1. Future Energy Workforce: The Role of Corporate Boards in Diversity and Performance

    February 13, 2020 by

    Read the Dialogue

    Download the Social Media Toolkit

    Corporate boards provide a governance structure for decisions regarding the future direction and objectives of the corporation on behalf of shareholders. It is the board’s responsibility to ensure that the company is run efficiently to maximize shareholders’ returns. As part of this oversight function, the board approves or sends back for amendment management’s recommendations for strategy and examines complex issues such as audit, compensation, and nomination and governance. Management reports to the board about its progress in meeting objectives.

    Academic research shows that companies with boards with higher levels of diversity create a richer and deeper conversation around the boardroom, facilitating better monitoring of management, improved innovation of ideas, and ultimately superior performance. Carolyn Wiley and Mireia Monllor-Tormos demonstrate that boards in which women comprise 30 percent or more of the membership achieve higher financial performance in the science, technology, mathematics, and finance sectors—including energy—than firms with less or no diversity.[1] Board diversity expands perspectives and reduces groupthink, creating a positive effect on the board’s monitoring functions. This is in contrast with boards where a single female board member may be perceived negatively and treated with distrust or doubt.

    In recent years, institutional investors in energy firms—both passive, exchange-traded fund investors such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street as well as active, fundamental investors such as Fidelity, Capital Research, and T. Rowe Price—have successfully engaged energy companies to add women to their boards of directors to enhance performance. The number of shareholder proposals related to board diversity has been rising in recent years, with a sharp acceleration seen in 2019.

    Some US states have initiated regulatory actions to require more diversity on corporate boards. For example, in September 2018, then California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that requires publicly traded corporations headquartered in the state to include at least one woman on their boards by the end of 2019 and three women on boards greater than six by the end of 2021. At the time the governor signed the bill, a quarter of California’s public boards did not have any women, a situation that was almost completely reversed at the close of 2019. Similar legislation has been proposed in Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. But the record on the use of hard targets as a way of achieving board diversity is still under debate as a means to achieve diversity goals. Researchers Kenneth Ahern and Amy Dittmar found that Norway’s 2006 hard target of a 40 percent requirement of women on corporate boards of directors led in some cases to younger and less experienced boards, with negative effects on performance.[2] This is in contrast to the same diversity being achieved through voluntary measures within the Fortune 1,000, where enhanced governance and performance were achieved through improved diversity.[3]

    WORKSHOP SUMMARY

    The Women in Energy program at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy recently convened a workshop to discuss the role of the board of directors and how a diverse composition affects board deliberations and effectiveness. The workshop addressed the main issues that energy companies are facing at the moment, discussed and highlighted the benefits of having diversity at the top—in both the C-suite and at the board level—and offered solutions and recommendations on how that diversity can be achieved.

    Participants included shareholder and corporate advisory experts; academic, finance, and management scholars; business consultants; independent board members of energy companies; leaders from executive search firms; and energy corporate C-suite leadership.

    The workshop began with reporting on the current status of diversity on corporate boards in the energy sector, which still lags broader industry in the United States on diverse workforce and leadership. In the first eight months of 2019, the percentage of board seats held in the Russell 3,000 index of companies stood at 20.2 percent overall, whereas women represented 14.9 percent of board seats in the energy sector. Ethnic diversity was lower in both categories: 10.5 percent of seats in the Russell 3,000 could be characterized as ethnically diverse, with only 6.2 percent of seats on energy sector boards. Utilities have fared better at 27 percent of seats held by women and 14 percent of directorships held by ethnic minorities.

    The workshop then covered a variety of topics, including promoting inclusive board culture; fostering talent pipelines; the role of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues in promoting access to capital; and current business challenges to energy leaders. This workshop report reflects the highlights of the discussion, which was held under Chatham House Rule. In some instances, the authors have supplemented the highlights with citations to works that provide deeper insights into certain issues.

    Board Culture

    Workshop presenters and participants emphasized the importance of corporate culture in fostering the success that can come from diverse boards, leadership, and workforce.

    Corporate culture comes from the top. It is typically set by the CEO, who needs to make sure not only that there is agreement among board members but that all voices have been heard and all concerns have been debated. One important aspect of creating diversity on boards is to have everyone contribute toward the achievement of this goal. One cannot expect the new diverse person on the board to produce the “diversity” improvement by themselves, but rather through everyone’s interactions.

