Category: Archive

Event: SAPPHIRE ’07

When: April 23-25, 2007

Where: Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta

What: Software giant SAP’s customer conference, held for the first time in Atlanta, brings together SAP customers, partners and the occasional competitor. Given SAP’s rivalry with Oracle and smaller niche vendors in human resources software, as well as questions about SAP’s product strategy, the event promised to be of interest to HR and HR technology executives.

Conference info: For information, go to http://www2.sapsapphire.com/usa2007/index.epx.

Day 2—Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Keynoting collaboration: SAP chief executive Henning Kagermann continued the conference theme of connection during a provocative, if prolonged, keynote speech here Tuesday.

In keeping with the software giant’s proclaimed eagerness to work with partners and customers, which was Monday’s mantra, Kagermann said companies should look beyond their traditional boundaries for success in today’s ever-faster business climate. Organizations can both speed up innovation and increase productivity by optimizing their network of employees, suppliers, customers, partners and distributors, Kagermann argued in a presentation lasting longer than an hour. Kagermann called the concept “business network transformation.”

“It’s about reaching out outside the company,” he said. “And it’s about agility.”

Kagermann cited as an example a chocolate maker that found customers are more interested in buying a great chocolate gift than buying great chocolate. “All of a sudden these guys are in a different business,” Kagermann said. The firm, he said, turned to a partner to help it make the right shift in its products.

Part of SAP’s pitch to companies is that it can help them set up technology systems that are flexible and make it easier to do such things as outsource tasks and jointly create new products. SAP also is working to help companies spur more teamwork among employees. Kagermann’s presentation featured a demonstration of a software tool he referred to as a “Thought Pad” that functions as a wiki—a Web site where people can outline and discuss a business problem. It has not yet become a product SAP sells. (It would be no surprise if the product changes names if and when it is released, given that Lenovo, which acquired IBM’s personal computing division, makes and sells ThinkPad notebook computers.)

In talking about what SAP offers midsize firms, Kagermann portrayed the company’s software as ultra-powerful. And he criticized competitors, making an unmistakable dig at Oracle and its recent strategy to snap up other software firms: “We will continue to co-invent the future. Our competitors are consolidating the past.”

But overall, Kagermann projected an air of humility. At one point, he acknowledged past mistakes, such as expecting customers to make too many software upgrades. And he ended his speech with this plea to customers: “Please talk to us. Give us feedback.”

Given that the software industry is often filled with arrogance and egotism, the speech was a remarkable departure.

But could it be just so much marketing speak? At least a couple sources at the conference said SAP’s collaboration push appears genuine. “They certainly have identified the need to be more cooperative,” said Christa Degnan Manning, an analyst at AMR Research who studies human resources-related software.

Nasim Mansurov is a new SAP customer, but already he is impressed by the software giant’s commitment to listening to clients. Mansurov is director of information technology at Stonebridge Cos., a hotel management company in Englewood, Colorado. Stonebridge signed a contract with SAP in December and plans to begin using SAP’s human capital management software and other modules later this year.

Mansurov said SAP has interviewed him to get a sense of how to make its software work better for hotel management companies. In Mansurov’s view, SAP has given Stonebridge a lot of attention, despite the fact that it has only about 1,500 employees. SAP is “all about” relationships, Mansurov said.

German flavor: At times, SAPPHIRE ’07 had a distinctly German feel. This stems partly from all the German accents heard during presentations by SAP officials, many of whom are based at the company’s headquarters in Waldorf, Germany. It also arose during a presentation on SAP’s human capital management software. During a demonstration of how SAP can allow employees to make vacation requests through an automated voice system, the sample employee who called in had a total of 19 vacation days left. In America, where 10 days of vacation are typical, it was a sharp reminder of Germany’s more generous time-off packages. Afterward, though, an SAP official said the company gives its U.S. employees 20 days of vacation.

Linked up: Could all the messages of cooperation have infected SAPPHIRE-goers’ partying? Creative teamwork was on display during the Tuesday-night concert by John Mayer, sponsored by SAP and the Americas’ SAP Users’ Group, an independent organization of SAP customers and third-party vendors. At the concert, held at the arena that’s home to the NBA’s Atlanta Hawks, many audience members sported glow-in-the dark necklaces. Near the end of the show, people began pulling them apart and linking them together in long chains that ran throughout the arena.

