Authored by David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, April 1, 2020, Stanford Closer Look Series
We examine the size, structure, and demographic makeup of the C-suite (the CEO and the direct reports to the CEO) in each of the Fortune 100 companies as of February 2020. We find that women (and, to a lesser extent, racially diverse executives) are underrepresented in C-suite positions that directly feed into future CEO and board roles. What accounts for this distribution?
The Closer Look series is a collection of short case studies through which we explore topics, issues, and controversies in corporate governance. In each study, we take a targeted look at a specific issue that is relevant to the current debate on governance and explain why it is so important.
The document summarizes the Global Leadership Development Project. It discusses how the project will expand to collect ongoing data from organizations annually on important leadership issues identified in previous surveys. The research process will be ongoing, seeking annual participation from leaders and HR executives involved in leadership development and succession planning. The project aims to better understand leadership requirements in different contexts and establish categories of excellence for evaluating leadership development programs.
This document summarizes a study of CEO succession events among the largest 100 U.S. corporations between 2005-2015. The study analyzed executives who were passed over for the CEO role ("succession losers") and their subsequent careers. It found that 74% of passed over executives left their companies, with 30% eventually becoming CEOs elsewhere. However, companies led by succession losers saw average stock price declines of 13% over 3 years, compared to gains for companies whose CEO selections remained unchanged. The findings suggest that boards generally identify the most qualified CEO candidates, though differences between internal and external hires complicate comparisons.
David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
Stanford Closer Look Series
June 24, 2016
One of the most controversial issues in corporate governance is whether the CEO of a corporation should also serve as chairman of the board. In theory, an independent board chair improves the ability of the board to oversee management. However, an independent chairman is not unambiguously positive, and can lead to duplication of leadership, impair decision making, and create internal confusion—particularly when an effective dual chairman/CEO is already in place.
In this Closer Look, we examine in detail the leadership structure of publicly traded corporations and the circumstances under which they are changed. We ask:
• What factors should the board consider in deciding whether to combine or separate board leadership?
• How can the board weigh the tradeoffs between stability of leadership, efficient decision making, and decreased oversight?
• What structure should be the default setting for a corporation?
• Why do activists advocate that corporations strictly separate the roles when there is little research support for this position?
Directors believe that CEOs deserve significant credit (40% on average) for corporate performance and that CEO pay is reasonable and tied to performance. However, these views contrast sharply with the American public, who believe CEOs are overpaid. This disconnect poses challenges, as public outrage could invite regulation. A survey found that most directors and CEOs believe pay is fair and aligned with performance through short- and long-term incentives. However, they disagree on the best performance metrics and use of discretionary bonuses. This highlights ongoing debates around compensating CEOs.
By David Larcker and Brian Tayan, CGRI Research Spotlight Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative (CGRI), Stanford Graduate School of Business, October 2016.
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on internal and external CEOs.
It reviews the evidence of:
• Trends in hiring external CEOs
• Operating condition of companies that hire internal and external CEOs
• Stock market reaction to hiring external CEOs
• Relative performance of internal and external CEOs
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “CEO Succession Planning.”
The document summarizes the key findings of a survey conducted by Stanford University on public perceptions of CEO misconduct. The survey presented respondents with scenarios of potential unethical behaviors by CEOs and measured the perceived offensiveness of the behaviors and the believed appropriate punishment. The survey found that the public views violations of trust between a company and its customers as most egregious. Additionally, respondents were surprisingly critical of potentially immoral personal behaviors by CEOs. Compared to the public, boards of directors appear to administer stricter punishment for misconduct, such as termination.
The Closer Look series is a collection of short case studies through which we explore topics, issues, and controversies in corporate governance. In each study, we take a targeted look at a specific issue that is relevant to the current debate on governance and explain why it is so important.
The document summarizes the Global Leadership Development Project. It discusses how the project will expand to collect ongoing data from organizations annually on important leadership issues identified in previous surveys. The research process will be ongoing, seeking annual participation from leaders and HR executives involved in leadership development and succession planning. The project aims to better understand leadership requirements in different contexts and establish categories of excellence for evaluating leadership development programs.
This document summarizes a study of CEO succession events among the largest 100 U.S. corporations between 2005-2015. The study analyzed executives who were passed over for the CEO role ("succession losers") and their subsequent careers. It found that 74% of passed over executives left their companies, with 30% eventually becoming CEOs elsewhere. However, companies led by succession losers saw average stock price declines of 13% over 3 years, compared to gains for companies whose CEO selections remained unchanged. The findings suggest that boards generally identify the most qualified CEO candidates, though differences between internal and external hires complicate comparisons.
David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
Stanford Closer Look Series
June 24, 2016
One of the most controversial issues in corporate governance is whether the CEO of a corporation should also serve as chairman of the board. In theory, an independent board chair improves the ability of the board to oversee management. However, an independent chairman is not unambiguously positive, and can lead to duplication of leadership, impair decision making, and create internal confusion—particularly when an effective dual chairman/CEO is already in place.
In this Closer Look, we examine in detail the leadership structure of publicly traded corporations and the circumstances under which they are changed. We ask:
• What factors should the board consider in deciding whether to combine or separate board leadership?
• How can the board weigh the tradeoffs between stability of leadership, efficient decision making, and decreased oversight?
• What structure should be the default setting for a corporation?
• Why do activists advocate that corporations strictly separate the roles when there is little research support for this position?
Directors believe that CEOs deserve significant credit (40% on average) for corporate performance and that CEO pay is reasonable and tied to performance. However, these views contrast sharply with the American public, who believe CEOs are overpaid. This disconnect poses challenges, as public outrage could invite regulation. A survey found that most directors and CEOs believe pay is fair and aligned with performance through short- and long-term incentives. However, they disagree on the best performance metrics and use of discretionary bonuses. This highlights ongoing debates around compensating CEOs.
By David Larcker and Brian Tayan, CGRI Research Spotlight Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative (CGRI), Stanford Graduate School of Business, October 2016.
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on internal and external CEOs.
It reviews the evidence of:
• Trends in hiring external CEOs
• Operating condition of companies that hire internal and external CEOs
• Stock market reaction to hiring external CEOs
• Relative performance of internal and external CEOs
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “CEO Succession Planning.”
The document summarizes the key findings of a survey conducted by Stanford University on public perceptions of CEO misconduct. The survey presented respondents with scenarios of potential unethical behaviors by CEOs and measured the perceived offensiveness of the behaviors and the believed appropriate punishment. The survey found that the public views violations of trust between a company and its customers as most egregious. Additionally, respondents were surprisingly critical of potentially immoral personal behaviors by CEOs. Compared to the public, boards of directors appear to administer stricter punishment for misconduct, such as termination.
Directors of Fortune 250 companies believe that qualified CEO talent is extremely scarce. On average, directors estimate that fewer than 4 people are capable of stepping into their company's CEO role and performing as well as the current CEO. They believe visionary founder CEOs like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are much harder to replace than professional CEOs, with estimates that only 2 or 3 executives could perform as well in those roles. The tight labor market and difficulty evaluating CEO candidates puts pressure on boards to focus heavily on succession planning and talent development.
By David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Research Spotlight Series, September 1, 2016
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on the influence that CEOs have on company outcomes (performance and risk). It reviews the evidence of:
• The contribution of the CEO to overall company performance
• The relation between previous managerial experience and future performance
• The relation between personal attributes and performance
• The relation between personality and performance
• Factors that might influence risk tolerance
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “CEO Succession Planning.”
This Data Spotlight provides data and statistics on the attributes of the CEOs and CEO succession events at publicly traded companies in the United States. This data supplements the issues introduced in the Quick Guide “CEO Succession Planning.”
- The survey found that while boards generally rate themselves positively in terms of skills and effectiveness, there are also significant issues that need improvement.
- While most directors believe the board has the right skills, boards receive lower marks for processes like evaluating individual directors, providing feedback, and removing underperforming members.
- Female directors tended to rate board effectiveness, dynamics, and the qualifications of other directors more negatively than male directors.
- The study recommends boards conduct in-depth evaluations of their composition, processes, and effectiveness to identify areas for improvement.
Faculty & Research › Publications › 2015 Survey on Board of Directors of Nonprofit Organizations
2015 Survey on Board of Directors of Nonprofit Organizations
By David F. Larcker, Nicholas Donatiello, Bill Meehan, Brian Tayan
Stanford GSB, Rock Center for Corporate Governance, BoardSource, and GuideStar. April 2015
Accounting, Corporate Governance
In fall 2014, the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in collaboration with BoardSource and GuideStar, surveyed 924 directors of nonprofit organizations about the composition, structure, and practices of their boards.
Authors: David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
Stanford Closer Look Series, March 28, 2017
Long Version
Many observers consider the most important responsibility of the board of directors its responsibility to hire and fire the CEO. To this end, an interesting situation arises when a CEO resigns and the board chooses neither an internal nor external candidate, but a current board member as successor. Why would a company make such a decision? In this Closer Look, we examine this question in detail.
We ask:
• What does it say about a company’s succession plan when the board appoints a current director as CEO?
• What is the process by which the board makes this decision?
• Are directors-turned-CEO the most qualified candidates, or do they represent a stop-gap measure?
• What does the sudden nature of these transitions say about the board’s ability to monitor performance?
1) The document discusses strategies for harnessing female talent in organizations. It notes that traditional talent management systems are not advancing women into leadership positions.
2) It recommends that companies recognize women as a strategic resource and address unconscious biases that impact women's career trajectories. Senior leaders must become champions for advancing women.
3) Companies that overhaul their approaches to gender diversity and inclusion through clear leadership vision, modeling inclusive behaviors, and holding leaders accountable can realize increased profits by better utilizing their entire workforce.
How Opinion About Job Performance Becomes FactMiqui Mel
This document discusses the challenges in accurately measuring corporate and executive performance to determine compensation. It summarizes interviews with business leaders, academics, and commentators who express doubt that any single executive can be largely responsible for corporate success, which depends on many factors including market conditions, competitors, existing brand strength, and work of other employees. While luck and circumstances may influence perceptions of performance, some argue shareholders can reasonably assess expectations and impact of other factors when evaluating executives. Overall it casts doubt on automatically attributing corporate results solely to executives in justifying high pay.