    Do energy boards foster a culture for exchange of ideas and where assumptions can truly be discussed and challenged? This is a very important question, and the energy sector is making progress, albeit from what many investment analysts suggest has traditionally been a relatively low baseline. It was noted that European companies are required by law to have separate chairperson and CEO roles, and this may encourage new approaches to changing energy businesses than their North American counterparts. However, the separation of the chairperson and CEO title alone does not necessarily ensure a better culture for the exchange of ideas.

    Research has shown that firms with employees with high satisfaction outperform others on quality, profitability, productivity, and shareholder returns.[4] To develop this kind of positive culture typically involves a visible alignment between a company’s purpose and core values and its daily culture, which should be linked to reward systems for employee conduct. Not only should the company’s code of conduct be clearly articulated, but accountability must extend from the CEO and top management to the board and all employees. Robust corporate culture requires effective communications processes across the organization as well as externally and exhibit a resilience to changing business realities and competitive pressures.

    Small group experiments show executives tend to work harder to hear and listen to comments if they are in a diverse environment. Diversity allows for each participant to think more inclusively about each team member’s input. In a homogenous group, there is more personal concern about not rocking the boat by raising a different point of view. Work done by Columbia University professor Katherine Phillips shows that diverse teams actually make better decisions and create better outcomes with the issues they have to solve.[5]

    Board evaluation processes can be used to review board working culture to ensure that boards are getting the benefits of diversity. Boards set an example for the company, and as part of their monitoring responsibility, they should be attuned to making sure that what the company says on diversity aligns with what employees are observing and experiencing. To facilitate, boards can offer a written policy on their role related to the culture of the corporation. The National Association of Corporate Directors published a report on corporate culture as an asset in 2017 and noted that directors should review board culture on a regular basis and use board composition and succession planning as an opportunity for continuous improvement. They also recommended the following:[6]

    Board Candidate Talent Pipeline

    Workshop participants discussed the important challenge of how to build a pipeline of qualified, diverse board candidates. One has to consider whether there is a problem with current selection criteria. How does one view “value” criteria, and are they “male”? Do search firms look for women who resemble men in their work style and behavior? Academic literature argues that such an approach would not create the right diverse dynamics around the boardroom table that would produce the optimum level of the benefits to diversity. The industry also faces the problem of the same women serving on multiple boards instead of having stretch candidates from other backgrounds. Most proxy advisory services have taken note, and advisers such as Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis are now recommending voting against board members that sit on more than three public boards.

    One reasonable path for creating a stronger pipeline of diverse candidates is for companies to promote visibility of their senior women, which would position these women to serve on boards, create powerful professional networks, and forge strong alliances. As a general observation, women are typically underused in firm brand and reputation building. There is a large potential to tap women leaders to attract interest from business media, television, and conference organizers. For example, Bloomberg recently mandated that its employees cannot participate in any panel that does not have at least one woman speaker. Increasing the visibility of women leaders in firms also has the benefit of attracting diverse talent to the firm’s overall job pool and helps promote retention of mid-level diversity.

    Another aspect that was discussed in depth was the executive search process, both for the C-suite and for the board. The conclusion was that executive search firms do not have a great track record of creating transformational change inside their client companies, diversity and inclusion considerations included, and that ultimately, the relentless drive toward increasing diversity has to come from companies themselves. It was suggested in the discussion that companies should require that search firms provide a larger, more diverse slate of candidates that broadens choices and gives flexibility in recruiting talent that goes beyond the usual metrics of experience as a former CEO or chief financial officer. Companies can also consider their board tenure policy as a means to freshen a board to enhance diversity. Search firm professionals also say they can play a key role in coaching and mentoring prospective talent, especially where start-up firms are concerned. Mentoring can include training on how to create value once on a board.

    What makes a good board member? By definition, board members have two main duties to the company whose board they serve on: duty of loyalty and duty of care. First and foremost, board members should act with full loyalty and utmost care, and they are bound to the highest standard, known as fiduciary duty. There is significant experience and training that board members should have as related to these responsibilities. With those duties in mind, board members are in charge of designing the company’s mission and vision. In conjunction with that, a good board member should discuss every aspect of the company’s strategic plan and path to execute on that plan. Critical consideration should be given to aspects of diversity, inclusion, employee engagement, and long-term sustainability of the business. Another important aspect, especially in the case of the independent directors of public companies, is the close understanding of public shareholders’ views of the state of the company and its challenges, strengths, and areas of weakness. Business leaders said they look for big thinkers on strategy and a strong financial background.