—Ed Frauenheim

Day 1—Monday, April 23, 2007

Conference theme—Let’s work together: SAP may be a dominant force in the world of business software—including HR software—but it’s portraying itself as the quintessential team player at this conference.

The Germany-based company highlighted its cooperation with both other technology vendors and customers during the first day of SAPPHIRE ’07, a major customer conference that has attracted about 15,000 attendees.

“We are really co-innovators,” SAP’s Zia Yusuf said during a panel session with SAP technology company partners. “This is a lot of deep technical interaction that will lead to new products.”

Yusuf, executive vice president for SAP’s global ecosystem and partner group, was sitting next to leaders from software companies Adobe and Microsoft, computer maker Hewlett-Packard and networking equipment seller Cisco Systems.

Among SAP’s announcements Monday was a deal with software maker Adobe in which SAP will combine Web conferencing technology from Adobe with its SAP Learning Solution software. SAP also disclosed a “trifecta” of sorts related to Duet, the software it makes with Microsoft that lets employees access SAP data through Microsoft Office applications.

The companies said HP is making an “appliance” for Duet. The appliance is an HP computer server pre-installed with the software, designed to shorten implementation time.

The news and the show come against the background of rising interest in software to help manage employees. In a report last year, market research firm AMR Research said human capital management is one of the fastest-growing areas of business software, with revenue rising 10 percent annually through 2010 to $8.7 billion.

SAP is one of the top sellers of HR software worldwide, but it faces stiff competition from archrival Oracle, which recently sued SAP for allegedly stealing Oracle tech support materials. A host of smaller software companies, particularly in strategic “talent management” areas such as recruiting and performance management, also are vying for companies’ HR tech dollars.

SAP entered the show amid some struggles. It reported lower-than-expected earnings for the quarter ended March 31. In late March, SAP announced the departure of one of its key executives, Shai Agassi, president of SAP’s product and technology group.

Pat Walravens, equity analyst with investment firm JMP Securities, recently wrote in a note that the SAP product strategy is in “disarray.”

Even so, a number of big customers have been willing to tout their use of SAP applications at the show.

The Coca-Cola Co., for example, invited journalists to its Atlanta headquarters to discuss its relationship with SAP. The beverage giant taps SAP software for HR and other tasks.

Brian Pugh, a director in Coke’s information technology operations, said the company uses Peopleclick software for recruiting purposes, but won’t stay with that specialist vendor.

“We’re definitely going to [SAP’s] E-recruiting,” Pugh said.

Biggest gaffe of the day: SAP spokesman Bill Wohl caused a hiccup at Coke by referring to a new company soft drink as Coke One. Actually, the zero-calorie drink is called Coke Zero. Of course, there’s a rival drink in the market dubbed Pepsi One.

“I almost threw my BlackBerry at him when he said that,” Pugh said.

—Ed Frauenheim
 

Wal-Mart has made two announcements in recent days that show the retailer is moving aggressively to change the health care system—both as an employer covering more than a million people and as a company looking to lift its stagnant share price.

Washington that the company plans to increase its number of in-store health care clinics to 2,000, up  from 76, in the next five to seven years, with 400 new clinics coming in the next two years.

“I think it will be a great opportunity for our business,” Scott said. “But more importantly, they will provide something to our community that is desperately needed: affordable access at the local level to quality, affordable health care.”

Scott reiterated an announcement made last week of a partnership between the retailer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arkansas and the University of Arkansas to develop ways health care can be improved through the use of technology. Wal-Mart hopes to streamline health care just as it did with its own supply chain.

“Health IT is perhaps the single largest opportunity to drive cost out of the health care system,” Scott said during his keynote address. Then he asked other employers to join Dossia. That group, founded by Wal-Mart, Intel, BP, Pitney Bowes and Applied Materials, says employees of member companies will have a personal health record by the end of the year.

The effort to use its purchasing power to reduce costs through technology and the creation of health clinics that treat patients as consumers are two ways Wal-Mart is trying to repair its economic fortunes, reduce its own health care costs and make a public case that the market, not government, can solve problems plaguing the health care system.

“The private sector can lead. The private sector can make a difference,” Scott said.

He said Americans need to become better health care consumers, and that Wal-Mart will help provide them with the tools to do so.