Gallup State of the American Manager ReportBrandon Rigoni
Only about 10% of people possess the talent required to be an effective manager. Most organizations promote people to manager roles for the wrong reasons, such as tenure rather than talent, resulting in miscast managers who fail to engage employees. Gallup estimates that disengaged managers cost the US economy $319-398 billion annually in lost productivity. However, companies that select managers based on talent are more likely to choose high-performing managers who can engage employees and improve business outcomes. The report provides insights into distinguishing great managers and developing a talent-based strategy to maximize human capital potential.
Authors: David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, November 25, 2019
Among the controversies in corporate governance, perhaps none is more heated or widely debated across society than that of CEO pay. The views that American citizens have on CEO pay is centrally important because public opinion influences political decisions that shape tax, economic, and regulatory policy, and ultimately determine the standard of living of average Americans. This Closer Look reviews survey data of the American public to understand their views on compensation. We ask:
• How can society’s understanding of pay and value creation be improved and the controversy over CEO pay resolved?
• How should the level of CEO pay rise with complexity and profitability, particularly among America’s largest corporations?
• Should pay be reformed in the boardroom, or should high pay be addressed solely through the tax code?
• Are negative views of CEO pay driven by broad skepticism and lack of esteem for CEOs? Or do high pay levels themselves contribute to low regard for CEOs?
By Courtney Hamilton, David F. Larcker, Stephen A. Miles, and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, February 15, 2019
Two decades ago, McKinsey advanced the idea that large U.S. companies are engaged in a “war for talent” and that to remain competitive they need to make a strategic effort to attract, retain, and develop the highest-performing executives. To understand the contribution of the human resources department to company strategy, we surveyed 85 CEOs and chief human resources officers at Fortune 1000 companies. In this Closer Look, we examine what these senior executives say about the contribution of HR to the strategic efforts and financial performance of their companies.
We ask:
• What role does HR play in the development of corporate strategy?
• Does HR have an equal voice or is it junior to other members of the senior management team?
• Do boards see HR and human capital as critical to corporate performance?
• How do boards ascertain whether management has the right HR strategy?
• How adept are companies at using data from HR systems to learn what programs work and why?
Nearly 900 investors from 700 VC firms responded to the mid-2016 survey covering Deal Sourcing, Investment Decisions, Valuations, Deal Structures, Post-Investment Value Adds, Exits, Org Structures of VCs, LP Relationships.
This document describes the results.
The CS Gender 3000: Women in Senior ManagementCredit Suisse
Greater gender diversity in companies' management improves their financial performance. A new Credit Suisse Research Institute study presents the financial evidence, looks at which regions and sectors show higher diversity levels and analyzes the obstacles to female participation in the workplace.
To download a copy of 'CS Gender 3000: Women in Senior Management', click here: http://bit.ly/1cWMUIM
1) The document reviews the book "Winning" by Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, who led the company to great success during his tenure.
2) Welch outlines his principles for business success, including focusing on human resources, leadership, and adapting the organization as needed. He advocates for recruiting only the best employees and creating a flat organizational structure.
3) While Welch's focus on human capital and leadership provided insights, the reviewer critiques some of Welch's perspectives such as his bias against unions and lack of acknowledgement of external constraints on a CEO's authority from boards, laws and regulations.
Three key points:
1) Many US corporations face a potential leadership crisis as baby boomers retire without adequate replacements due to a lack of leadership development programs.
2) Two factors distinguish top Asian leadership organizations: attention to individual and corporate leadership needs, and accelerating key talent through custom training.
3) Highly effective leaders are made, not born - leadership behaviors can be identified, developed and taught to produce strong business leaders. Formal leadership development programs are needed to address the looming leadership gap.
Across employers and industries, we have heard stories about the value young people bring to the workplace. Employers in manufacturing cited the need for serious hand-eye coordination and reported positive experiences with young people filling these roles. Others cited the benefit of having youth in their companies who can use evolving technologies. For others, especially firms that need a lot of entry-level employees, young workers are their lifeblood.
Youth Hold the Key: Building Your Workforce Today and in the Future focuses on the role that youth can play in helping employers meet some of their current and looming workforce challenges, and how companies can improve how they hire and retain youth. The findings are based on a recent survey of 350 employers, more than 80 interviews with employers and workforce experts conducted during 2014 by The Bridgespan Group and Bain & Company, as well as a review of published literature. Much of this work focused on the potential of the millions of young people—referred to here as "opportunity youth"—who are disconnected from both work and school, and lack a college degree, to address the needs of employers.
Have You Heard About "Win Win Selection" !Nicole Payne
The importance of viewing the selection and interviewing process as a basic precursor to establishing trust and positive identification with a company's objectives. Using the LIFO Method, it illustrates how shared information between a candidate and company can provide a good first step towards building a mutually rewarding relationship for future OD efforts. Contact us for more info!
Talent Management has become one of 3 main concerns among top executives according to specialized research. The Document is the base of a Course which intends to show why Talent Management is so crucial today for Firms´ Differentiation and even for their Survival. Current trends and best practices to obtain competitive advantage by acquiring and engaging best people.
Women face barriers to advancement and unequal treatment in the workplace according to a study of over 130 companies and 34,000 employees. Women are less likely to be promoted or hired externally, especially to senior roles. As a result, few women reach the senior-most levels. Women also receive less access to opportunities, senior leaders, developmental assignments, and feedback. They are more likely to be penalized for negotiating promotions. Fewer women than men aspire to top leadership roles, and women have less confidence in achieving those roles. Women of color face even greater challenges and are the most underrepresented group. Overall, the study finds women experience disadvantages and unequal treatment compared to men throughout their careers.
[Report] Gender Equality in the executive ranks a paradox – the journey to 2030Weber Shandwick Korea
Several factors are simultaneously pushing gender equality in executive ranks forward and pulling it back, creating a paradox. Media attention to the issue has increased significantly in recent years and is pushing for more equality. However, many companies still lack formal goals and plans to achieve gender parity at senior levels, and doubts about women's qualifications are holding progress back. Overall, a complex dynamic of forces that could potentially create tipping points was identified, but action is needed by companies to actually achieve equality in the C-suite by 2030 as most executives expect.
Directors of Fortune 250 companies believe that qualified CEO talent is extremely scarce. On average, directors estimate that fewer than 4 people are capable of stepping into their company's CEO role and performing as well as the current CEO. They believe visionary founder CEOs like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are much harder to replace than professional CEOs, with estimates that only 2 or 3 executives could perform as well in those roles. The tight labor market and difficulty evaluating CEO candidates puts pressure on boards to focus heavily on succession planning and talent development.
By David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Research Spotlight Series, September 1, 2016
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on the influence that CEOs have on company outcomes (performance and risk). It reviews the evidence of:
• The contribution of the CEO to overall company performance
• The relation between previous managerial experience and future performance
• The relation between personal attributes and performance
• The relation between personality and performance
• Factors that might influence risk tolerance
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “CEO Succession Planning.”
This Data Spotlight provides data and statistics on the attributes of the CEOs and CEO succession events at publicly traded companies in the United States. This data supplements the issues introduced in the Quick Guide “CEO Succession Planning.”
- The survey found that while boards generally rate themselves positively in terms of skills and effectiveness, there are also significant issues that need improvement.
- While most directors believe the board has the right skills, boards receive lower marks for processes like evaluating individual directors, providing feedback, and removing underperforming members.
- Female directors tended to rate board effectiveness, dynamics, and the qualifications of other directors more negatively than male directors.
- The study recommends boards conduct in-depth evaluations of their composition, processes, and effectiveness to identify areas for improvement.
Faculty & Research › Publications › 2015 Survey on Board of Directors of Nonprofit Organizations
2015 Survey on Board of Directors of Nonprofit Organizations
By David F. Larcker, Nicholas Donatiello, Bill Meehan, Brian Tayan
Stanford GSB, Rock Center for Corporate Governance, BoardSource, and GuideStar. April 2015
Accounting, Corporate Governance
In fall 2014, the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in collaboration with BoardSource and GuideStar, surveyed 924 directors of nonprofit organizations about the composition, structure, and practices of their boards.
Authors: David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
Stanford Closer Look Series, March 28, 2017
Long Version
Many observers consider the most important responsibility of the board of directors its responsibility to hire and fire the CEO. To this end, an interesting situation arises when a CEO resigns and the board chooses neither an internal nor external candidate, but a current board member as successor. Why would a company make such a decision? In this Closer Look, we examine this question in detail.
We ask:
• What does it say about a company’s succession plan when the board appoints a current director as CEO?
• What is the process by which the board makes this decision?
• Are directors-turned-CEO the most qualified candidates, or do they represent a stop-gap measure?
• What does the sudden nature of these transitions say about the board’s ability to monitor performance?
1) The document discusses strategies for harnessing female talent in organizations. It notes that traditional talent management systems are not advancing women into leadership positions.
2) It recommends that companies recognize women as a strategic resource and address unconscious biases that impact women's career trajectories. Senior leaders must become champions for advancing women.
3) Companies that overhaul their approaches to gender diversity and inclusion through clear leadership vision, modeling inclusive behaviors, and holding leaders accountable can realize increased profits by better utilizing their entire workforce.
How Opinion About Job Performance Becomes FactMiqui Mel
This document discusses the challenges in accurately measuring corporate and executive performance to determine compensation. It summarizes interviews with business leaders, academics, and commentators who express doubt that any single executive can be largely responsible for corporate success, which depends on many factors including market conditions, competitors, existing brand strength, and work of other employees. While luck and circumstances may influence perceptions of performance, some argue shareholders can reasonably assess expectations and impact of other factors when evaluating executives. Overall it casts doubt on automatically attributing corporate results solely to executives in justifying high pay.
Gallup State of the American Manager ReportBrandon Rigoni
Only about 10% of people possess the talent required to be an effective manager. Most organizations promote people to manager roles for the wrong reasons, such as tenure rather than talent, resulting in miscast managers who fail to engage employees. Gallup estimates that disengaged managers cost the US economy $319-398 billion annually in lost productivity. However, companies that select managers based on talent are more likely to choose high-performing managers who can engage employees and improve business outcomes. The report provides insights into distinguishing great managers and developing a talent-based strategy to maximize human capital potential.