    Board of Director Concerns: Critical Issues in the Energy Sector

    1. Access to capital in light of increasingly important ESG considerations

    Industries are not guaranteed access to capital. In fact, industry can have increased problems attracting top capital and moving forward to stay relevant. This is particularly relevant to many aspects of the energy industry. For example, coal mining–related companies have been removed from many investors’ portfolios. As a result, the cost of capital of funding new projects has become prohibitively expensive, to the point that the coal industry is on a path of secular decline in the US and Europe. Recently, parts of the oil and gas sector are facing similar pressures. Some of the largest and most reputable institutional investors, such as sovereign wealth funds, public pensions, endowments, foundations, and other large money managers, have started relying heavily on ESG considerations, and some have gone as far as completely divesting out of traditional oil and gas companies and projects in their portfolios.

    The response of energy companies has been to adopt better ESG practices in their businesses and to respond to shareholder concerns about their more transparent disclosure of ESG policies and practices.

    Many of the oil and gas supermajors, especially the European ones, have now set clear goals to decarbonize their products, partially or fully, in alignment with the targets of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Workshop participants noted that this will require added diversity of thought into the workforce, into management teams, and ultimately into the boards of the energy companies. A diverse board can position a company to be significantly better equipped to monitor and challenge the status quo and find innovative and profitable paths for the companies to achieve their decarbonization goals. From a governance standpoint, board diversity also has significant positive benefits—for example, helping management avoid groupthink and reducing other biases that have been proven to lead to poorer decision-making.

    Access to capital is also promoted when companies focus of improving their diversity metrics because shareholders and potential investors will increasingly consider this metric as a sign of a well-run company. As mentioned above, diversity ultimately creates better outcomes and yields better results for shareholders.

    1. Digitization of the energy sector

    The business community has reached a critical moment where industry will have to make a switch, pivoting toward digitization and automation, in all sectors. This tipping point is creating a significant change in all aspects of business. There is a thesis that this will create a huge bifurcation in the future and fortunes of energy companies: those who are willing, able, and successful in adapting to a new digitized reality, and those who will exhibit inertia and be slow to change. The former will survive, and the latter will likely underperform and potentially cease to be sufficiently competitive to survive, participants said.

    Companies’ ability to pivot successfully will be highly dependent on the ability to attract the right workforce, to retrain existing workforce, and to embrace change. Workshop participants noted that this has become a significant challenge for energy companies and believe their ability to attract a diverse and inclusive workforce is now paramount.

    To recruit the kinds of new talent that will be needed, experts at the workshop suggested that companies’ mission statements will need to resonate with the new generations, particularly younger millennials and Generation Z, who will most likely be the main agents of change in these companies’ digital transformation. Business leaders presenting at the workshop provided a rich source of examples, precedents, and policies that are important in attracting the new generation of the workforce and bringing purpose, diversity, and inclusion to the work population. Emphasis on industry’s culture of technology innovation, large data sets, and extreme engineering is a key tool for successful recruiting, senior leaders pointed out. But oil and gas executives and chairs of the boards noted that it is often difficult to articulate the reality that oil and gas demand is not going away overnight, and the industry can provide good jobs and sustainable products well into the future. One cultural barrier to younger workers is an orientation to want to participate in less hierarchical management teams that promote innovation and less stratification. Traditionally, the oil sector has been a top-down management structure.

    The energy sector (particularly the conventional side of the sector) is facing a particularly difficult challenge attracting this workforce, given the strong fundamentals and growth expectations of the technology sector. Smart and focused policies have to be implemented to win the war on digital talent. The silver lining is that the green, sustainable, renewable segments of the energy industry (such as wind, solar, and storage) are seeing good interest from the new generation of workers. As the baby boomer generation retires from the sector, companies are now focusing heavily on recruiting millennial workers, who often have different job expectations and experiences than senior managers. Companies will have to actively articulate the data analysis and technology-heavy elements to the industry and offer more flexible work environments to compete with technology companies for new STEM graduates, consulting firms suggested at the workshop. Company leaders at the workshop said that as they work toward these new elements to recruiting and retention practices, they are having more success competing for talent.

