'Glass Ceilings' and Women in Leadership Roles

In October 2013 at ALFA International's 2013 Labor & Employment Practice Group Seminar, Kathleen Peahl, a Partner at Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, Manchester, NH, led a panel entitled “Glass Ceilings: Fact or Fiction.” The wide-ranging discussion introduced statistics suggesting that women still are not reaching the highest level of leadership in law firms and Fortune 500 companies, as compared with their male counterparts. Topics included a critical look at the so-called “glass ceiling,” including challenges and legal pitfalls faced by law firms and companies as they strive to integrate women into the upper echelons of management.

On the heels of that panel, the participants exchanged periodic e-mails following up on their discussion, shifting the focus from how firms defeat the “glass ceiling” to the state of women in leadership roles, and how these can be reached more regularly. In addition to moderator Peahl, participants included Byrona Maule, Co-Chair of Labor & Employment, Phillips Murrah, Oklahoma City, OK; Sarah Powell, General Counsel, Advance Auto Parts, Roanoke, VA; Kymberly Wellons, Associate General Counsel ' Litigation Compliance, MWV, Richmond, VA; Elaine Moss, Principal, Brown & James, St. Louis, MO; and Vickie Carcaise, Corporate Counsel, National Beverage, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

What follows is the first part of their conversation.

Q. How do you respond to those who say there is no longer any gender disparity in the workplace or that the so-called “glass ceiling” has been shattered?

A. There can be little doubt that great strides have been made by individual women, and in fact by individual companies, in creating equality in the workplace. However, the statistics clearly indicate that there is still a “glass ceiling.” Consider that in the United States, women still make 77 cents to every dollar paid to a man. A study by Yale University in 2012, titled “Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students,” shows that female science students were perceived as less competent, had less hireability, would receive a lower starting salary, and faculty were less willing to mentor female students.

These results were reached even though the resumes and qualifications for the male and female students were word for word the same ' except for the first name. Perhaps most telling are the allegations in Francine Friedman Griesing v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 12 CV 8734 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) where the plaintiff cites the 2012 Partner Compensation study which found that, “on average, law firms compensated male partners $237,000 more per year than female partners, meaning women earn at least $7 million less than their male counterparts over the course of their careers.” A full copy of the 2012 Partner Compensation Survey, by Major, Lindsey & Africa, is available at www.mlaglobal.com.

So while we want to congratulate ourselves on how far women have come in the workplace, we should not lose sight of the fact that equality has not yet been achieved, the glass ceiling still exists and there remains much to be achieved on this front.” ' Byrona Maule.

A. I think statistics reach a different conclusion. I think sometimes when we make great strides as we have in this area and we exhaust the good that comes from our initial efforts to achieve equality through legal change, we declare the job done before it is done. I think we are at a time in this particular effort when the job becomes very hard and legal change is no longer the answer. To say that we're done would keep us from making the next round of changes in our behaviors and our institutionalized cultures that I think are critical to achieving the diversity we need in the workplace and in our society.

If the person needed convincing, all I would be able to offer other than statistics would be my own anecdotal reference and experiences. I am 45 years old and have been working in law firms and in companies now since 1993. In that time period, I have experienced overt forms of discriminatory treatment and less overt, but no less damaging, impediments (I refrain from calling it discrimination) stemming from cultural norms and engrained systems of networking and mentoring that tend to exclude women. For example, I have worked in law firms where women had difficulty earning and progressing in the partnership because of historical systems of passing on clients and established books of business. The holders of those books were male and from an earlier generation, and they tended to pick young males whom they were more comfortable mentoring, and those younger males succeeded to the business. I have seen similar issues in the corporate world in which upper-level managers still on average tend to be male and, again, they tend to mentor and form social relationship and bonds with males and not females.