Authors: David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, November 25, 2019
Among the controversies in corporate governance, perhaps none is more heated or widely debated across society than that of CEO pay. The views that American citizens have on CEO pay is centrally important because public opinion influences political decisions that shape tax, economic, and regulatory policy, and ultimately determine the standard of living of average Americans. This Closer Look reviews survey data of the American public to understand their views on compensation. We ask:
• How can society’s understanding of pay and value creation be improved and the controversy over CEO pay resolved?
• How should the level of CEO pay rise with complexity and profitability, particularly among America’s largest corporations?
• Should pay be reformed in the boardroom, or should high pay be addressed solely through the tax code?
• Are negative views of CEO pay driven by broad skepticism and lack of esteem for CEOs? Or do high pay levels themselves contribute to low regard for CEOs?
By Courtney Hamilton, David F. Larcker, Stephen A. Miles, and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, February 15, 2019
Two decades ago, McKinsey advanced the idea that large U.S. companies are engaged in a “war for talent” and that to remain competitive they need to make a strategic effort to attract, retain, and develop the highest-performing executives. To understand the contribution of the human resources department to company strategy, we surveyed 85 CEOs and chief human resources officers at Fortune 1000 companies. In this Closer Look, we examine what these senior executives say about the contribution of HR to the strategic efforts and financial performance of their companies.
We ask:
• What role does HR play in the development of corporate strategy?
• Does HR have an equal voice or is it junior to other members of the senior management team?
• Do boards see HR and human capital as critical to corporate performance?
• How do boards ascertain whether management has the right HR strategy?
• How adept are companies at using data from HR systems to learn what programs work and why?
Nearly 900 investors from 700 VC firms responded to the mid-2016 survey covering Deal Sourcing, Investment Decisions, Valuations, Deal Structures, Post-Investment Value Adds, Exits, Org Structures of VCs, LP Relationships.
This document describes the results.
The CS Gender 3000: Women in Senior ManagementCredit Suisse
Greater gender diversity in companies' management improves their financial performance. A new Credit Suisse Research Institute study presents the financial evidence, looks at which regions and sectors show higher diversity levels and analyzes the obstacles to female participation in the workplace.
To download a copy of 'CS Gender 3000: Women in Senior Management', click here: http://bit.ly/1cWMUIM
1) The document reviews the book "Winning" by Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, who led the company to great success during his tenure.
2) Welch outlines his principles for business success, including focusing on human resources, leadership, and adapting the organization as needed. He advocates for recruiting only the best employees and creating a flat organizational structure.
3) While Welch's focus on human capital and leadership provided insights, the reviewer critiques some of Welch's perspectives such as his bias against unions and lack of acknowledgement of external constraints on a CEO's authority from boards, laws and regulations.
Three key points:
1) Many US corporations face a potential leadership crisis as baby boomers retire without adequate replacements due to a lack of leadership development programs.
2) Two factors distinguish top Asian leadership organizations: attention to individual and corporate leadership needs, and accelerating key talent through custom training.
3) Highly effective leaders are made, not born - leadership behaviors can be identified, developed and taught to produce strong business leaders. Formal leadership development programs are needed to address the looming leadership gap.
Across employers and industries, we have heard stories about the value young people bring to the workplace. Employers in manufacturing cited the need for serious hand-eye coordination and reported positive experiences with young people filling these roles. Others cited the benefit of having youth in their companies who can use evolving technologies. For others, especially firms that need a lot of entry-level employees, young workers are their lifeblood.
Youth Hold the Key: Building Your Workforce Today and in the Future focuses on the role that youth can play in helping employers meet some of their current and looming workforce challenges, and how companies can improve how they hire and retain youth. The findings are based on a recent survey of 350 employers, more than 80 interviews with employers and workforce experts conducted during 2014 by The Bridgespan Group and Bain & Company, as well as a review of published literature. Much of this work focused on the potential of the millions of young people—referred to here as "opportunity youth"—who are disconnected from both work and school, and lack a college degree, to address the needs of employers.
Have You Heard About "Win Win Selection" !Nicole Payne
The importance of viewing the selection and interviewing process as a basic precursor to establishing trust and positive identification with a company's objectives. Using the LIFO Method, it illustrates how shared information between a candidate and company can provide a good first step towards building a mutually rewarding relationship for future OD efforts. Contact us for more info!
Talent Management has become one of 3 main concerns among top executives according to specialized research. The Document is the base of a Course which intends to show why Talent Management is so crucial today for Firms´ Differentiation and even for their Survival. Current trends and best practices to obtain competitive advantage by acquiring and engaging best people.
Women face barriers to advancement and unequal treatment in the workplace according to a study of over 130 companies and 34,000 employees. Women are less likely to be promoted or hired externally, especially to senior roles. As a result, few women reach the senior-most levels. Women also receive less access to opportunities, senior leaders, developmental assignments, and feedback. They are more likely to be penalized for negotiating promotions. Fewer women than men aspire to top leadership roles, and women have less confidence in achieving those roles. Women of color face even greater challenges and are the most underrepresented group. Overall, the study finds women experience disadvantages and unequal treatment compared to men throughout their careers.
[Report] Gender Equality in the executive ranks a paradox – the journey to 2030Weber Shandwick Korea
Several factors are simultaneously pushing gender equality in executive ranks forward and pulling it back, creating a paradox. Media attention to the issue has increased significantly in recent years and is pushing for more equality. However, many companies still lack formal goals and plans to achieve gender parity at senior levels, and doubts about women's qualifications are holding progress back. Overall, a complex dynamic of forces that could potentially create tipping points was identified, but action is needed by companies to actually achieve equality in the C-suite by 2030 as most executives expect.
Die neue Studie “The Female CEO Reputation Premium? Differences & Similarities“ von Weber Shandwick und KRC Research untersucht, wie Führungskräfte weibliche und männliche CEOs wahrnehmen. Obwohl die Unternehmensreputation unabhängig vom Geschlecht des CEOs ist, finden sich dennoch Unterschiede in der Führungskompetenz männlicher und weiblicher CEOs. Weibliche Führungskräfte bleiben daher eher in Unternehmen mit weiblichen CEOs als mit männlichen…
The document examines differences and similarities between male and female CEOs and their impact on corporate reputation. It finds that having a female CEO does not negatively impact a company's reputation. While some small differences in perceived leadership qualities exist along traditional gender stereotypes, the essentials of strong reputation are largely the same for both male and female CEOs. Both genders contribute similarly to their company's market value through reputation. However, perceptions of the number of female CEOs are inaccurate, and women are significantly more reluctant than men to take on the CEO role.
Watson Helsby's Annual FTSE 100 Group Director of Corporate Communications/Af...Nick Helsby
The survey found that 79% of FTSE 100 companies employ a Group Director of Corporate Communications/Affairs, down slightly from the previous year. While most (77%) report to the CEO, others report to functions like HR, strategy, or marketing. Responsibilities commonly include communications, media relations, internal communications, and corporate reporting. 28% saw their remits enlarged over the past year, often to include sustainability or marketing. Social media/digital skills were the most commonly cited area directors wanted to strengthen. Over half said the corporate brand had become more significant to their role. There was a decline in the percentage of directors on the executive committee (49%) and in female representation (39%, down from 51% last year).
Watson Helsby's FTSE 100 Group Director of Corporate Communications / Affairs...Samantha Rogers
The survey found that 79% of FTSE 100 companies employ a Group Director of Corporate Communications/Affairs, down slightly from the previous year. While most (77%) report to the CEO, others report to functions like HR, strategy, or marketing. Over the past year, 28% saw their remits enlarged to include areas like sustainability or marketing. Social media/digital capabilities were the most commonly cited skills directors wanted to strengthen. 52% said corporate brand had become a more significant part of their role. Remuneration varied widely, with FTSE 20 directors averaging £400,000 compared to £218,000 for those in the lower half. Budgets were largely flat or down for most respondents.
Watson Helsby's Annual FTSE 100 Group Director of Corporate Communications/Af...Nick Helsby
Each year, to enhance our executive search advisory offer, Watson Helsby publishes a FTSE 100 Group Director of Corporate Communications/Affairs Survey. This provides an intriguing picture of everything from reporting lines and Executive Committee membership to the – ever fascinating – subject of remuneration. The 2018 Survey has just been published.
This has become the most comprehensive and insightful survey of its type, in terms of both the number of companies surveyed and the range of questions we ask/themes we investigate.
Findings include:
• 79% of FTSE 100s employ a Corporate Communications/Affairs Director, a decline year-on year of 2%.
• The percentage of FTSE 100 Corporate Communications/ Affairs Directors who are formal members of the Executive Committee has dropped to 49% this year (from 51%).
• Budgets are generally flat or down (90%). Given a number of factors, including the economic uncertainty created by Brexit. This compares with only 73% reporting flat or down in 2016/17.
• The year 2017/18 has, again, seen considerable change at the top, with 15 companies in the FTSE 100 making changes (vs. 20 the previous year and 16 the year before that). This means that 51 companies have changed their corporate communications/affairs director since 2015 or disbanded the role.
We would welcome any questions or comments.
Nick Helsby is the CEO of Watson Helsby, a specialist communications (external and internal) and corporate affairs/government relations executive search and leadership firm. He has over twenty years headhunting experience, in the UK, Europe, Middle East and Africa, placing senior communications, PR and corporate affairs professionals in some of the world’s leading organisations. He can be found at nickh@watsonhelsby.co.uk for any questions or comments.
The full report is available to download on http://www.watsonhelsby.co.uk/assets/files/FTSE_Report_2018.pdf
This document discusses why the leadership development industry is failing and proposes solutions. It argues that leadership is often poorly defined, focusing on competencies that prioritize career advancement over building teams and achieving results. As a result, the wrong people often attend leadership programs. It proposes adopting a simple definition of leadership as the ability to build teams and achieve results. It also recommends only interviewing proven high-performing leaders when developing competency models, and making the ability to build teams and achieve results explicit in models. The document contends that addressing these issues around definition, selection, content, delivery, purpose, and evaluation of programs could improve returns on leadership development spending.
The document discusses the lack of gender diversity in senior leadership roles in Canadian corporations despite 25 years of focus on advancing women. While women make up 48% of the workforce, only 36.5% of lower managers, less than 18% of top executives, less than 14% of boards, and 6% of CEOs are women. This lack of diversity represents a competitive disadvantage as research shows the most successful companies have diverse leadership that incorporates multiple perspectives. The authors argue that true change requires leadership that values diversity and holds teams accountable through transparent processes rather than just counting women or focusing on tactics. Leaders must uncover and address underlying biases to create lasting cultural change at all levels of an organization.