Wal-Mart has also been busy creating in-store clinics. Rather than hire a company that specializes in clinics, Wal-Mart has tapped local health care providers. This model will help boost the business of doctors in rural areas where Wal-Mart has a big presence. The clinics will also help doctors who have lost some business to the forces of globalization and employers that ship blue-collar jobs overseas or cut back on health benefits. These local providers can also make referrals to area doctors and hospitals.

As the health care debate gains more national attention, groups coming together to stake out a position on the subject of reform continue to proliferate.

One such group that Wal-Mart helped launch is called Better Health Care Together. Other members include the Service Employees International Union, Kelly Services, Intel and the Communications Workers of America. The group is having a meeting in New York next month, Scott said.

“This is too important for our country to be divided into two camps,” he said.

But when it comes to health care, even CEOs concerned with spiraling costs remain divided.

Safeway CEO Steven Burd is orchestrating his own group of health-care-minded CEOs. Burd told Workforce Management that he does not think Wal-Mart will be a member when the group is formally announced in May.

“I think it’s a very broad-based coalition. We add companies to it every week” Burd said.

Jeremy Smerd

A new study by a women’s advocacy organization shows that college-educated women earn less than their male counterparts soon after graduation—and 10 years later, too.

When the findings were presented at a House hearing on Tuesday, April 24, however, an expert disputed the results, arguing that many different factors can affect salary levels.

The hearing date was no accident. April 24 has been dubbed Equal Pay Day, the date on which women’s earnings are said to catch up to the amount men earned by December 31 of the previous year.

The House Education and Labor Committee met to discuss a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, that would strengthen federal equal pay laws.

But it was the study, “Behind the Pay Gap,” released the day before the hearing by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, that generated the most heat. AAUW found that one year after college graduation, women earn 80 percent of what college-educated men earn. After 10 years, the proportion sinks to 69 percent.

Catherine Hill, AAUW research director, said that after eliminating factors known to affect earnings, such as occupation, industry, hours worked, educational attainment and experience, a 5 percent difference between men’s and women’s salaries still existed, and grew to 12 percent after 10 years.

“That suggests that something else is going on,” Hill said. Discrimination, in her view, causes the pay discrepancy.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said that the results of the AAUW study are distorted because they didn’t account for accumulated hours of lifetime work and used occupational categories that were too broad.

“Generally, the more explanatory variables that are included in the econometric regression analysis, the more of the wage gap that can be explained, and the less is the residual portion attributable to discrimination,” Furchtgott-Roth said.

DeLauro asserts that bias against women is diminishing their earnings. Her bill would allow women to sue for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages already provided under the Equal Pay Act. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who disseminate salary information to their colleagues.

“The issue of pay equity goes to the heart of what matters to working women,” DeLauro said. “It is about ensuring that women who work hard and productively and carry a full range of family responsibilities are paid at a rate they are entitled. Pay equity is not a women’s issue. It is a family issue.”

The highest-ranking Republican on the House labor committee questioned the reliability of pay studies and urged that Democrats approach the issue carefully and first “do no harm.”

“As we consider significant and substantial changes to federal law, I hope we keep it in mind and recognize the very clear, very strong anti-gender discrimination laws we already have on the books,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-California.

One way to move closer to pay parity is to enact legislation that would provide paid time off for employees to take care of family matters, according to Heather Boushey, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

“To close the gap, policymakers must look to change the workplace so it is more hospitable to women and mothers,” she said.

A member of the House committee who is a former HR professional said another way to address pay differences is to ensure that certain jobs don’t pay less just because they are done predominantly by women.

“It’s too easy to say these are women’s jobs and these are men’s jobs and they aren’t valued the same,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California.

All members of the committee seemed to agree that Dedra Farmer’s situation was one of pay discrimination. While working in the Tire Lube Express division of Wal-Mart, she found that women in hourly positions were being paid less than men holding the same jobs with shorter tenure at the store. Farmer testified before the committee.

WHY DO WOMEN WANT BACK IN?

   Desperate Housewives notwithstanding, talented women who blithely throw their careers to the wind are the exception rather than the rule. As mentioned earlier, the overwhelming majority of highly qualified women currently off-ramped (93 percent) want to return to their careers.

