ACC Chief Legal Officer Roundtable

April 13, 2016 Calgary

Developing Women Leaders: the In-House Context

This Report summarizes the discussion at the ACC’s CLO Roundtable session “Developing Women Leaders: the In-House Context” held in Calgary on April 13, 2016. ACC’s CLO Roundtable sessions are designed to provide a forum for CLOs who wish to exert greater leadership in their companies, at the bar, in the courts, and in the halls of government on emerging issues of greatest concern.

Roundtable participants were:

  • Suzanne Hathaway – our Host and Vice President, General Counsel

KEYERA Corp.

  • Annie Belecki – General Counsel

Lightstream Resources Ltd.

  • Robyn Bourgeois – General Counsel

Birchcliff Energy Ltd.

  • Bonita Croft – Vice-President Legal, Gneral Counsel & Corporate Secretary

Trican Well Services Ltd.

  • Trudy Curran – Former Senior Vice-President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

Canadian Oil Sands

  • Tonya Fleming – Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

Painted Pony Petroleum Ltd.

  • Tina Gisbrecht – General Counsel

Alberta Health Services

  • Lisa McDowell – Vice President of Legal and Regulatory

Direct Energy Marketing dba Centrica Energy Canada

  • Janice Odegaard – Senior Vice-President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

Suncor Energy Inc.

  • Michelle Plouffe – Vice President, General Counsel & Compliance Officer

MacEwan University

  • Charmaine Toms – General Counsel

MNP LLP

  • Karen Wiwchar – Vice President Legal

H&R Block Canada Inc

KEY TOPICS

The participants discussed the following key topics:

  • Challenges faced by women
  • Strategies for overcoming challenges and developing women leaders
  • Mentoring and sponsorship
  • How to drive change

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Generally roundtable participants feel that the pace of change related to the issues of gender discrimination and the development of women leaders has been “glacial.” They feel that there has been progress (for example law school enrolment is split 50-50 between men and women) but they also believed that much more would have been accomplished in the last thirty years to advance the cause and status of women generally, in the legal field and in in-house practice. Specifically, they note that after 10 years women tend to drop out of the legal landscape and of those women that remain, only a paltry minority are in leadership positions.

Participants gathered to discuss the topics noted above, to share experiences as women CLOs, to learn from one another and share ideas about what they are doing and could each do in their own organizations to help advance and develop women. The women at the table noted that the oil industry is male dominated and steeped in a biased culture. Given the dominance of this industry in Alberta it makes progress very difficult. In addition, the collapse of oil prices and the resulting affect on the Alberta economy over the past few years is having a detrimental affect on many organizations’ willingness to focus on, and drive forward, anything (other than core strategies) including gender–based initiatives. Participants unanimously agree that solutions to gender-base challenges and advances in developing women leaders will not be found or gained by women acting alone: Men must be part of the solution. Progress is often difficult during economic downturns thus participants agree that they, together with their male colleagues, will have to be deliberate in driving the agenda. It is within this context that thought-leaders participating in this session described a number of ideas and practices. Listed below are some top themes and takeaways.

Challenges faced by women:

Although some of the CLOs participating in the roundtable sit on their respective organizations’ executive team, participants noted that the vast majority of senior management and executive teams are comprised of all males or have only a very few women representatives and that women are in more traditional roles. Participants note that this reality stems from the following issues and challenges:

  1. Male Dominated Culture and Gender Bias: The old-boys-network and male dominated culture is pervasive and raises barriers to the entry of women in senior management roles. As a result, hidden or latent gender biases may affect protocols, processes, requirements and even the definition of leadership itself. One participant recounted how she was raised to believe that she could do and be anything she wanted. It hadn’t occurred to her until she got her first job that a double standard existed: “I got paid half as much and everyone assumed I would get the coffee!” Hidden bias is built into criteria for advancement. Another participant recounted how a young female engineer struggled to get ahead because she was constantly told that she lacked operational or oil field experience and had to be on-call 24 hours per day. When she presented a solution based on job-sharing with another woman, it was rejected.