Financial Institutions – It is possible to retain and grow female talent. Mark Freed
The business case clearly demonstrates that gender diversity in financial services is good for boards, good for management, good for business, good for the economy and the right thing to do.
So why do so many businesses allow valuable female talent to slip through their fingers?
In this report we explore what the Big Four consultancies (Accenture, Deloitte, EY and PWC) are saying and doing about investing in women, and how we at E2W are reversing the trend and growing and retaining female talent for the financial sector.
Hays Global Gender Diversity Report 2016Hays Portugal
De acordo com um inquérito realizado pela Hays junto de mais de 11.500 inquiridos em 24 países, por ocasião do Dia Internacional da Mulher, homens e mulheres têm percepções muito diferentes quanto à desigualdade entre géneros a nível profissional.
O relatório analisa as respostas dos inquiridos em factores como ambição, auto-promoção, igualdade salarial, oportunidades de carreira e políticas de diversidade de género nas empresas.
The document discusses the results of a survey on workforce and succession management challenges. The survey found:
1) Over half of respondents expect their organization's headcount to grow in the next decade, though retirement rates are projected to rise sharply in North America.
2) Hiring skilled workers and leaders is already difficult and most expect it to become more challenging. However, unskilled positions remain relatively easy to fill.
3) Developing and retaining internal leaders is also difficult currently and most believe it will be even harder going forward, highlighting the need for leadership programs.
This document summarizes the key findings of a global gender diversity report compiled by Hays based on a survey of over 11,500 respondents across 25 countries. Some of the main findings include:
- Women have nearly equal ambition to men for reaching senior roles like director and CEO, but significantly fewer women actually attain these roles, showing companies are not effectively promoting female talent.
- Fewer than 50% of respondents globally feel they have opportunities to self-promote and communicate career ambitions, which is important for career development. This number is lower for women (47%) compared to men (53%).
- Developed markets like the US and Germany lag behind other regions in measures of female ambition and opportunities for self-promotion,
Female Millennials in FS Strategies for a new era of talent - FINAL.PDFMarie Carr
This document summarizes the results of a survey of nearly 600 female millennials working in financial services. Some of the key findings include:
- Female millennials in financial services are ambitious but have concerns about prospects for rising to senior levels.
- They expect opportunities for career progression, competitive pay and benefits, and work-life balance.
- Diversity, equality and flexibility are also important values they look for in an employer.
- However, many feel their employers could do more to promote equal opportunities and that flexibility could negatively impact their careers.
- International experience is desired but some feel women have fewer opportunities for international assignments.
Chief Diversity Officers Today: Paving the Way for Diversity & Inclusion SuccessWeber Shandwick
This workplace diversity and inclusion survey, conducted among D&I professionals at high revenue companies in the U.S., focuses on the best practices of D&I functions that are well-aligned with the overall business strategy of the company and the roles, responsibilities, and challenges facing today's Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs).
Making the Business Case for Gender EquityKelly Services
"Making the Business Case for Gender Equity" is talking why we need to unlock the full potential of women in the global economy. This is a business case for improving gender equity.
The Balancing Act - a study of how to balance the talent pipeline in business...Harvey Nash Plc
A report analysing the views of over 600 board directors on how organisations can better support female progression.Losing female talent has significant consequences for businesses, diverse groups are stronger and think more creatively, which makes them more competitive.
Produced by the Inspire Network, founded by the Harvey Nash Group in 2008 to connect senior business women and support their career advancement.
For more information
Website: www.harveynash.com/inspire/
Title: 2020 Women On Boards: The National ConversationTerri Friel
Why should more women be on corporate boards? Read the astonishing results of studies that indicate business does better, MUCH better when women are included.
Ähnlich wie Diversity in the C-Suite: The Dismal State of Diversity Among Fortune 100 Senior Executives (20)
Authored by: David F. Larcker, Bradford Lynch, Brian Tayan, and Daniel J. Taylor, June 29, 2020
Investors rely on corporate disclosure to make informed decisions about the value of companies they invest in. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine disclosure practices of companies relative to peers in real time about a somewhat unprecedented shock that impacted practically every publicly listed company in the U.S. We examine how companies respond to such a situation, the choices they make, and how disclosure varies across industries and companies.
We ask:
• What motivates some companies to be forthcoming about what they are experiencing, while others remain silent?
• Do differences in disclosure reflect different degrees of certitude about how the virus would impact businesses, or differences in management perception of its obligations to shareholders?
• What insights will companies learn to prepare for future outlier events?
Authored by: avid F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, CGRI Research Spotlight Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative (CGRI), April 2020
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on board composition, quality, and turnover. It reviews the evidence of:
The appointment of outside CEOs as directors
The importance of industry expertise to performance
The relation between director skills and performance
The stock market reaction to director resignations
Whether directors are penalized for poor oversight
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide Board of Directors: Selection, Compensation, and Removal.
The document summarizes the findings of a survey of 47 private and recently public companies about their first outside director. Key findings include:
1. Companies recruit their first outside director primarily for industry and leadership expertise to address specific strategic or operational issues. They focus on skills rather than governance experience.
2. The recruitment process is led by founders/CEOs and directors are often personally connected to insiders. Few candidates are considered.
3. First directors make meaningful contributions quickly in areas like strategy, mentoring, and improving governance processes. Their impact exceeds expectations for oversight alone.
By John D. Kepler, David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, and Daniel J. Taylor, January 28, 2020
Corporate executives receive a considerable portion of their compensation in the form of equity and, from time to time, sell a portion of their holdings in the open market. Executives nearly always have access to nonpublic information about the company, and routinely have an information advantage over public shareholders. Federal securities laws prohibit executives from trading on material nonpublic information about their company, and companies develop an Insider Trading Policy (ITP) to ensure executives comply with applicable rules. In this Closer Look we examine the potential shortcomings of existing governance practices as illustrated by four examples that suggest significant room for improvement.
We ask:
• Should an ITP go beyond legal requirements to minimize the risk of negative public perception from trades that might otherwise appear suspicious?
• Why don’t all companies make the terms of their ITP public?
• Why don’t more companies require the strictest standards, such as pre-approval by the general counsel and mandatory use of 10b5-1 plans?
• Does the board review trades by insiders on a regular basis? What conversation, if any, takes place between executives and the board around large, single-event sales?
Short summary
We identify potential shortcomings in existing governance practices around the approval of executive equity sales. Why don’t more companies require stricter standards to lessen suspicion around insider equity sales activity? Do boards review trades by insiders on a regular basis?
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan
Core Concepts Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative,
A roadmap to understanding the fundamental concepts of corporate governance based on theory, empirical research, and data. This guide takes an in-depth look at the Principles of Corporate Governance.
The document is a summary of key findings from a 2019 nationwide survey conducted by the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University on Americans' views toward tax policies. Some major findings include:
- Americans believe that tax rates for the highest income earners are about right, with around half thinking rates should stay the same or decrease and a third thinking they should increase.
- A majority support a wealth tax on individuals with over $50 million in assets but oppose it if it could harm the economy or increase unemployment.
- Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of setting a maximum limit on personal wealth.
- There is no consensus on universal basic income, with around half opposing the idea and less than a third
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, Dottie Schindlinger and Anne Kors, CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance and the Diligent Institute, November 2019
New research from the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University and the Diligent Institute finds that corporate directors are not as shareholder-centric as commonly believed and that companies do not put the needs of shareholders significantly above the needs of their employees or society at large. Instead, directors pay considerable attention to important stakeholders—particularly their workforce—and take the interests of these groups into account as part of their long-term business planning.
• While directors are largely satisfied with their ESG-related efforts, they do not believe the outside world understands or appreciates the work they do.
• Directors recognize that tensions exist between shareholder and stakeholder interests. That said,
most believe their companies successfully balance this tension.
• In general, directors reject the view that their companies have a short-term investment horizon in
running their businesses.
In the summer of 2019, the Diligent Institute and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University surveyed nearly 200 directors of public and private corporations globally to better understand how they balance shareholder and stakeholder needs.
by David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, October 7, 2019
A reliable system of corporate governance is considered to be an important requirement for the long-term success of a company. Unfortunately, after decades of research, we still do not have a clear understanding of the factors that make a governance system effective. Our understanding of governance suffers from 1) a tendency to overgeneralize across companies and 2) a tendency to refer to central concepts without first defining them. In this Closer Look, we examine four central concepts that are widely discussed but poorly understood.
We ask:
• Would the caliber of discussion improve, and consensus on solutions be realized, if the debate on corporate governance were less loosey-goosey?
• Why can we still not answer the question of what makes good governance?
• How can our understanding of board quality improve without betraying the confidential information that a board discusses?
• Why is it difficult to answer the question of how much a CEO should be paid?
• Are U.S. executives really short-term oriented in managing their companies?
David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, Vinay Trivedi, and Owen Wurzbacher, Stanford Closer Look Series, July 2, 2019
Currently, there is much debate about the role that non-investor stakeholder interests play in the governance of public companies. Critics argue that greater attention should be paid to the interest of stakeholders and that by investing in initiatives and programs to promote their interests, companies will create long-term value that is greater, more sustainable, and more equitably shared among investors and society. However, advocacy for a more stakeholder-centric governance model is based on assumptions about managerial behavior that are relatively untested. In this Closer Look, we examine survey data of the CEOs and CFOs of companies in the S&P 1500 Index to understand the extent to which they incorporate stakeholder needs into the business planning and long-term strategy, and their view of the costs and benefits of ESG-related programs.
We ask:
• What are the real costs and benefits of ESG?
• How do companies signal to constituents that they take ESG activities seriously?
• How accurate are the ratings of third-party providers that rate companies on ESG factors?
• Do boards understand the short- and long-term impact of ESG activities?
• Do boards believe this investment is beneficial for the company?
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, Vinay Trivedi and Owen Wurzbacher, CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, July 2019
In spring 2019, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University surveyed 209 CEOs and CFOs of companies included in the S&P 1500 Index to understand the role that stakeholder interests play in long-term corporate planning.