    Many of these women have financial reasons for wanting to get back to work. Nearly half (46 percent) cite “wanting to have their own independent source of income” as an important motivating factor. Women who participated in our focus groups talked about their discomfort with “dependence.” However good their marriages, many disliked needing to ask for money. Not being able to splurge on some small extravagance or make their own philanthropic choices without clearing it with their husbands did not sit well with them either. It’s also true that a significant proportion of women seeking on-ramps are facing troubling shortfalls in family income: 38 percent cite “household income no longer sufficient for family needs” and 24 percent cite “partner’s income no longer sufficient for family needs.” Given what has happened to the cost of housing (up 55 percent over the past five years), the cost of a college education (up 40 percent over the past decade), and the cost of health insurance (up 87 percent since 2000), it’s easy to see why many professionals find it hard to manage a family budget on just one income.

    But financial pressures do not tell the whole story. Many of these women also found deep pleasure in their chosen careers and want to reconnect with something they love. Forty-three percent cite the “enjoyment and satisfaction” they derive from their careers as an important reason to return—among teachers this figure rises to 54 percent, and among doctors it rises to 70 percent. A further 16 percent want to “regain power and status in their profession.” In our focus groups, women talked eloquently about how work gives shape and structure to their lives, boosts confidence and self-esteem, and confers status and standing in their communities. As one former executive put it, “Cocktail party chitchat is so much easier if you can claim to be a professional, even a lapsed professional. Besides which, my children insist on it. My 15-year-old daughter doesn’t want to be caught dead with a mom who is ‘just’ a housewife.” For many off-rampers, their professional identity remains their primary identity, despite the fact that they are currently taking time out. This makes a great deal of sense given the length of women’s working lives—which currently spans 35 to 40 years. For many off-rampers, time out represents a mere blip on the radar screen.

    Perhaps the most unexpected reason women give for returning to work centers on altruism. Twenty-four percent of women currently looking for on-ramps are motivated by “a desire to give something back to society” and are seeking jobs that allow them to contribute in some way. In focus groups off-ramped women talked about how their time at home had changed their aspirations. Whether they’d gotten involved in protecting the wetlands, supporting the local library, rebuilding a playground, or being a “big sister” to a disadvantaged child, they all felt newly connected to the importance of what one woman called “the work of care.”

Lost on re-entry
    Though the overwhelming majority of off-ramped women have every intention of returning to the workforce, few understand how difficult doing so will be. While 93 percent of the women surveyed want to rejoin the ranks of the employed, only 74 percent manage to do so. And among these, only 40 percent return to full-time, mainstream jobs. Twenty-four percent end up taking part-time jobs, and another 9 percent become self-employed.

    The implications are clear: Off-ramps may be around every curve in the road, but once a woman has taken one, opportunities to re-enter a career are few and far between—and exceedingly difficult to find. Like Judith, whose story was detailed in Chapter 1, a great many talented women find the on-ramping struggle a humiliating experience—baffling, unfair and replete with rejection.

    When Off-Ramps and On-Ramps appeared in the Harvard Business Review in March 2005, it provoked a flood of letters, e-mails and phone calls. The response was remarkably emotional. Many women saw their own life stories reflected in our data. Many were still smarting from having been cast aside in the wake of an off-ramp, and their pain was sharp and raw. Judi Pitsiokos was one of many women who shared her story:

I am a graduate of a top 10 law school who worked in the securities department of an AMLAW firm for six years before taking an off-ramp. After several years at home raising my children, I tried to gear up and re-enter the workforce. Ten years later, I’m still trying to weasel my way back into a decent job.

The best I’ve been able to come up with is working on my own, doing real estate closings, going to landlord-tenant court, and so on. I am bored and angry—with myself and with the law firms who won’t even look at my résumé. When I’ve had heart-to-heart talks with partners at major firms or legal recruiters, they say, “Why would we hire you when we can get a young kid right out of school?” (Since I’ve been out of the mainstream for so long, I am looking for a job at the bottom rung.) Why? I tell them, “Because I’m very smart, very well educated, have a track record, am done with child-care responsibilities and ready to work long hours.” They laugh. Literally.

I wonder what is wrong with a society that cuts smart women adrift when they take time off to raise children. The dollars lost to the economy must be astronomical.