Many participants noted latent biases at work during management succession planning meetings where no women or very few women candidates were discussed. It is difficult to believe that these organizations do not have any talented women that are eligible to move up the corporate ladder. The various biases evinced related to the following:

  1. Institutional Bias: This type of bias is typically codified into the operating procedures, policies and objectives of organizations. For example, making hiring and advancement decisions based on seniority or full-time versus part-time status may not be a true requirement for the position. Interestingly, there were varying opinions amongst participants about whether part-time status was or was not a legitimate requirement. Ultimately, participants agreed that it is necessary to attempt to un-biasedly and clearly define the bona fide requirements of a position, make decisions based on these requirements and to support team members who desire flexibility in working conditions and hours.
  1. Family Status: As a result of succession planning discussions, many CLOs noted that they are now aware of the number of children any woman candidate may have. Yet, in regard to male candidates, succession planning discussions did not at all involve matters of progeny or other family matters. In essence, the males at these succession planning meetings indicated that women cannot be promoted too quickly because they have small children to raise. This type of bias also extends to the scenario of women and aging parents. Males are not judged in the same manner.
  1. Qualifications: Another refrain made about female talent but not male talent is: “A woman candidate is OK as long as we can find a qualified one.”
  1. Gender Stereotypes: Work culture appears to be informed by a belief in gender stereotypes; that is, that women will drive a deal forward very differently and do not have the stamina to work 72 hours straight, that they cry very easily and lash out due to quick tempers. Women who are assertive are seen as coming off too strong whereas men exposing the same behaviour are seen as leaders. There is a double standard in place. Many males lose their tempers without having negative judgements heaped upon them and visible hours or working hours on-end are not necessary requirements for accomplishment. In fact, studies have shown that people are less productive and creative working under extreme hours and fatigue.
  1. Reproductive Capacity: Whether perceived or real, women are concerned that the potential to become pregnant, or the fact that they are on/can take maternity leave will have a negative affect on ability to be promoted. One participant noted that interview data from her organization about this matter bore out the fact that maternity leave presents a huge dilemma. Although not pertaining to a legal department role, one comment made by an interviewee was along the lines of the following: “If you are a woman and go on mat leave when you come back people struggle to find a role for you. The result is that you lose 5 years of potential progress because you are put in a corner somewhere.” In other situations, where there may be a large female employee population, males raised the following concern: “What if they all get pregnant?”
  1. Both Men and Women have Bias: In regard to bias, participants noted that unintentional biases reside not only with men but also with women. These are latent biases that are imbedded in our culture and society. One participant recounted that in her organization, the leadership team read a book about the “bias blind spot” which is about the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgement of others, while failing to see the impact of biases on one’s own judgement. The leadership team took a bias blind spot test to make them more aware of the fact that they all have inherent bias. The goal was to, in the exercise of their judgement, make them more aware of the need to ask whether it is based on impartiality and merit or their blind spot bias. (It is interesting to note that although some people may be more susceptible to a bias blind spot than others, intelligence, cognitive ability, decision-making ability, self-esteem, self-presentation and general personality traits have been found to be independent characteristics and not related to the bias blind spot.) As a result of the exercise, the leadership team agreed to call each other out when their behaviour demonstrated bias.

2.Inhibition: Some women feel hesitant to raise these gender-based challenges. They feel that the current working environment is not conducive to open dialogue about these issues. Having said this, some participants are now raising issues and asking why companies are not doing more to develop women leaders and place women on the succession planning ladder.

Strategies for Overcoming Challenges and Developing Women Leaders:

Participants noted that although there are many male leaders who are attuned to gender bias when an issue is brought to their attention, they are not proactive or leading initiatives to change the status quo. So how do we, men and women, become intentional about changing unintentionally biased behavior and environment? In search of solutions, some of the actions and strategies discussed by our roundtable participants are listed below:

  1. Change the vocabulary: As a simple start, one participant noted that discussions at succession planning or hiring meetings always used the word “guy.” This participant made the leadership team aware of this default bias and suggested they stop using the reference “guy” when looking for talent. Women leaders can help start a more gender-neutral conversation and mindset by making people aware of unconscious inclinations and using terms that include the female gender. Don’t focus on male versus female but rather on talent and outcomes.
  1. Make it personal: Participants found that if conversations about talent, potential and hiring were framed in terms of their male colleagues’ daughters, it helped these colleagues become more open-minded. These men care deeply about their daughters, believe in their ability and want to see their daughters advance in a more neutral and fair environment. Framing conversations in terms of daughters makes men less gender biased and helps to engage the men.
  1. Engage both men and women in the solution: Participants unanimously believe that both men and women must be part of the gender-gap solution. Thus, any organizational networks that are developed to help close the gap must include, ideally, as many men as women. It is not possible to be successful without engaging everyone.
  1. Find a Male Champion(s) for the cause. It is very helpful for men to hear from other men who are supportive of, and championing the development of, women leaders.
  1. Point out stereotypes: Engage in conversation where you bring attention to gender stereotypes: recognize them, label them and break them down.
  1. Redefine what constitutes a candidate: For example, do all directors need to be former CEOs or CFOs? Break down the built-in bias. Do you really have to be a rough-neck for a year to get a job?
  1. Board diversity requirements: Participants noted that the Ontario Securities Commission implemented a rule in 2015 that TSX-listed companies must address gender diversity on their boards or explain why they have not. Participants hope that this will cause corporations to take note and look to appoint more women to boards. Disclosure circulars are forcing companies to look at the gender diversity issue within companies as a whole. Initiatives such as those undertaken by the Board Diversity Council with the “Diversity 50” list of board-ready women and minorities will help to combat the myth that there is a dearth of qualified women candidates for board positions. Participants noted that numerous studies have linked board diversity with better financial performance, corporate governance and innovation.

Mentoring and Sponsorship:

Participants noted that the oil and gas industry is very insular and steeped in history (things are done “the way they have always been done”) and that it is difficult to garner respect and get ahead if “you haven’t done your time in the oil field and if you don’t have 20 years of connections.” As women are relatively new entries into the industry they do not have this history and experience. Typically, males rely on those they know best and on their personal networks (comprised of other senior male executives or male up-and-coming associates) to fill vacancies rather than investing in a thorough recruiting effort. Given that most women are not as well known, many do not go to lunches with male leaders and many do not have as broad a network as their male counterparts, this is not surprising. Participants believe that mentoring and sponsorship can help break through this old-boy’s network. Further, they believe it is necessary to go beyond mentoring and ensure that sponsorship is in place to help women move up.

Given that the current state of affairs is one of men sponsoring men, one participant noted that in her organization they have made a concerted effort to determine who the high potential women are and to pair them with a male sponsor who will act as the woman’s advocate. The point is “if it is not happening naturally, then you must kick-start it.” In regard to sponsorship programs, participants indicated: 1. A sponsor need not be the “sponsees” manager but they must be in a position to be able to critically judge a “sponsees” skills and ability; 2. For the program to be successful, there must be accountability; that is, actions taken must be tracked and measured; 3. Successful sponsorship should be made a bonus-able goal. “What gets compensated, gets done well.”

In order to help create these mentoring and sponsorship opportunities as well as other initiatives, some participants indicated that their organizations have created either: a women’s network, employees’ network or diversity networks. Some of these networks are not as successful as the participants would have thought and hoped. In some instances, women employees are reluctant to participate for fear of being somehow tainted. It was noted that to achieve some success it is important for these networks to: 1. be supported at the highest levels of the company; 2. be comprised of a broad representation of employees; and 3. hold many activities and events.

Networks are seen as an opportunity to educate people, to talk about experiences, to bring in speakers on issues of interest such as work-life balance, managing stress and financial planning and ultimately as a way to build networks. Networks can be used to help coach others on things such as acceptable self-promotion, building confidence, and skills for building personal networks.

How to Drive Change:

Participants noted that since change is not happening naturally, organizations and leaders must start the process artificially. That is, start with a structure and process such as the sponsorship initiative discussed above, create metrics and track results and keep the process going until it becomes natural regardless of sex.

Policies and formal or informal procedures for handling complaints and establishing quotas to increase women’s participation are meaningful measures but it is necessary to address entrenched cultural norms or attitudes towards women in a systemic way. This may entail a review of hiring practices, job descriptions and job requirements to weed out unintentional bias. Companies can document how assignments are distributed between women and men and base performance evaluations on objective measurements versus gut-driven evaluations. To help advance women leaders, legal departments and preferably companies in general, should: 1. Assess data on gender bias in the organization’s workplace, 2. Create a hypothesis on steps that the company can take to address the bias, and 3. Implement the change, see if it works, reassess, and try again.