Key Findings
• CEOs Are Divided On Whether Stakeholder Initiatives Are A Cost or Benefit to the Company
• Companies Tout Their Efforts But Believe the Public Doesn’t Understand Them
• Blackrock Advocates … But Has Little Impact
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan
Core Concepts Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, June 2019
A roadmap to understanding the fundamental concepts of corporate governance based on theory, empirical research, and data. This guide will take an in-depth look at Shareholders and Activism.
By Brandon Boze, Margarita Krivitski, David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, and Eva Zlotnicka
Stanford Closer Look Series
May 23, 2019
Recently, there has been debate among corporate managers, board of directors, and institutional investors around how best to incorporate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) factors into strategic and investment decision-making processes. In this Closer Look, we examine a framework informed by the experience of ValueAct Capital and include case examples.
We ask:
• What is the investment horizon prevalent among most companies today?
• Do companies miss long-term opportunities because of a focus on short-term costs?
• How many companies have an opportunity to profitably invest in ESG solutions?
• What factors determine whether a company can profitably invest in ESG solutions?
• Can investors earn competitive risk-adjusted returns through ESG investments?
• If so, how widespread is this opportunity?
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) activities including:
• The relation between ESG activities and firm value
• The impact of environmental and social engagements on firm performance
• The market reaction to ESG events
• The relation between ESG and agency problems
• The performance of socially responsible investment (SRI) funds
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “Investors and Activism”.
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on how dual-class share structures influence firm value and corporate governance quality. It reviews the evidence of:
• The relation between dual-class shares and governance quality
• The relation between dual-class shares and tax avoidance
• The relation between dual-class shares and firm value and performance
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “The Market for Corporate Control.”
By David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, December 3, 2018
Companies are required to have a reliable system of corporate governance in place at the time of IPO in order to protect the interests of public company investors and stakeholders. Yet, relatively little is known about the process by which they implement one. This Closer Look, based on detailed data from a sample of pre-IPO companies, examines the process by which companies go from essentially having no governance in place at the time of their founding to the fully established systems of governance required of public companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission. We examine the vastly different choices that companies make in deciding when and how to implement these standards.
We ask:
• What factors do CEOs and founders take into account in determining how to implement governance systems?
• Should regulators allow companies greater flexibility to tailor their governance systems to their specific needs?
• Which elements of governance add to business performance and which are done only for regulatory purposes?
• How much value does good governance add to a company’s overall valuation?
• When should small or medium sized companies that intend to remain private implement a governance system?
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, November 2018
In summer and fall 2018, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University surveyed 53 founders and CEOs of 47 companies that completed an Initial Public Offering in the U.S. between 2010 and 2018 to understand how corporate governance practices evolve from startup through IPO.
David F. Larcker, Stephen A. Miles, Brian Tayan, and Kim Wright-Violich
Stanford Closer Look Series, November 8, 2018
CEO activism—the practice of CEOs taking public positions on environmental, social, and political issues not directly related to their business—has become a hotly debated topic in corporate governance. To better understand the implications of CEO activism, we examine its prevalence, the range of advocacy positions taken by CEOs, and the public’s reaction to activism.
We ask:
• How widespread is CEO activism?
• How well do boards understand the advocacy positions of their CEOs?
• Are boards involved in decisions to take public stances on controversial issues, or do they leave these to the discretion of the CEO?
• How should boards measure the costs and benefits of CEO activism?
• How accurately can internal and external constituents distinguish between positions taken proactively and reactively by a CEO?
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, October 2018
In summer and fall 2018, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University conducted a nationwide survey of 3,544 individuals — representative by gender, race, age, household income, and state residence — to understand how the American public views CEOs who take public positions on environmental, social, and political issues.
“We find that the public is highly divided about CEOs who take vocal positions on social, environmental, or political issues,” says Professor David F. Larcker, Stanford Graduate School of Business. “While some applaud CEOs who speak up, others strongly disapprove. The divergence in opinions is striking. CEOs who take public positions on specific issues might build loyalty with their employees or customers, but these same positions can inadvertently alienate important segments of those populations. The cost of CEO activism might be higher than many CEOs, companies, or boards realize.”
“Hot-button issues are hot for a reason,” adds Brian Tayan, researcher at Stanford Graduate School of Business. “Interestingly, people are much more likely to think of products they have stopped using than products they have started using because of a position the CEO took on a public issue. When consumers don’t like what they hear, they react the best way they know how to: by closing their wallets.”
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, CGRI Quick Guide Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, September 2018
This guide provides data and statistics on the attributes of the CEOs and CEO succession events at publicly traded companies in the United States. This data supplements the issues introduced in the Quick Guide “CEO Succession Planning.”
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, CGRI Quick Guide Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, September 2018
This Data Spotlight provides data and statistics on the attributes of boards of directors of publicly traded companies in the United States. This data supplements the issues introduced in the Quick Guide “Board of Directors: Structure and Consequences.”
Mehr von Stanford GSB Corporate Governance Research Initiative (20)
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
The Steadfast and Reliable Bull: Taurus Zodiac Signmy Pandit
Explore the steadfast and reliable nature of the Taurus Zodiac Sign. Discover the personality traits, key dates, and horoscope insights that define the determined and practical Taurus, and learn how their grounded nature makes them the anchor of the zodiac.
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN CHART
Satta matka fixx jodi panna all market dpboss matka guessing fixx panna jodi kalyan and all market game liss cover now 420 matka office mumbai maharashtra india fixx jodi panna
Call me 9040963354
WhatsApp 9040963354
Tired of chasing down expiring contracts and drowning in paperwork? Mastering contract management can significantly enhance your business efficiency and productivity. This guide unveils expert secrets to streamline your contract management process. Learn how to save time, minimize risk, and achieve effortless contract management.
High-Quality IPTV Monthly Subscription for $15advik4387
Experience high-quality entertainment with our IPTV monthly subscription for just $15. Access a vast array of live TV channels, movies, and on-demand shows with crystal-clear streaming. Our reliable service ensures smooth, uninterrupted viewing at an unbeatable price. Perfect for those seeking premium content without breaking the bank. Start streaming today!
https://rb.gy/f409dk
Cover Story - China's Investment Leader - Dr. Alyce SUmsthrill
In World Expo 2010 Shanghai – the most visited Expo in the World History
https://www.britannica.com/event/Expo-Shanghai-2010
China’s official organizer of the Expo, CCPIT (China Council for the Promotion of International Trade https://en.ccpit.org/) has chosen Dr. Alyce Su as the Cover Person with Cover Story, in the Expo’s official magazine distributed throughout the Expo, showcasing China’s New Generation of Leaders to the World.
The Role of White Label Bookkeeping Services in Supporting the Growth and Sca...YourLegal Accounting
Effective financial management is important for expansion and scalability in the ever-changing US business environment. White Label Bookkeeping services is an innovative solution that is becoming more and more popular among businesses. These services provide a special method for managing financial duties effectively, freeing up companies to concentrate on their main operations and growth plans. We’ll look at how White Label Bookkeeping can help US firms expand and develop in this blog.
Enhancing Adoption of AI in Agri-food: IntroductionCor Verdouw
Introduction to the Panel on: Pathways and Challenges: AI-Driven Technology in Agri-Food, AI4Food, University of Guelph
“Enhancing Adoption of AI in Agri-food: a Path Forward”, 18 June 2024
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART INDIA MATKA KALYAN SATTA MATKA 420 INDIAN MATKA SATTA KING MATKA FIX JODI FIX FIX FIX SATTA NAMBAR MATKA INDIA SATTA BATTA
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
𝐔𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐃𝐄’𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬
Explore the details in our newly released product manual, which showcases NEWNTIDE's advanced heat pump technologies. Delve into our energy-efficient and eco-friendly solutions tailored for diverse global markets.
Discover the Beauty and Functionality of The Expert Remodeling Serviceobriengroupinc04
Unlock your kitchen's true potential with expert remodeling services from O'Brien Group Inc. Transform your space into a functional, modern, and luxurious haven with their experienced professionals. From layout reconfiguration to high-end upgrades, they deliver stunning results tailored to your style and needs. Visit obriengroupinc.com to elevate your kitchen's beauty and functionality today.
❼❷⓿❺❻❷❽❷❼❽ Dpboss Matka Result Satta Matka Guessing Satta Fix jodi Kalyan Final ank Satta Matka Dpbos Final ank Satta Matta Matka 143 Kalyan Matka Guessing Final Matka Final ank Today Matka 420 Satta Batta Satta 143 Kalyan Chart Main Bazar Chart vip Matka Guessing Dpboss 143 Guessing Kalyan night
Adani Group's Active Interest In Increasing Its Presence in the Cement Manufa...Adani case
Time and again, the business group has taken up new business ventures, each of which has allowed it to expand its horizons further and reach new heights. Even amidst the Adani CBI Investigation, the firm has always focused on improving its cement business.
Adani Group's Active Interest In Increasing Its Presence in the Cement Manufa...
Diversity in the C-Suite: The Dismal State of Diversity Among Fortune 100 Senior Executives
1. Stanford Closer LOOK series
Stanford Closer LOOK series 1
By David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
April 1, 2020
Diversity in the C-Suite
The dismal state of diversity among fortune 100 senior executives
introduction
There has been a broad push in recent years to increase diversity
at the board and CEO levels of public corporations. Proponents
argue that increased representation across gender and ethnic
groups improves corporate decision making.1
Furthermore, it
is consistent with fairness and demonstrates that leadership
opportunities should be equally available to all qualified members
of the workplace.
To this end, State Street launched the “Fearless Girl” campaign
in 2017, calling on its portfolio companies to increase the number
of women on their boards.2
Catalyst Group has long advocated
for greater representation by females in both the boardroom and
higher levels of corporations. And Goldman Sachs announced
that, as of summer 2020, the company would not help companies
go public unless they have at least one diverse board member.3,4
Despite these and other efforts, however, diversity on boards
and in senior leadership positions has not reached the levels to
which advocates aspire. According to Institutional Shareholder
Services, women comprise 27 percent of S&P 500 board seats
and 19 percent of mid- and small-cap company board seats (see
Exhibit 1). Non-white ethnic minorities hold only 10 percent
of directorships among Russell 300 companies (see Exhibit 2).