The penalties of time out
   As our data has revealed, women off-ramp for surprisingly short periods of time—on average, 2.2 years. However, even these relatively short career interruptions engender heavy financial penalties. Our data shows that, on average, women lose 18 percent of their earning power when they take an off-ramp. In the banking/finance sector, penalties are especially draconian. In these fields, women’s earning power dips 28 percent when they take time out. As one might expect, the longer the period of time that’s spent out, the more severe the penalty becomes. Women lose a staggering 37 percent of their earning power when they spend three or more years out of the workforce.

    Our findings in this area of financial penalties attached to time out jibe with the scholarly research. Columbia University economist Jane Waldfogel has analyzed the pattern of female earnings over their life span. When women enter the workforce in their early and mid-20s, they earn nearly as much as men. For a few years, they continue to almost keep pace with men in terms of wages. At ages 25 to 29, women earn 87 percent of the male wage. However, when women hit their prime child-raising years (ages 30 to 40), many off-ramp for a short period of time—with disastrous consequences on the financial front. Largely because of these career interruptions, by the time they reach the 40-to-44 age group, women earn a mere 71 percent of the male wage. All of which underscores the importance of producing a continuous, cumulative employment history in the decade of one’s 30s. The words of MIT economist Lester Thurow underscore this reality: “The 30s are the prime years for establishing a successful career. These are the years when hard work has the maximum payoff. Women who leave the job market during those years may find that they never catch up.”

    One final point on the price attached to time out: Penalties are not limited to individuals. Companies also must deal with significant consequences when valued employees off-ramp. The financial costs associated with high rates of turnover are examined in some detail in Chapter 4, but one particularly dramatic finding is worth flagging right here: Only 5 percent of highly qualified women attempting to on-ramp want to go back to the company they once worked for. Indeed, in business, banking and finance, none of the women surveyed (0 percent) want to return to their previous employer. In retrospect, the vast majority of off-ramped women feel that they were not supported in those last months or weeks on the job—that their request for a flexible work arrangement or a more meaty assignment was deflected or turned down. Some were made to feel that “they were letting the side down” when they struggled with their decision to quit. The fact that these bad feelings linger should be a wake-up call for companies. If employers expect to tap into this labor pool of women returning after a time out, they need to understand that the “terms of disengagement” matter.

Downsizing ambition
   It turns out that reduced earning power is not the only penalty attached to taking time out. Women also end up downsizing their ambitions, losing sight of their aspirations, and losing faith in their dreams. One newly on-ramped woman described her changed attitude by saying, “It took me three years to find this much-less-good job, and during that time, I had to accept that I had lost traction in my career. It was a bitter pill. I felt the unfairness of it. I had been out for only 20 months. But it was a fact nonetheless. So I’ve redefined what I can expect for myself.” Another woman, who participated in the same focus group, described her old self—before an off-ramp—as this “soaring, thrusting person.” That person doesn’t exist anymore. In her words, “reality bites.” Off-ramps and on-ramps make the career highway extremely slippery.

    Our survey data shows that highly qualified women are significantly less ambitious than their male peers. Almost half of the men (48 percent) surveyed consider themselves very ambitious, as compared with one-third of women (35 percent). In the business sector the gap is even wider—63 percent of men describe themselves as very ambitious, compared with 45 percent of women. However, our data also shows that at young ages, there isn’t much of a gap between men and women in terms of ambition. But there is a distinct drop-off in female ambition as women head through their 30s. Young, highly qualified women are more likely than older women to see themselves as extremely or very ambitious (39 percent versus 31 percent). In the business sector, for example, 53 percent of younger women describe themselves as being very ambitious, while only 37 percent of older women are comfortable with this label.

    In her book Necessary Dreams, published in 2004, psychiatrist Anna Fels argued convincingly that ambition stands on two legs—mastery and recognition. To hold on to their dreams, women must attain the necessary credentials and experience, but they must also have their achievements and potential recognized in the larger world. The latter is often missing in female careers. Particularly in the wake of an off-ramp, employers and bosses tend to be skeptical about a woman’s worth. A downsizing cycle emerges: A woman’s confidence and ambition stall; she is perceived as less committed; she no longer gets the good jobs or the plum assignments; and this serves to lower her ambition yet further.