It is hard sometimes, I believe, for decision-makers to step away from those relationships and select female candidates with whom they may not have the same bond. It makes sense and it is understandable but, I believe, this type of cultural phenomenon continues to adversely impact women in the workplace. In my 20 years of work, I have seen these norms and behaviors change and I believe that with continued diligent efforts to step outside of our comfort zones (both women and men) to embrace and institutionalize different work styles and forms of mentoring and pipeline management, I think we can make real and sustained progress.” ' Kymberly Wellons

A. As both Byrona and Kym point out, despite the fact that the law has addressed the most overt forms of gender discrimination, statistics demonstrate that there is still work to be done to achieve true equality. U.S. Census data from 2011 confirms that across the board, women earn 77% of what males earn, and numerous studies focusing on specific population and industry segments show similar results. Clearly, there remain barriers and obstacles that hinder the advancement of women. The challenge we all face is that these barriers are the result of subtle cultural stereotypes and even unconscious or implicit biases, as the Yale study demonstrates. The first step is recognizing that these barriers exist; the second step is identifying ways to remove them. But before the barriers can be effectively removed, businesses and law firms will need to change the ways they look at hiring, promotion and retention issues. ' Kathleen Peahl

Q. How can we convince businesses and law firms that they should care about this issue and want to address it in their workplaces?

A. First, law firms need to understand that their clients care about diversity. Corporations are well ahead of firms in implementing company-wide diversity initiatives. The law firm's bottom line will be impacted if it is not in a position to meet corporate diversity goals. The goals have also become much more sophisticated, so the token woman or minority is no longer sufficient to meet those goals.

Second, law firms need to learn what corporations know: 1) diversity of thought results in better decisions (but this requires all points of view to be heard and considered); 2) the customer base of most companies is a broader spectrum than is reflected in law firms, so there can be a significant void in understanding the needs of the corporate client without diverse attorneys; and 3) having diverse attorneys marketing will result in a broader range of business. At the end of the day, it is the right thing to do and the better business model” ' Elaine Moss

A. Elaine makes several good points in support of the business reasons for companies and law firms to fully embrace and implement diversity initiatives. If there is any doubt that diversity is good for business, consider these facts: 1) The top 50 companies for diversity beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ (Business for Social Responsibility Staff, 2005); 2) Diversity results in reduced absenteeism and turnover and a better public image (The Business Case for Diversity: Good Practices in the Workplace, 2005″ ' Kathleen Peahl.

This discussion continues in next month's Issue.

'

Nicholas Gaffney, a lawyer and former journalist, is a founding partner of Infinite PR. and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors. Reach him at'[email protected] or 415-732-7801. Kathleen C. Peahl, a Partner at Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C. in Manchester, NH, is on the Board of Directors of ALFA International, and is Chair of the ALFA Women's Initiative Practice Group. Reach her at [email protected].

In October 2013 at ALFA International's 2013 Labor & Employment Practice Group Seminar, Kathleen Peahl, a Partner at Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, Manchester, NH, led a panel entitled “Glass Ceilings: Fact or Fiction.” The wide-ranging discussion introduced statistics suggesting that women still are not reaching the highest level of leadership in law firms and Fortune 500 companies, as compared with their male counterparts. Topics included a critical look at the so-called “glass ceiling,” including challenges and legal pitfalls faced by law firms and companies as they strive to integrate women into the upper echelons of management.

On the heels of that panel, the participants exchanged periodic e-mails following up on their discussion, shifting the focus from how firms defeat the “glass ceiling” to the state of women in leadership roles, and how these can be reached more regularly. In addition to moderator Peahl, participants included Byrona Maule, Co-Chair of Labor & Employment, Phillips Murrah, Oklahoma City, OK; Sarah Powell, General Counsel, Advance Auto Parts, Roanoke, VA; Kymberly Wellons, Associate General Counsel ' Litigation Compliance, MWV, Richmond, VA; Elaine Moss, Principal, Brown & James, St. Louis, MO; and Vickie Carcaise, Corporate Counsel, National Beverage, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

What follows is the first part of their conversation.

Q. How do you respond to those who say there is no longer any gender disparity in the workplace or that the so-called “glass ceiling” has been shattered?

A. There can be little doubt that great strides have been made by individual women, and in fact by individual companies, in creating equality in the workplace. However, the statistics clearly indicate that there is still a “glass ceiling.” Consider that in the United States, women still make 77 cents to every dollar paid to a man. A study by Yale University in 2012, titled “Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students,” shows that female science students were perceived as less competent, had less hireability, would receive a lower starting salary, and faculty were less willing to mentor female students.

These results were reached even though the resumes and qualifications for the male and female students were word for word the same ' except for the first name. Perhaps most telling are the allegations in Francine Friedman Griesing v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 12 CV 8734 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) where the plaintiff cites the 2012 Partner Compensation study which found that, “on average, law firms compensated male partners $237,000 more per year than female partners, meaning women earn at least $7 million less than their male counterparts over the course of their careers.” A full copy of the 2012 Partner Compensation Survey, by Major, Lindsey & Africa, is available at www.mlaglobal.com.