    Conclusion

    The last part of the workshop focused on perspectives from energy board members and CEOs. Leaders said they continue to find that the pool of diverse candidates, both in senior management and director positions, is very limited, suggesting more change is still needed. Speakers in this last session shared their best practices, lessons learned, and key takeaways from the diversity journeys they each have embarked upon. One company mentioned how women’s attrition from the industry to go into the financial world, especially as it relates to Wall Street or private equity, is significantly lower than their male peers, pointing out a key advantage of senior women leaders. Business leaders added that they need to act fast after identifying a top candidate for board service to ensure the individual accepts the position instead of joining a competing board. Scholars also suggested that research indicates that women will show more loyalty for their employers if they are treated equally and are given the right opportunities to rise through the ranks.

    References


    [1] Carolyn Wiley and Mireia Monllor-Tormos, “Board Gender Diversity in the STEM&F Sectors: The Critical Mass Required to Drive Firm Performance,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 25, no. 3 (2018): 290–308.

    [2] Kenneth R. Ahern and Amy K. Dittmar, “The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127, no. 1 (February 2012): 137–197.

    [3] Vicki W. Kramer, Alison M. Konrad, and Sumru Erkut, “Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance,” Directors Monthly 31, (2006): 19–22.

    [4] Alex Edmans, “28 Years of Stock Market Data Shows a Link Between Employee Satisfaction and Long-Term Value,” Harvard Business Review (March 2016).

    [5] Katherine Phillips, “How Diversity Works,” Scientific American 311, no. 4 (October 2014): 42–47.

    [6] National Association of Corporate Directors, NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Culture as a Corporate Asset, 2017.

  2. Future Workforce In the Energy Sector: How Diversity Makes us More Hardworking and More Creative

    February 18, 2019 by

    Read the Report

    The Nature of the Energy Industry Future Workforce Challenge

    Building diverse, inclusive work environments has become a priority for businesses across the globe—bringing benefits that include higher productivity and improved performance, as well as increased creativity and broader perspectives that lead to better decision-making. While the energy industry has made progress toward diversification, more work is needed. Toward the goal of promoting diversity in the sector, the Women in Energy program of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) and Pioneer Natural Resources convened a workshop, Future Workforce in the Energy Sector, on November 8, 2018. The meeting convened executives of energy companies and thought leaders from industry and academia.

    Participants agreed that the energy sector, under its current hiring and retention practices, was unable to capitalize on the full benefits of a diverse, future-focused workforce. The event devoted significant time to discussions of recruitment and retention of groups underrepresented in the industry (such as women, minorities, and millennials), while tapping expertise from energy companies and other industries that have been the most successful in recruiting and retaining talent.

    The following document provides a brief background on women and millennials in the energy industry before summarizing the discussion and findings from the CGEP workshop. As the event was held under the Chatham House Rule, participants will not be identified.

    Background

    Women represent between 22 percent and 34 percent of the workforce in the energy industry, with percentages at the highest ranks even smaller.[1] In the oil and gas sector, representation tends to be lower. In the clean energy sector, however, it is generally higher, with women making up 32 percent of the wind and solar workforce. All sectors say they are having trouble recruiting women and minorities with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics backgrounds, despite a rising number of diverse graduates.

    Almost a quarter of the US employees of the natural gas and electric utilities industry will be approaching retirement within five years, necessitating a huge influx of new personnel to the sector in the next few years.[2] To enhance recruitment and retention, companies have gotten more creative. In the utility sector, firms have tried partnering with industry and labor unions to establish apprenticeship programs—targeting students in underserved communities and creating educational programs that reach out to students in middle schools. The recruitment processes of private companies have also been tailored to ensure diversity is built into the pipeline of candidates being interviewed on college campuses.