    Other research in the field reveals complex ways in which ambition is a gendered issue. A 2003 study by the Families and Work Institute (FWI) found that men aspire to higher positions than women—19 percent of male executives would like to have the top job (CEO or managing partner), compared with 9 percent of women.18 The FWI study also confirmed the fact that women are more likely than men to downsize their ambition as they move through their 30s—4 percent of women become less ambitious, as compared with 21 percent of men.

    Of particular interest is a 2004 study by ISR (International Survey Research), a global HR research and consulting firm, which reveals that men and women are driven by very different factors. When asked what motivates them at work, male executives highlight power and money, while female executives highlight connection and quality. The two top drivers for men are career advancement (20 percent) and financial rewards (10 percent), while the two top drivers for women are relationships at work (14 percent) and delivering a quality product/service to customers/clients (10 percent). In this study, career advancement and financial rewards did not even make it into the top four picks by women. As we will see in Chapter 3, our survey data on extreme jobs tends to confirm the fact that men and women respond to different incentives. For example, 41 percent of young men in high-impact jobs see compensation as a top motivator; this compares with 26 percent of young women.

What do women really want?
   The survey data allows us to develop a complex vision of what women actually want. At the top of the wish list are a series of career goals that speak to the quality of the work experience itself. Talented women very much want to associate with people they respect (82 percent); to “be themselves” at work (79 percent); to collaborate with others and work as part of a team (61 percent); and to “give back” to society through the work that they do, both inside their organization and outside in the larger world (see figure 2-15). They also value recognition from their company or organization (51 percent). In general, women tend to emphasize value sets rather than compensation or benefits. Access to flexible work schedules, the only employment benefit to make it onto the wish list of the majority of the women in the survey, is a priority for 64 percent of the women in the survey. Only 42 percent cite a high salary, and just 15 percent cite a powerful position as an important career goal.

    Women’s priorities thus constitute a sharp departure from the conventional white male model and become yet another powerful reason why success within this model is so elusive for women.

    A final word on altruism: As is evident from figure 2-15, a majority of highly qualified women find giving back to society a powerful motivator.

    Jennifer Moreland, a senior executive at Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Systems, is a case in point. Moreland, who is of Jamaican descent, had been with her company for almost 30 years when a series of devastating hurricanes struck the Caribbean in August 2004. She had long been thinking of a way she could “give back” to her homeland and the timing seemed right for her to join the relief effort: her only child—a daughter—had been “launched,” as she put it; and she was newly able to put family responsibilities on the back burner. But when she went to management to tell them that she wanted to be part of the recovery effort she felt it was a huge risk: She imagined that she might have to leave her job, or, at best, take an unpaid leave of absence. Within Johnson & Johnson, as part of shared responsibility for career development each employee works with management to assess such opportunities. For volunteer opportunities management also considers the risk to the safety of each employee. As it turned out, her timing was perfect: Johnson & Johnson had just created a hurricane fund and Moreland’s boss saw a pivotal role for her. So Moreland spent six months based in Jamaica dispensing grants in the Caribbean region and otherwise driving the relief effort. She described it as “one of the most fulfilling experiences of my life—and one which cemented my loyalty to this company.” Moreland’s biggest surprise was that “far from forcing me out, playing a role in the relief effort actually gave my career new traction at Johnson & Johnson—I will always be grateful.”

    Upon returning, she was invited to make a presentation to senior management at company headquarters, which afforded great visibility for her but also great visibility for her “cause.” It was also good for the company. Moreland had, after all, been able to align her desire to “do good” with her company’s philanthropic interests in the Caribbean. The initiative she helped drive both burnished the company’s image in the region and won new loyalty among local employees and customers. In sum, it was a huge win-win. In February 2006, Moreland received an award from her affinity group at Johnson & Johnson. In her words, “It was in recognition for what I did—and what the corporation did.”

    In focus groups women talked eloquently about the importance of giving back—to various communities. For some, their interest lay in their corporation or in their professional associations. Heading up a women’s network, acting as a mentor to young women, getting involved with “girl” power and nurturing young talent were typical pursuits. For others, their passions lay in the wider community—fundraising for a charter school, volunteering in a meals-on-wheels program for elderly shut-ins, tutoring in the inner city. Focus group participants talked wistfully about how neat it would be if employers were to recognize this philanthropic work.