Despite most companies explicitly expressing an interest in
recruiting new directors from these groups, gains have been
modest for females and almost nonexistent for racially diverse
candidates.5
Diversity efforts at the CEO level have been less successful,
with women holding only 7 percent and ethnically diverse
executives only 9 percent of CEO positions among Fortune 500
companies (see Exhibit 3).
Companies are not silent on this topic. Many publicly express
their commitment to diversity at all levels of their organizations.
Almost all Fortune 100 companies (96 percent) promote their
diversity efforts through mission and value statements on their
websites, or in human capital, diversity, or corporate social
responsibility reports.6
These statements typically include the
importance of diversity in the employee base or supply chain;
metrics on employee, board, or executive diversity; internal
efforts—such as women or diversity councils—to further the
recruitment and development of these employees; financial
commitments to diversity; or awards and public recognition of
diversity (see Exhibit 4).7
Half of companies disclose diversity and
human capital oversight efforts at the board level through the
annual proxy (see Exhibit 5).8
Half of the Fortune 100 also signed
the Business Roundtable’s revised Statement on the Purpose
of a Corporation, which embraced a commitment to serve all
stakeholders and makes specific mention of “fostering diversity
and inclusion, dignity, and respect” as an important objective.9
Some companies signal their commitment to diversity by
including diversity-related metrics in the performance-evaluation
process for awarding executive bonuses. For example, Microsoft
and Intel both include “diversity and inclusion” as a factor in their
bonus calculations for named executive officers. The specific
contribution that diversity makes to the overall performance
award is not disclosed. (Diversity is included as a subcomponent
of broader organizational or cultural goals. See Exhibit 6.)
These efforts, however, have not contributed to tangible
progress in increasing the prevalence of diverse executives in
corporate leadership positions. Are companies actually preparing
diverse executives to be viable successors to the CEO? Are they
effectively equipping them to serve as board members at other
corporations?
We provide new insight into this question by examining the
size, structure, and demographic makeup of the C-suite (the CEO
and the direct reports to the CEO). This data allows us to better
understand the actual pipeline, as it stands today, for next year’s
newly appointed CEOs and future board members. While many
diversity advocates claim to “know” that diverse executives are
underrepresented at the senior leadership level, the data in this
Closer Look methodically documents their number and specific
functional roles in the largest 100 U.S. companies (see Exhibit 7
for our methodology).
2. Diversity in the C-Suite
2Stanford Closer LOOK series
Our intention is not to criticize any specific company, but
instead to highlight the current composition of the C-suite across
the entire Fortune 100. We recognize that this analysis represents
a single point in time. The composition of each company can and
will change over time, resulting in either increased or decreased
diversity. However, in aggregate, these numbers reflect the degree
of diversity as it stands today.
Demographic Composition of the C-Suite
In order for an executive to be a viable CEO or board candidate,
they must first have the managerial and functional skills required
for those jobs. For a board candidate, this typically means having
CEO, operating, or senior finance experience. In 2019, 68
percent of new independent directors had these backgrounds (see
Exhibit 8).10
For a CEO, this means having profit or loss (P&L)
responsibility or CFO experience. Over 90 percent of internally
promoted CEOs served in a role with one of these responsibilities
prior to appointment. Very few CEOs (5 percent) are promoted
from functional groups outside of these roles, such as marketing,
risk management, human resources, or general counsel (see
Exhibit 9).11
In the case of CEO promotions, being a direct report
to the CEO is also critical. Almost no companies promote a CEO
from more than one level below the CEO.12
If companies are adequately preparing executives for board and
CEO positions, it therefore follows that diverse candidates must
be represented in these specific roles (operating, P&L, or finance).
Diverse executives are much less likely to be CEO candidates (and
have lower potential to be a board candidate) if they serve in non-
P&L positions, even if they directly report to the CEO. That is, not
all direct reports of the CEO are equally positioned to become CEO or
join a board.
To better understand the current pipeline for future leadership,
we examine the composition of the direct reports to the CEO.13
(We use the term “C-suite” to refer to the CEO and his or her
direct reports; the term “C+1” refers only to the direct reports.)
Our findings on gender diversity are as follows:
• Women are severely underrepresented in the C-suite. Only 25
percent of total C-suite positions are held by women. Only 7
companies have a female CEO. Nine of the Fortune 100 have
no women directly reporting to the CEO (C+1 level).
• Women are underrepresented in the most common C+1 positions.
The three most common direct reports of the CEO are P&L
leaders, CFOs, and general counsel. Women hold only 15
percent, 14 percent, and 35 percent of these roles, respectively.
• Women are underrepresented in positions that directly feed into
future CEO and board roles, and they have greater representation in
positions that are less likely to lead to these appointments. Women
hold only 13 percent of positions with high potential for
CEO promotion and board recruitment (CEO, CFO, and P&L
leaders). By contrast, they hold 38 percent of positions with
lower potential for advancement (general counsel, human
resources, chief risk officer, etc.). That is, the representation
of women in the C-suite is skewed toward lower potential
positions.
• Very few companies have a “deep bench” of female executives. Nine
companies have no women in the C-suite. Women comprise a
third or more of the C-suite in 27 Fortune 100 companies, 40
percent or more of the C-suite in 10 companies, and half in
only 2 companies. No Fortune 100 company has a majority of
female executives in the C-suite.
Our findings on racial and ethnic diversity are as follows:
• C-suite is even less diverse by race. Racially diverse executives
hold only 16 percent of total C-suite positions. Only 16 have
a non-white CEO.14
Twenty-six of the Fortune 100 have no
ethnic diversity at the C+1 level, and 6 have no ethnic or
gender diversity at this level.
• The CFO role is the least racially diverse position in the C-suite.
There are only 4 CFOs who are not white.
• The representation of racially diverse executives in the C-suite is
slightlyskewedtowardpositionswithlowerpotentialforadvancement.
Similar to our finding above, we find that ethnically diverse
executives have lower representation in positions that directly
feed into future CEO and board roles—although the degree
to which this occurs is much lower than it is among female
executives. Racially diverse executives hold only 13 percent of
high potential positions (CEO, CFO, and P&L), and 20 percent
of lower potential positions. The very low prevalence of non-
white CFOs accounts for almost all of this skewing.
• Few companies have a large number of racially diverse executives
in the C-suite. Twenty-six companies have no racially diverse
executives in the C-suite. Non-white executives comprise a
third or more of the C-suite in only 13 companies, 40 percent
or more in only 5 companies, and half or more in only 2
companies.
(This data is summarized in Exhibits 10-13. Organizational charts
of the C-suites of each of the Fortune 100 as of January and
February 2020 are available here.)
All of this data demonstrates that while companies tout their
3. Diversity in the C-Suite
3Stanford Closer LOOK series
efforts and their commitment to diversity, diversity is substantially
missing at the CEO and C+1 levels. Furthermore, among CEO
direct reports, diversity is less prevalent in positions that are most
likely to be prime candidates for advancement. Instead, we find
that many diverse executives serve in terminal functional roles
that are not typically on a path to becoming CEO, and also not
on a path (as it stands today compared with what boards look for
in new directors) to corporate board service. Unless changes are
made, the current composition of the C-suite of Fortune 100 does
not portend well for increased diversity of corporate leadership in
coming years.
Why This Matters
1. While companies promote their diversity efforts, they have
not been especially successful bringing diversity to the
C-suite. C-suites of the Fortune 100 are characterized by
low representation of female executives and even lower
representation of ethnically diverse executives. What accounts
for this lack of representation? At what step along the way does
the process of promoting diverse executives break down?
2. Many companies publish diversity statistics on their website
to demonstrate their commitment to diversity and their
success in adding more diverse individuals to managerial roles.
However, these data generally do not include the diversity of
the C-suite and, in fact, somewhat obscure the degree to which
the highest level of corporate leadership lacks diversity. How
“honest” are diversity statistics? Should companies disclose
diversity in greater detail by level or function? Would this
highlight deficiencies and accelerate the rate of advancement?
3. The representation of racially diverse executives is low and
fairly constant across job functions. This is not true of female
executives, who have much higher representation in lower
potential leadership roles—such as human resources, general
counsel, and corporate communications. What accounts for
this difference in distribution?
4. If P&L and CFO experience are key determinants of future
promotion to the CEO role and board seats, companies need to
do more to prepare diverse executives for these roles. Decisions
are made on a company-by-company basis, presumably based
on the individual talent pool and job openings available,
and yet in aggregate company promotion efforts are failing.
Do company diversity initiatives actually lead to tangible
improvement? If so, when will this show up in the C-suite?
1
This is a common claim for those arguing for more diversity. The
research evidence on this point is not conclusive. See: David F. Larcker
and Brian Tayan, “Diverse Boards: Research Spotlight,” Stanford Quick
Guide Series (April 2016), available at: https://www.gsb.stanford.
edu/faculty-research/publications/diverse-boards.
2
State Street, “State Street Global Advisors Calls on 3,500 Companies
Representing More Than $30 Trillion in Market Capitalization to
Increase Number of Women on Corporate Boards,” press release (March
10, 2017).
3
Hugh Son, “Goldman Won’t Take Companies Public Without ‘At Least
One Diverse Board Candidate,’ CEO Says,” CBNC (January 23. 2020).
4
It is interesting to note that diversity advocates in recent years have
focused their efforts primarily on increasing female representation on
boards and less so on representation by non-white ethnic minorities.
Search consultants we have interviewed acknowledge this fact but do
not have an explanation for it.
5
According to Spencer Stuart, recruiting female directors was the
highest priority profile for new directors in 2019 (above directors with
technical expertise, active CEO experience, financial experience, or
operating experience); and recruiting female and minority directors are
each among the top five highest priorities over the next three years. See
Spencer Stuart, “U.S. Board Index,” (2019); see also Heidrick & Struggles,
“Board Monitor: U.S. 2019” (2019).
6
Research by the authors, conducted February and March 2020.
7
Some companies publish diversity employment statistics or make their
Equal Employment Opportunity data available through their website to
demonstrate diversity representation in their organization. For example,
see Amazon, “Our Workforce Data,” available at: https://www.
aboutamazon.com/working-at-amazon/diversity-and-inclusion/
our-workforce-data; and Apple, “Equal Employment Opportunity,
2018 Employer Information Report,” available at: https://www.apple.
com/diversity/pdf/2018-EEO-1-Consolidated-Report.pdf.
