The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law by President Obama on Jan. 29 and according to the organization AAUW, a charitable membership organization dedicated to advancing equity for women and girls through advocacy, education, philanthropy and research, it restores the long-standing interpretation of civil rights laws and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission policies that allow employees to challenge any discriminatory paycheck they receive. This of course, is a step in the right direction, but recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the pay gap between men and women has actually widened for full-time, year-round workers. It seems completely ludicrous that women are still making less money than men for performing the same amount of work, but what’s even worse is that Congress has failed to pass any legislation that would give women equal pay protections.

This is where the Paycheck Fairness Act comes into play. The bill, which was the topic of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions’ hearing yesterday, March 11, provides a much-needed update of the Equal Pay Act, which is completely outdated and nearly 47-years-old. According to AAUW, this comprehensive legislation would create stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, empower women to negotiate for equal pay, and strengthen federal outreach, education, and enforcement efforts. The bill would also deter wage discrimination by strengthening penalties for equal pay violations and by prohibiting retaliation against workers who ask about employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages. Many believe that after the enactment of Ledbetter Act last year, the Paycheck Fairness Act is the next logical step forward in the fight for pay equity, but whether or not it will pass remains unknown. According to AAUW’s Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, Lisa Maatz; however, the Act has a better chance now than ever before.

“The fact that they’re having a hearing for it is a very good sign,” Maatz said. “Also, it passed the house with a larger bipartisan majority than the Ledbetter act and with 36 co-sponsors, more than it’s ever had before and it’s an impressive number for a civil rights bill. There are a number of senators who are leading the charge on this and are determined to get it to the President’s desk, so things are looking promising.”

In order to better understand the scale and scope of this incredibly important, groundbreaking bill, The Glass Hammer spoke to Maatz as well as labor and employment law attorney, Counsel Dena Calo of Genova, Burns & Vernoia, based in Newark, New Jersey. Here’s what they had to say:

The Glass Hammer: How would the passing of the Paycheck Fairness Act change the workplace for women?
Dena Calo: The Paycheck Fairness Act would breathe life into the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The EPA has been in existence since 1963, but is rarely used by women to dispute their unequal pay in the workplace. In my opinion, the reason for this is that there are so many defenses for employers that the likelihood of success of a case brought under the EPA is rare. Under the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA), unequal pay claims are strengthened in so many ways including: allowing women the right to recover compensatory and punitive damages, facilitating class actions against employers who pay unequally on a class-wide basis, and prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who share wage information thus allowing them to learn whether or not pay disparities exist. The Act would also require employers using the ‘factor other than sex’ defense to use a ‘bona fide factor other than sex’ defense, including factors such as as training, education, or experience to establish that the pay disparity is not based on gender. The employer would also have to demonstrate that this bona fide factor is not sex-based, but job-related to the position in question and consistent with business necessity. This tightening up of the employer defense will make it much more difficult for an employer to defend pay disparities against women that were being easily explained away in the past.
Lisa Maatz: If the Ledbetter Bill kept the court doors open, this act – if implemented properly – will make it so there’s no need to go to court in the first place. It’s about incentives and deterrents to pay fairly and avoid civil rights violations.

T.G.H.: Why do you think being paid fairly is still an issue for women today in 2010?
D.C.: I think there are three issues. Women are still suffering the effects of a long history of pay discrimination and have not been raised to meet the salaries of men doing the same work. Two, women generally still aren’t at the top of many organizations and therefore aren’t making the hiring and compensation decisions. Women are still dealing with misconceptions in the workplace regarding their need to split time between work and family when in reality, their dedication to their jobs should never be questioned. So, women are not earning the same as men because their ‘time worked’ or ‘focus on the job’ is questioned when they are working mothers. Lastly, Women are not permitted to discuss pay issues and therefore, have no knowledge regarding the pay of their male counterparts. The PFA would permit such discussions, require pay reporting to the EEOC, and would protect women who had such discussions from retaliation by their employers.
L.M.: Discrimination is part of the problem, but it isn’t the only one. There’s such a pay gap because of job segregation and ‘male jobs’ are valued more and paid more. Many people place the blame on women because they ‘chose’ their jobs, but women often don’t have a choice; they’re guided along all of their life by parents, guidance counselors, and society to certain professions. The current laws that apply to pay discrimination actually make it cheaper for employers to discriminate against women than follow the law. The penalties are so minimal that it becomes part of the cost of business. I don’t want to place too much of an emphasis on women developing better negotiation skills because they should be offered equal pay despite their gender in the first place. Just to illustrate how unfair it is: Men get paid more for being parents, while statistics show that women actually get paid less for being parents. Not only are current laws outdated, but they’re not representative of the workforce. We are half the workforce; we are a critical mass; we are the engine of the economy, yet we still aren’t getting paid fairly.