    There are many benefits to diversifying a workforce. It is harder to come to a consensus in small work groups that are not homogenous, but they are more apt to reach correct answers. This notion was the conclusion of a decade of research on small work teams by Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business professor Katherine W. Phillips.[3] Phillips’s research shows homogenous groups can come to a consensus faster and they feel more confident in their conclusions than diverse teams (although they are not necessarily reaching the correct conclusions). In fact, they have a higher chance of getting the wrong answer than diverse groups, which take longer to deliberate and feel “less confident” of their outcomes. Phillips noted, “Diversity gains do not only result from bringing different perspectives to the table.” Simply adding social diversity to a group forces people to think differences of opinion might exist among themselves, and that belief prompts changes in behavior and pushes people to work harder to come to a consensus and be more open-minded to new ideas; this leads to better outcomes. Other important factors for garnering the benefits of diversity include shared goals, team building (with minimized status differences), and shared impact; these are features common to the tech sector.

    Phillips’s research is confirmed by other studies and extends to findings related to the benefits of having diversity in the C-suite and boardroom. A large statistical study published in the Academy of Management Journal in 2017 found that companies with women in these senior ranks contribute to the long-run performance by lessening the chances of risky strategies being adopted.[4] 

    Workshop Summary

    Creating a More Diverse Workplace

    Harvard Business Review surveys of strategic approaches to diversity indicate that command and control programs—such as grievance systems, performance evaluations, and hiring test assessments—are not succeeding. In some cases, these programs are even creating unintended backlashes from members of groups that tend to be advantaged in the society, who fear discrimination and unfair treatment within organizations with prodiversity messages.[5] Instead, executives of energy companies that attended the CGEP workshop suggested—in line with academic findings—that other formal programs (such as resource groups, task forces, childcare subsidy, or on-site programs) and returnship programs for employees who choose to stop working for a period of time (e.g., to take care of a sick relative or after the birth or adoption of a child) have proven more effective in retaining and fostering a sustainably diverse workforce.

    Participants of the workshop noted, “There are also programs and internal systems that can be set up to promote contact between groups, which leads to acceptance of a more diverse workplace.” These programs include cross-skilling (training workers in multiple skills set to work on different projects within an organization), self-managed teams (small groups of employees who, together, plan and execute day-to-day activities or projects with minimal supervision), and third-party coaching and mentoring programs. There are other important measures corporate leadership can take: senior management can assemble task forces, and CEOs can promote social accountability. Such actions have been shown to be statistically more effective than other steps, such as mandatory diversity training.[6] In the energy industry, success has been recorded when CEOs invite department heads and members of unrepresented groups to discuss approaches for improving recruitment, promotion, and overall diversity performance across the company.

    Millennial Workers

    The matter of recruiting and retaining young workers has become an increasing challenge for the energy industry. In an internal study on the subject, one workshop participant found that a cultural shift was needed to improve its workforce turnover rate for millennial workers. “Workplace flexibility, transparency, and an orientation that incorporates well-being are principal practices that are attractive to younger generation workers,” the participant noted. Because millennials are more engaged with digital working methods, the company created specific innovation challenges to give younger workers an opportunity for higher performances and greater productivity. Their study suggests younger generations are expecting more from their relationship with their organization than past generations and they seek a workplace that is authentic and inclusive.

    One program that is garnering more interest among corporations is “reverse mentoring,” where knowledge sharing flows in both directions. Younger employees share technology, organizational issues, career planning, and other capabilities and preferences. In return, they gain generational perspectives on industry subject matter and become aware of past experiences. Reverse mentoring is an innovative and cost-effective means to cross-train employees for shared support and mutual training in the digital age. Reverse mentoring can also promote diversity by demonstrating the knowledge and skills of younger workers, thereby mitigating perceptual biases of older leaders and increasing the promotability of individuals of diverse backgrounds.

    Companies observed younger workers prefer more regular evaluation and feedback processes than traditional annual reviews. The younger workers also resist “need-to-know” processes and the lack of transparent communication that restricts information to a small pool of decision makers. Companies that pool large numbers of younger workers are thus moving toward greater transparency and inclusion in information and decision-making processes. In particular, pay transparency and equality have become increasingly important as has incorporating trade-offs between overworking and compensation. Millennials do not value money less than other generations. They are, however, cognizant of the value of different elements to the work environment, such as remote working and volunteering and their relationships to compensation levels. Participants said they preferred settings with team cohesion, value international assignments, and access to stretch goals (additional and more challenging goals to be obtained if a project’s objectives are met).