8
This statistic includes only reference to the board’s role in overseeing
diversity or inclusion efforts in the employment ranks. It excludes board
diversity efforts, which are required by the SEC under Regulation S-K.
See Securities and Exchange Commission, “17 CFR Parts 229, 239, 240,
249, and 274. Proxy Disclosure Enhancements [Release Nos. 33-9089;
34-61175; IC-29092; File No. S7-13-09].”
9
Business Roundtable, “Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a
Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy that Serves All Americans,’” press
release (August 19, 2019).
10
The rest of new independent directors have experience outside the
corporation, either as an investment professional, banker, accountant,
consultant, academic, or lawyer. Spencer Stuart, U.S. Board Index
(2019).
11
Crist Kolder Associates, “Volatility Report of America’s Leading
Companies,” (2019).
12
Estimate provided to the authors by a professional recruiter.
13
Studies have been done that examine the named executive officers
(NEOs) of public companies. However, an analysis that includes only
NEOs does not provide the full picture because it includes only five
individuals: the CEO, the CFO, and the three other most highly paid
executive officers. It is possible that a group of NEOs might include
executives who are not direct reports to the CEO, and it is very likely
that a CEO has direct reports in addition to NEOs. An analysis of the full
C+1 level is therefore more accurate and complete.
14
This is higher than the number of female CEOs but still very low (16
percent).
5. Diversity in the C-Suite
5Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 1 — Prevalence of female directors on public company boards
Source: Institutional Shareholder Services, “U.S. Board Diversity Trends in 2019,” (May 31, 2019).
females as a percent of all directors
Females as a Percent of New Directors
6. Diversity in the C-Suite
6Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 2 — Prevalence of Ethnic Minority Directors on Public Company Boards
Source: Institutional Shareholder Services, “U.S. Board Diversity Trends in 2019,” (May 31, 2019).
Ethnic Minorities as a Percent of All Directors
Ethnic Minorities as a Percent of New Directors
7. Diversity in the C-Suite
7Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 3 — Prevalence of Ethnic Minority Directors on Public Company Boards
Chart 2 sample includes 682 sitting CEOs across 675 companies in Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies.
Sources: Claire Zillman, “The Fortune 500 Has More Female CEOs Than Ever Before,” Fortune (May 16, 2019); and Crist Kolder Associates,
“Volatility Report of America’s Leading Companies,” (2019).
Females as a Percent of CEOs
Ethnic Minorities as a Percent of CEOs
8. Diversity in the C-Suite
8Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 4 — selected language from Human Capital and Diversity Statements
Exxonmobil
Through a range of programs, activities and investments, we strive to create and maintain a diverse workforce representative
of the numerous geographies where we do business. Our Global Diversity Framework is the foundation for this approach,
with three interrelated objectives:
• Attract, develop and retain a premier workforce, from the broadest possible pool, to meet our business needs worldwide;
• Actively foster a productive work environment where individual and cultural differences are respected and valued, and
where all employees are encouraged to contribute fully to the achievement of superior business results;
• Identify and develop leadership capabilities to excel in a variety of international and cultural environments.
The framework communicates these existing principles in the context of our increasing global operations.
American Express
Diversity by the Numbers
• Women comprise over 50 percent of our global workforce and more than 30 percent of senior executives
• We contributed to 7 research studies in partnership with Center for Talent Innovation, focusing on how to advance
women in the workplace
• 21 percent of our board are women
• 46 percent of our senior management team is diverse
• 16 Employee networks with nearly 100 chapters globally, bringing together employees with shared backgrounds
• 3 Executive employee networks that support black, Hispanic, and female executive leaders
Boeing
Diversity Councils and Business Resource Groups
Diversity Councils are integrated groups of site leaders, managers and employees who work to improve employee
engagement, provide learning and leadership opportunities, increase communication and facilitate implementation of
organizational diversity plans. Diversity Councils are supported by a local executive champion. Boeing has more than 40
Diversity Councils.
Business Resource Groups are employee-led associations designed to further personal and professional development,
promote diversity within the company and strengthen networking. The members share a common interest, such as race,
gender or cultural identity. The nine groups collectively have more than 130 chapters around the world. Membership is
open to all employees.
Boeing Business Resource Groups include:
• Boeing Asian Professional Association
• Boeing Black Employees Association
• Boeing Employee Ability Awareness Association
• Boeing Employee Pride Alliance
• Boeing Familia
• Boeing Generation to Generation
• Boeing Native American Network
• Boeing Veteran Engagement Team
• Boeing Women Inspiring Leadership
Sources: ExxonMobil, available at: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/careers/global-diversity#globalDiversityFramework;
American Express, available at: https://www.americanexpress.com/us/global-diversity-and-inclusion/index.html; and
Boeing, available at: https://jobs.boeing.com/diversity (Accessed March 6, 2020).
9. Diversity in the C-Suite
9Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 5 — Selected Board Disclosure of Diversity and Human Capital Efforts
general motors
The Board reviews candidates for all senior executive positions to confirm that qualified and diverse successor-candidates
are available for all positions and that development plans are being utilized to strengthen the skills and qualifications of
successor candidates.
The Board’s investment in people development does not stop with management succession planning. It actively takes an
interest in making sure all employees are fully engaged and realizing their potential. To accomplish this, the Board annually
reviews the diversity pipeline at all levels of the Company and receives an update on various hiring initiatives for diversity
groups supported by the Company. At this time, the Board believes it has a deep and diverse talent pipeline from which to
promote employees at all levels of the Company.
johnson & johnson
The Board and Committees are actively engaged in overseeing the company’s talent development and human capital
management strategies designed to attract, develop and retain global business leaders who can drive financial and strategic
growth objectives and build long-term shareholder value. The Board’s involvement in leadership development and
succession planning is systematic and ongoing, and the Board provides input on important decisions in each of these areas.
[...]
To improve the Board’s understanding of the company’s culture and talent pipeline, the Board conducts meetings and
schedules site visits at the company’s locations and meets regularly with high-potential executives in formal and informal
settings. More broadly, the Board is regularly updated on key talent indicators for the overall workforce, including diversity
and inclusion, recruiting and development programs, and is updated on the company’s human capital development strategy.
pepsico
Beyond leadership development, our Board is continuously focused on developing an inclusive and respectful work
environment where our employees across the entire workforce are empowered to speak with truth and candor, raise
concerns and implement new ideas in the best interests of the business. The Board and its applicable Committees regularly
engage with employees at all levels of the organization, including through periodic visits to PepsiCo’s operations, to provide
oversight on a broad range of human capital management topics, including corporate culture, diversity and inclusion, pay
equity, health and safety, training and development and compensation and benefits.
Sources: General Motors, DEF 14A (April 18, 2019); Johnson & Johnson, DEF 14A (March 13, 2019); and PepsiCo, DEF 14A (March 22, 2019).
10. Diversity in the C-Suite
10Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 6 — Diversity Metrics in Executive Compensation Programs
microsoft
Culture & Organizational Leadership (33.3% weight)
Mr. Nadella continued to demonstrate his commitment to evolve Microsoft culture, where his successes include achieving
aspirational goals for diversity goals in hiring and retention. In fiscal year 2019, nearly 80% of employees and managers
surveyed indicated they understand how to leverage a new core priority for inclusion to contribute towards building a
more diverse and inclusive workplace. Moreover, 90% of employees said their managers created an inclusive environment.
Work remains to be done to provide additional training and resources for the Company’s mid-level managers and address
the needs of the millennial workforce.
Surveys of employee sentiment and Senior Leadership Team feedback show strong support for Mr. Nadella’s cultural push
for One Microsoft and Growth Mindset initiatives.
intel
We set ambitious goals for our company and make strategic investments to advance progress in the areas of environmental
sustainability, supply chain responsibility, diversity and inclusion, and social impact that benefit the environment and
society. […]
Long-term total stockholder return provides one measure of value creation, though we also consider other indicators of
success for our deployment of capital, such as diversity advancement for our human capital. […]
Operational Performance (50% Weighting)
Corporate-level and administrative group employees, including each of our listed officers other than Mr. Shenoy, are paid
based on average of 10 business units’ scores, subject to any adjustment for performance against corporate-level diversity
and inclusion goal (focused on hiring and retaining diverse talent—not achieved).
Sources: Microsoft, Form DEF 14A (October 16, 2019); and Intel, Form DEF 14A (April 3, 2019).
11. Diversity in the C-Suite
11Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 7 — Methodology and Data Collection
During the time period December 2019 to February 2020, a group of skilled, professional researchers methodically collected
and verified information to identify the exact direct reports to the CEOs of all Fortune 100 companies, including their title,
race, and gender. This is a difficult and tedious task because an executive’s being listed as a named executive officer in the
proxy statement or on an executive leadership webpage does not guarantee that the executive reports to the CEO.
Our methodology for the research study was as follows:
Step 1: Identify the executive leadership team of each company and their position.
Step 2: Use research tools to verify who does and does not report to the respective CEOs, including:
• A proprietary database that includes employment information about executives
• Public filings, including proxy statements, 10-Ks, and annual reports
• RelSci, a relationship capital platform that includes corporate executives
• LinkedIn
• Company websites
• Company press releases indicating hire or promotion dates for executives
Step 3: Call an executive at each company to verify the CEO’s direct reports. In most cases, a second or third executive was
called to ensure high confidence in the data.
The data for each company and the date that each company was verified is noted on each company organizational chart
available at here.
12. Diversity in the C-Suite
12Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 8 — Professional Backgrounds of Newly Elected Independent Directors
Sources: Spencer Stuart, U.S. Board Index (2019).
New Director Backgrounds - 2019 Total Men Women
Active CEOs 15% 20% 9%
Retired CEOs 15% 21% 7%
Line and functional leaders 14% 6% 23%
Financial executives/CFOs/treasurers 10% 8% 13%
Investors/investment managers 9% 13% 6%
Division/subsidiary presidents 9% 8% 11%
Bankers/investment bankers 5% 6% 4%
Academics/nonprofit executives 4% 4% 5%
Active chairs/presidents/COOs 3% 4% 3%
Consultants 3% 2% 5%
Public accounting executives 3% 2% 3%
Retired chairs/presidents/COOs 2% 2% 2%
General counsel 1% 0% 2%
Lawyers 1% 1% 1%
Others 6% 3% 8%
13. Diversity in the C-Suite
13Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 9 — Immediate Previous Position of Sitting CEOs
Note: Sample includes 675 companies and 682 sitting CEOs among the Fortune 500 and S&P 500 Index.
