failures and financial misconduct have eroded confidence in financial reporting, putting the accounting profession under intense scrutiny. Dyers emphasises that trust is earned through consistent integrity: dishonesty must carry consequences, and leaders must back professionals who speak up or deliver candid advice under pressure. “People will judge us, I think, by what we do repeatedly,” she notes.
SAICA frames CAs(SA) as being “trusted with the future,” yet Dyers questions how the next generation will cultivate the critical judgment that mandate demands. As artificial intelligence automates the routine tasks through which young accountants historically learned the ropes, there is a risk they will miss out on foundational problem-solving—making it harder to spot when an output requires deeper questioning.
She believes rising professionals need hands-on responsibility, mentors who challenge their reasoning, and a clear understanding of how their work shapes high-level decisions. While AI can accelerate execution, it cannot replicate the nuanced experience gained from navigating complex professional dilemmas. To bridge this gap, today’s leaders must intentionally assign young CAs(SA) real, challenging problems to solve, providing guidance as needed to build the critical judgment that automated tools simply cannot teach.
What Leaders Should Look At
Cheree Dyers on the decisions that affect who gets ahead and whether employees trust their leaders.
Look at who gets demanding work:
High-impact assignments give employees the critical experience needed to compete for senior roles; without fair distribution, equally capable colleagues may never get that chance.
Assess candidates for the job required:
A polished CV or confident interview can make a great first impression without actually proving a candidate possesses the right skill set.
Consider how people achieve results:
When an organisation rewards a top performer who treats colleagues poorly, it severely damages culture and risks losing other strong talent.
Think through the consequences of making exceptions:
Granting a custom arrangement, like a new reporting line, might retain one employee but disrupt structures the rest of the team relies on.
Question the assumptions behind models:
Because humans choose the data and build the underlying logic, teams should actively seek out sceptics who will challenge their thinking.
Apply the same standards to senior leaders:
Consistent conduct builds trust. Executives must hold senior people accountable while actively supporting CAs(SA) who speak up or give candid advice under pressure.
Give young professionals real problems to solve:
As AI automates routine tasks, leaders must provide rising talent with hands-on challenges and guidance to help them build critical professional judgment.
Author
Monique Verduyn