    Stephanie is a young highflier with a bright future at her consumer products firm. A recently promoted brand manager, she could be contributing even more, however, if she felt comfortable sharing more of who she is with her colleagues. What does Stephanie keep to herself? The fact that she runs an award-winning Girl Scout troop in a local homeless shelter. She has been doing this for years, bringing warmth and strength to girls from destitute families. “These kids are not going to Harvard; they don’t have a place to live; they don’t know how many times they’re going to eat today; and they need to take care of siblings not much younger than they are,” she explains. But she’s teaching these girls real skills that may help them build better futures.

    In the process of organizing the troop Stephanie is serving as an unofficial goodwill ambassador for her firm. But her work with the troop demands that she leave work at 5:30 p.m. a few times a month. This doesn’t bother her, but it does seem to bother her boss, despite the fact that she arrives at 7:00 a.m. on those days. Stephanie is acutely concerned about being thought of as less than fully committed to her job. So she refrains from talking about her Girl Scout program at work—even though the initiative earned her a Future Leaders Today award and a ceremony at the White House.

    In the few instances where bosses are supportive and celebratory of altruistic or philanthropic activity (such as in Moreland’s experience at Johnson & Johnson), the dividend to the company in terms of increased loyalty and engagement is big. Talented women are hugely appreciative of support on this front.

    In terms of the big picture, what is the significance of the data presented thus far? Thirty-five years after the women’s revolution transformed female opportunities women’s work lives remain very different from men’s. Grouping together women who take off-ramps with those who take scenic routes, we find that a majority have nonlinear careers. A great many women just need to step out or step to the side for a period of time. Looking back at their work lives almost 60 percent of the highly qualified women in this survey describe their careers as nonlinear: They had not been able to “follow the arc” of a traditionally successful career in their sector. An off-ramp or a scenic route had knocked them off course.

    Obviously, what all this amounts to is that large numbers of talented women fail to fit the conventional career model. Emulating that male competitive model is simply a huge stretch for a great many women. Some obviously do manage to do it. Among them are women who sacrifice family life—childlessness is a problematic issue for high-level corporate women—and at least some superwomen who somehow or other “do it all.” But women who are successful within the confines of the male career model are a minority, and this book is not about them. It is about the other 60 percent, the ones who struggle with off-ramps and on-ramps and have a difficult time claiming or sustaining ambition.

    For three and a half decades policy wonks and business leaders have waited for women to get with the program. The challenge was thought to be about providing access and opportunity and then allowing enough time to go by so that the pipeline could fill. The reasoning was simple: If you created a truly level playing field so that men and women had equal access to employment opportunities, then, over time, as successive cohorts of well-qualified female professionals filled the pipeline, women would eventually be fairly represented at the top. As we’ve already seen, this is not happening. Over the years, there has been so much leakage from the pipeline that progress has effectively stalled. While the proportion of partners at law firms who are women has climbed slightly over the last five years, the number of women CEOs at Fortune 500 companies has fallen slightly over the same time period. If progress moves along at this lugubrious pace it will be a hundred years before we have significant numbers of women in top jobs.

    My advice—to policy wonks and business leaders alike—is to quit waiting. The pipeline as currently constructed won’t work, because it requires shoehorning women into the male competitive model—and most of them just don’t fit. What we need now is the development of second-generation policies that provide alternative pathways for women with nonlinear work lives. As we will see from the next chapter, this challenge has become particularly urgent with the rise of extreme jobs. The goalposts, it seems, are shifting in ways that threaten women’s progress in heretofore unimagined ways.

.
 

In a long-awaited move, Hewitt Associates has named a new head of its HR outsourcing business.

Jay Rising, who most recently served as president of field operations at RightNow Technologies, will take on his new role as Hewitt’s president of HRO on May 14. Before working at the Bozeman, Montana-based customer relationship management provider, Rising, 50, spent 10 years at ADP. He was unavailable for comment.

Hewitt also announced other senior appointments. The Lincolnshire, Illinois-based company named Robert Thomas, another former ADP executive, to lead client implementations. Steve Fein, a former global managing director of strategy, marketing and product management for Mercer HR’s benefits otusourcing business, has been named sales and product strategy leader, a new position.

Separately, Hewitt named Tracey Keogh, the former global head of HR for Bloomberg, as senior vice president of HR. Keogh replaces Steve King, who is retiring in June.