Source: Crist Kolder Associates, Volatility Report of America’s Leading Companies, (2019).
25% 25%
15%
8%
7% 6%
6% 6%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
COO Divisional
president
President President
and COO
CEO CFO Operating
executive
Other Founder
14. Diversity in the C-Suite
14Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 10 — C-Suite Size and Composition (Fortune 100)
Sample Characteristics
Total Companies 100
Total # C-Suite Executives
a
1,007
Average # Executives in C-Suite 10
Total # CEOs
b
101
Total # Direct Reports (C+1) 906
Average # Direct Reports 9
Largest # Direct Reports
c
16
Smallest # Direct Reports
d
3
Female Representation in C-Suite
# Companies with no females in C-Suitee
9
# Companies with no females in C+1
f
9
# Companies with female CEO
g
7
# Companies with ≥ 33% female C-Suite 27
# Companies with ≥ 40% female C-Suite 10
# Companies with ≥ 50% female C-Suite
h
2
Ethnically Diverse Representation in C-Suite
# Companies with all white C-Suite 25
# Companies with all white C+1
i
26
# Companies with non-white CEO 16
# Companies with ≥ 33% non-white C-Suite 13
# Companies with ≥ 40% non-white C-Suite
j
5
# Companies with ≥ 50% non-white C-Suite
k
2
Source: Research by the authors.
Notes:
a. C-suite refers to the CEO and direct reports; C+1 includes only the direct reports of the CEO.
b. Enterprise Products has co-CEOs.
c. IBM and Procter & Gamble
d. ExxonMobil
e. ExxonMobil, Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, Costco, FedEx, Energy Transfer, TJX, Enterprise Products, and Plains Group
f. Same. No company has a female CEO with all male direct reports.
g. General Motors, Anthem, Lockheed, Best Buy, Oracle (co-CEO), General Dynamics, Progressive
h. Anthem and Cisco
i. Plains Group has an Asian CEO with all white direct reports. All others have all white C-Suite.
j. HP, Merck, UnitedContinental, TIAA, and Coca-Cola
k. TIAA and Coca-Cola
15. Diversity in the C-Suite
15Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 11 — Gender Representation in C-Suite Positions and Their Potential for Promotion to CEO or Board
Source: Research by the authors.
Position CEO / Board Potential Male Female
CEO High 93% 7%
CFO High 86% 14%
P&L Leaders High 85% 15%
Other Business (Functional) Executives Lower 74% 26%
Chief (Lead) Human Resource Officer Lower 29% 71%
Chief (Lead) Communications Officer Lower 41% 59%
General Counsel Lower 65% 35%
Chief (Lead) Marketing Officer Lower 65% 35%
Chief Information (Technology) Officer Lower 85% 15%
Chief Risk Officer Lower 79% 21%
Chief (Lead) Strategy Officer Lower 91% 9%
Chief (Lead) Sales Officer Lower 40% 60%
Chief (Lead) Administration Executive Lower 29% 71%
Other Staff (Functional) Executive Lower 55% 45%
Total 75% 25%
High 87% 13%
Lower 62% 38%
16. Diversity in the C-Suite
16Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 12 — racial Representation in C-Suite Positions and Their Potential for Promotion to CEO or Board
Source: Research by the authors.
CEO / Board Potential CEO / Board Potential White Black Hispanic Asian Other
CEO High 84% 3% 5% 5% 3%
CFO High 96% 1% 1% 2% 0%
P&L Leaders High 85% 3% 3% 8% 0%
Other Business (Functional) Executives Lower 76% 10% 6% 7% 1%
Chief (Lead) Human Resource Officer Lower 83% 13% 3% 3% 0%
Chief (Lead) Communications Officer Lower 81% 4% 15% 0% 0%
General Counsel Lower 84% 6% 3% 7% 0%
Chief (Lead) Marketing Officer Lower 78% 9% 4% 9% 0%
Chief Information (Technology) Officer Lower 80% 0% 5% 15% 0%
Chief Risk Officer Lower 79% 0% 0% 16% 5%
Chief (Lead) Strategy Officer Lower 73% 0% 5% 18% 5%
Chief (Lead) Sales Officer Lower 40% 20% 40% 0% 0%
Chief (Lead) Administration Executive Lower 57% 43% 0% 0% 0%
Other Staff (Functional) Executive Lower 84% 13% 0% 3% 0%
Total 84% 5% 4% 7% 1%
High 87% 3% 3% 7% 1%
Lower 80% 7% 5% 8% 1%
17. Diversity in the C-Suite
17Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 13 — Gender and Racial Representation by C-Suite Position
Chief Executive Officer (n=101)
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
84%
3%
5%
5% 3%
White (85)
Black (3)
Hispanic (5)
Asian (5)
Other (3)
93%
7%
Male (94)
Female (7)
85%
3%
5%
5% 2%
White (79)
Black (3)
Hispanic (5)
Asian (5)
Other (2)
86%
0%
0%
0% 14%
White (6)
Black (0)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (0)
Other (1)
1
Chief Financial Officer (n=96)
2
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
96%
1%
1% 2% 0%
White (92)
Black (1)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (2)
Other (0)
97%
1%
1% 1% 0%
White (80)
Black (1)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (1)
Other (0)
92%
0%
0% 8% 0%
White (12)
Black (0)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (1)
Other (0)
86%
14%
Male (83)
Female (13)
18. Diversity in the C-Suite
18Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 13 — continued
P&L Leaders (n=349)
3
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
85%
4%
3%
8% 0%
White (298)
Black (12)
Hispanic (9)
Asian (29)
Other (1)
86%
3%
3%
8% 0%
White (256)
Black (9)
Hispanic (9)
Asian (22)
Other (0)
79%
6%
0%
13%
2%
White (42)
Black (3)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (7)
Other (1)
85%
15%
Male (296)
Female (53)
Other Business (Functional) Executives (n=72)
4
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
76%
10%
6%
7% 1%
White (55)
Black (7)
Hispanic (4)
Asian (5)
Other (1)
85%
7%
4%
4% 0%
White (45)
Black (4)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (2)
Other (0)
53%
16%
10%
16%
5%
White (10)
Black (3)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (3)
Other (1)
74%
26%
Male (53)
Female (19)
19. Diversity in the C-Suite
19Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 13 — continued
Chief (Lead) Human Resource Officer (n=80)
5
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
82%
12%
3%
3%0%
White (66)
Black (10)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (2)
Other (0)
87%
13%
0% 0% 0%
White (20)
Black (3)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
81%
12%
3%
4% 0%
White (46)
Black (7)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (2)
Other (0)
29%
71%
Male (23)
Female (57)
Chief (Lead) Communications Officer (n=27)
6
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
81%
4%
15%
0% 0%
White (22)
Black (1)
Hispanic (4)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
82%
9%
9%
0% 0%
White (9)
Black (1)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
81%
0%
19%
0% 0%
White (13)
Black (0)
Hispanic (3)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
41%59%
Male (11)
Female (16)
20. Diversity in the C-Suite
20Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 13 — continued
General Counsel (n=88)
7
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
84%
6%
3%
7% 0%
White (74)
Black (5)
Hispanic (3)
Asian (6)
Other (0)
86%
3%
4%
7% 0%
White (49)
Black (2)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (4)
Other (0)
81%
10%
3%
6% 0%
White (25)
Black (3)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (2)
Other (0)
65%
35%
Male (57)
Female (31)
Chief (Lead) Marketing Officer (n=23)
8
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
78%
9%
5%
8% 0%
White (18)
Black (2)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (2)
Other (0)
73%
13%
7%
7% 0%
White (11)
Black (2)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (1)
Other (0)
87%
0%
0%
13% 0%
White (7)
Black (0)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (1)
Other (0)
65%
35%
Male (15)
Female (8)
21. Diversity in the C-Suite
21Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 13 — continued
Chief Information Officer/Technology Officer (n=81)
9
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
80%
0%
5%
15%
0%
White (65)
Black (0)
Hispanic (4)
Asian (12)
Other (0)
83%
0%
3%
14%
0%
White (57)
Black (0)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (10)
Other (0) 67%0%
17%
16%
0%
White (8)
Black (0)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (2)
Other (0)
85%
15%
Male (69)
Female (12)
Chief Risk Officer (n=19)
10
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
79%
0%
0%
16%
5%
White (15)
Black (0)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (3)
Other (1)
79%
21%
Male (15)
Female (4)
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
100%
0%0%
0% 0%
White (4)
Black (0)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
73%
0%
0%
20%
7%
White (11)
Black (0)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (3)
Other (1)
22. Diversity in the C-Suite
22Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 13 — continued
Chief (Lead) Strategy Officer (n=22)
11
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
73%
0%
4%
18%
5%
White (16)
Black (0)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (4)
Other (1)
75%
0%
5%
15%
5%
White (15)
Black (0)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (3)
Other (1)
50%
0%0%
50%
0%
White (1)
Black (0)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (1)
Other (0)
91%
9%
Male (20)
Female (2)
Chief (Lead) Sales Officer (n=5)
12
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
40%
20%
40%
0% 0%
White (2)
Black (1)
Hispanic (2)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
0%
50%
50%
0% 0%
White (0)
Black (1)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (0)
Other (0) 67%0%
33%
0% 0%
White (2)
Black (0)
Hispanic (1)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
40%60%
Male (2)
Female (3)
23. Diversity in the C-Suite
23Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 13 — continued
Chief (Lead) Administrative Executives (n=7)
13
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
57%
43%
0%0% 0%
White (4)
Black (3)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
0%
100%
0%
0% 0%
White (0)
Black (2)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
80%
20%
0%0% 0%
White (4)
Black (1)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
29%
71%
Male (2)
Female (5)
Other Staff (Functional) Executives (n=38)
14
Total Race/Ethnicity Total Gender
Male Race/Ethnicity Female Race/Ethnicity
84%
13%
0%3% 0%
White (32)
Black (5)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (1)
Other (0)
86%
9%
0%
5% 0%
White (18)
Black (2)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (1)
Other (0)
82%
18%
0%0% 0%
White (14)
Black (3)
Hispanic (0)
Asian (0)
Other (0)
55%
45%
Male (21)
Female (17)