    Energy companies are discovering that with the digitalization of the energy sector, they are competing with companies like Google and Facebook for potential employees. Attendees noted that to attract young workers, who value oil and gas companies’ commitments to social responsibility and sustainability, companies need to promote the positive impact of their work.

    Barriers Specific to Energy

    According to workshop participants, the energy industry has experienced several downturns in recent years, and the cyclicality has had a disproportionate impact on women. During downturns, many companies scale back on diversity programs. Downsizing can affect the female workforce due to the lack of adequate structures and sponsorship from middle management. Some women executives from energy companies said they also found that biases impacted women in periods of downsizing due to the perception that women “have a choice” about whether to stay in the workforce or not. “Whether this ever was or currently is a real choice for some women,” as one executive noted, “from a cultural perspective, the perceived ‘choice’ to work has not always existed for many women.” Separately, it was also noted that in affinity networks inside companies, a vertical, with a higher percentage of women, led by a rising female executive can be adversely affected if the woman does not succeed to the C-suite.

    Workshop participants stressed that energy-related technical job postings, especially for higher-level positions, do not often generate a single applicant that would qualify as diverse. One executive noted that most senior women in her organization were in finance or human resources departments, but the way the organization worked, candidates for promotion needed to be in a technical or engineering field to get promoted. This discrepancy in the pipeline for promotions becomes more apparent at the senior level—as there is a larger gender gap at the senior level compared to the entry level, where women comprise close to 50 percent of the employees at that level in her company. Participants said companies needed to have institutionalized programs to overcome the limitations of the internal and external candidate pipeline—including leadership development, cross-training of high-potential workers, and screening processes that eliminate unconscious bias (one company noted it used résumé screening software). To promote diversity and garner its benefits, workshop participants stressed that companies needed to have formal systems and processes that minimize bias and engage employees to embrace diversity. These systems need to be transparent, be consistent, and offer clear measures for accountability. As one executive noted, “What gets measured, gets done.” The executive also said more needed to be done to force the upper management at certain oil and gas firms to push for greater accountability in hiring practices.

    Visibility of women in management is also enabling, not only within the companies but also in public industry events. One start-up firm led by women suggested that the visibility of diverse senior management gave them an advantage in recruiting young women. Another firm said funding and supporting women’s organizations and networks gave them greater visibility on available talent. Shareholder investor groups are also pushing management to improve practices on diversity and inclusion, especially on the board and executive levels. More diverse board members notice when management presentations are homogenous, and this also forces change.

    Conclusion

    The energy industry needs to adopt diversity and inclusion initiatives that are tracked and measured to ensure it is recruiting the best talent available as it replaces the aging workforce. The energy challenges of tomorrow require a diversity of perspectives to tackle global and local issues. Diverse workforces also promote the kind of creative solutions needed to solve 21st-century energy challenges. Baby boomers and Generation Xs alike are already benefiting from more flexibility, pay equity, and greater transparency—steps companies have taken to meet the needs of today’s younger generation of workers.

    Throughout the workshop, participants stressed the need for female role models and increased visibility of women in the energy sector, both inside companies and externally in more public settings where the energy industry is present. This visibility is important for the recruitment of more women and people of color into the industry. Workshop participants agreed with studies showing that as companies are seen promoting women and people of color into senior roles, retention of a more diverse workforce of high-potential employees improves. Company boards and investor stakeholders can play a role in helping the energy sector become more inclusive. CGEP’s Women in Energy program will also look to convene future workshops on these topics.

     


    [1] Department of Energy, U.S. Energy and Employment Report (2017).

    [2] Department of Energy, “Electricity Workforce of the 21st-Century: Changing Needs and New Opportunities,” in Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), Second Installment: Transforming the Nation’s Electricity System (2017), 5–11.

    [3] Katherine Phillips, “How Diversity Works,” Scientific American 311, no. 4 (October 2014): 42–47.

    [4] Seung-Hwan Jeong and David A. Harrison, “Glass Breaking, Strategy Making, and Value Creating: Meta-Analytic Outcomes of Women as CEOs and TMT Members,” Academy of Management Journal 60, no. 4. (2017): 1219–52.

    [5] Tessa L. Dover, Brenda Major, and Cheryl R. Kaiser, “Members of High-Status Groups Are Threatened by Pro-diversity Organizational Messages,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 62 (January 2016): 58–67.

    [6] Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” Harvard Business Review (July–August 2016).