So while we want to congratulate ourselves on how far women have come in the workplace, we should not lose sight of the fact that equality has not yet been achieved, the glass ceiling still exists and there remains much to be achieved on this front.” ' Byrona Maule.

A. I think statistics reach a different conclusion. I think sometimes when we make great strides as we have in this area and we exhaust the good that comes from our initial efforts to achieve equality through legal change, we declare the job done before it is done. I think we are at a time in this particular effort when the job becomes very hard and legal change is no longer the answer. To say that we're done would keep us from making the next round of changes in our behaviors and our institutionalized cultures that I think are critical to achieving the diversity we need in the workplace and in our society.

If the person needed convincing, all I would be able to offer other than statistics would be my own anecdotal reference and experiences. I am 45 years old and have been working in law firms and in companies now since 1993. In that time period, I have experienced overt forms of discriminatory treatment and less overt, but no less damaging, impediments (I refrain from calling it discrimination) stemming from cultural norms and engrained systems of networking and mentoring that tend to exclude women. For example, I have worked in law firms where women had difficulty earning and progressing in the partnership because of historical systems of passing on clients and established books of business. The holders of those books were male and from an earlier generation, and they tended to pick young males whom they were more comfortable mentoring, and those younger males succeeded to the business. I have seen similar issues in the corporate world in which upper-level managers still on average tend to be male and, again, they tend to mentor and form social relationship and bonds with males and not females.

It is hard sometimes, I believe, for decision-makers to step away from those relationships and select female candidates with whom they may not have the same bond. It makes sense and it is understandable but, I believe, this type of cultural phenomenon continues to adversely impact women in the workplace. In my 20 years of work, I have seen these norms and behaviors change and I believe that with continued diligent efforts to step outside of our comfort zones (both women and men) to embrace and institutionalize different work styles and forms of mentoring and pipeline management, I think we can make real and sustained progress.” ' Kymberly Wellons

A. As both Byrona and Kym point out, despite the fact that the law has addressed the most overt forms of gender discrimination, statistics demonstrate that there is still work to be done to achieve true equality. U.S. Census data from 2011 confirms that across the board, women earn 77% of what males earn, and numerous studies focusing on specific population and industry segments show similar results. Clearly, there remain barriers and obstacles that hinder the advancement of women. The challenge we all face is that these barriers are the result of subtle cultural stereotypes and even unconscious or implicit biases, as the Yale study demonstrates. The first step is recognizing that these barriers exist; the second step is identifying ways to remove them. But before the barriers can be effectively removed, businesses and law firms will need to change the ways they look at hiring, promotion and retention issues. ' Kathleen Peahl

Q. How can we convince businesses and law firms that they should care about this issue and want to address it in their workplaces?

A. First, law firms need to understand that their clients care about diversity. Corporations are well ahead of firms in implementing company-wide diversity initiatives. The law firm's bottom line will be impacted if it is not in a position to meet corporate diversity goals. The goals have also become much more sophisticated, so the token woman or minority is no longer sufficient to meet those goals.

Second, law firms need to learn what corporations know: 1) diversity of thought results in better decisions (but this requires all points of view to be heard and considered); 2) the customer base of most companies is a broader spectrum than is reflected in law firms, so there can be a significant void in understanding the needs of the corporate client without diverse attorneys; and 3) having diverse attorneys marketing will result in a broader range of business. At the end of the day, it is the right thing to do and the better business model” ' Elaine Moss

A. Elaine makes several good points in support of the business reasons for companies and law firms to fully embrace and implement diversity initiatives. If there is any doubt that diversity is good for business, consider these facts: 1) The top 50 companies for diversity beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ (Business for Social Responsibility Staff, 2005); 2) Diversity results in reduced absenteeism and turnover and a better public image (The Business Case for Diversity: Good Practices in the Workplace, 2005″ ' Kathleen Peahl.

This discussion continues in next month's Issue.

'

Nicholas Gaffney, a lawyer and former journalist, is a founding partner of Infinite PR. and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors. Reach him at'[email protected] or 415-732-7801. Kathleen C. Peahl, a Partner at Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C. in Manchester, NH, is on the Board of Directors of ALFA International, and is Chair of the ALFA Women's Initiative Practice Group. Reach her at [email protected].