Observers have been waiting for Hewitt to name a new head of HRO since Bryan Doyle, the former president of HRO business, stepped down in August. Julie Gordon, now president of client and market leadership, had been acting as temporary head of HRO, but experts say that it was time for CEO Russ Fradin, who joined the company in September, to name someone permanently to the position.

“I was just thinking last week that Fradin has had time to learn about the organization and now he needed to do something authoritative,” says Neil McEwen, an analyst at PA Consulting. “It’s good that he is bringing in his own people.”

Fradin also used to work at ADP. The fresh perspective of outsiders may be just what Hewitt needs, McEwen says.

But some analysts were annoyed that Hewitt didn’t make the announcement days before when it was holding meetings at HR Week, which included an HRO event attended by all the providers and analysts.

“Why didn’t they announce going in and give people a chance to meet and talk to the new team?” IDC analyst Lisa Rowan says. “They need to be more open about what’s going on there.”

Hewitt spokeswoman Jennifer Frighetto says the company couldn’t make the announcement earlier because it was bound by disclosure rules.

“Once Jay resigned from his company, they had to go through their formal notification process before we could say anything,” she says.

Hopefully the new appointment will ease the minds of Hewitt employees, as many have been concerned about the future of the HRO business, Yankee Group analyst Jason Corsello says.

Going forward, Hewitt needs to put in place its own talent management and retention strategies to make sure these employees stick around for Hewitt’s comeback in HRO, he says.

“Hewitt isn’t leaving the market,” he says. “HRO is too important a business for it to give up.”

A bill that seeks to give shareholders more influence in setting compensation levels for corporate executives was approved by the House of Representatives on Friday, April 20, but faces cloudy prospects.

The House passed the bill 269-134, with 55 Republicans joining 214 Democrats in support of the legislation. It was opposed by 129 Republicans and five Democrats.

The bill would allow shareholders to cast an annual nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation packages. It also would allow a nonbinding vote on “golden parachute” pay arrangements when a company is in negotiations to be bought or sold.

Although it sailed through the House, there is no similar bill percolating in the Senate. In addition, the Bush administration opposes the measure.

Proponents say the legislation addresses what they call runaway executive pay. In recent months, individual CEO compensation totaling hundreds of millions of dollars has generated controversy about the chasm between executive remuneration and that of middle- and lower-level employees.

It also has raised concern about CEO pay consuming resources that could otherwise be used for business investment.

“This is a bill to further the workings of the capitalist system of the United States,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, during the House floor debate. “All we say is this: The shareholders own the companies, and we believe the shareholders should be allowed to vote.”

The Bush administration argues that executive pay disclosure rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which went into effect this year, should be given a chance to work. It also says corporate boards and their compensation committees have become more independent.

“Recent enhancements in corporate governance and disclosure have strengthened the executive compensation decision-making process of boards of directors,” the administration said in a statement.

Frank praises the SEC disclosure requirements and says that his bill enhances them.

“The SEC has said that it does not have the power to go further and compel corporations to allow the owners to vote,” he said. “Our bill simply does that.”

Both the White House and House Republicans argue that the bill represents a federal intrusion into the compensation process.

“It mandates, it requires, it obligates every publicly held corporation in this country to take a vote on its top executives,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Alabama and ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Several Republican amendments were voted down. They included measures that would exempt the shareholder vote requirement for companies whose boards are elected by majority vote and for companies whose executive pay does not exceed by 10 percent or more the pay at comparable firms or across the industry.

Another amendment would have required the SEC to study whether a shareholder vote would hurt a company in recruiting executives.

Republicans tried to avoid being labeled as defenders of burgeoning executive salaries.

“I’m all in favor of the shareholder vote, if it’s done without the mandate from Washington,” said Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia.

A company in Price’s state, insurer Aflac, has voluntarily instituted shareholder voting on pay.

Frank rejected the idea that the bill would be a burden to corporate America.

“We made an effort to make this bill minimally intrusive,” he said. “The shareholders own the company. They are the market. All this bill does is empower them.”

Democrats also asserted that a shareholder vote on pay would help rein in excesses that infuriate the average employee, whose real wages have generally stagnated or grown slowly.

“The American worker is not getting enough credit for the growth of the American economy,” said Rep. Brad Miller, D-North Carolina.

—Mark Schoeff Jr.