T.G.H.: Currently, is there anything women can do if they’re not being paid equally?
D.C.: Women have the Equal Pay Act to sue under, but unfortunately the remedies under the EPA are not significant and are easy to defend against for employers based on the number of affirmative defenses. It’s also very difficult for women to obtain information on the salary of male counterparts to determine if there is a wage disparity to begin with and therefore, women are very reluctant to bring claims in the first place.
L.M.: Women can try approaching their supervisors to find out if there is a pay gap, but oftentimes women have jobs where those kinds of things can’t be asked or discussed. The best piece of advice I can offer women is know your rights. If you have to, file a claim, but if this new bill passes women won’t have to file these claims anymore because let’s face it, it’s not an easy thing to do. Also, women should utilize the internet and find out how much those in their profession and in their area are making. Don’t be afraid to ask questions. AAUW want women to feel empowered enough to take these issues on and make claims, but we also want to make sure that the laws are working for them and that’s why the Paycheck Fairness Act is so critical. It’s like a deal we’re making with women: We’ll get the government and civil rights up to snuff, but you need to be aware of the laws and of your rights. We’re fighting to make sure that there’s more than just a penance to pay.

As mentioned previously, the hearing for the Paycheck Fairness Act took place yesterday and AAUW is urging women to contact their senators and request that they support the Act. Also – because women earn less than men and must work longer to receive the same amount of pay – AAUW is recognizing this inequity with Equal Pay Day on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 and providing women with a pay equity resource kit. Simply put: It’s long overdue that women, who represent half of the workforce, get paid equally and fairly and it’s time to make it happen and take advantage of the resources we do have.

Yesterday, theglasshammer.com hosted its second Women on the Buy-Side networking breakfast and panel discussion. Nicki Gilmour, founder and CEO of theglasshammer.com, began the event by explaining that the purpose of the gathering was to draw together top women in the investment management industry to discuss the topic of risk and its implications on performance for 2010.

Gilmour later explained that by getting top women together, we can continue to create a critical mass of female leaders in the industry and “change the perception of what a leader looks like.” For the women themselves, this was an event where “they are not the only woman in the room.”

Holly H. Miller, founding partner of Stone House Consulting, LLC, moderated the panel on the “massively broad topic called transparency,” today’s new “buzz word.” Panelists included Michelle McCarthy, Chief Risk Officer at Russell Investments, Virginia Volpe, CFA, Director of Hedge Funds, Global Transaction Services at Citi, Diane Garnick, Investment Strategist at Invesco, and Mara Topping, Partner, Investment Funds Group, D.C. Office of White & Case.

Transparency’s Varying Definitions and Interested Parties

McCarthy began the discussion by explaining two different uses of transparency, (1) a means to avoid surprise, and (2) data for measurement systems: “two different moments that need different responses.” “The buzz word itself covers vast terrain,” she explained.

Volpe agreed that transparency has different meanings for different parties. From a regulatory perspective, she said, it has to do with fraud, investor level setting, protection, etc. From the investor side, it becomes a different kind of demand. How much transparency investors are asking for depends on a number of things, Volpe explained: the type of investor (institution, sovereign, or person), their size, how much money they’re dealing with, their location, and how 2009 affected them – as an opportunity or a hardship.

Going further, she explained, “many companies are looking at what comes down the pipe [regarding transparency] …as both a knee jerk reaction and as opportunity.”

Topping talked about “how you deal with levels of differential transparency.” Different parties are subject to different levels of transparency – which can result in a conflict of interest. Topping discussed, for example, “the issue regarding side letters,” in which there is “a sensitivity to differential access to information.” She explained however, that concerns regarding this issue are “more heightened in hedge funds than private equity.”

She continued, there is “debate about how much information you need to disclose with regard to how much you’re offering on those side letters.”

Volpe also commented on the growing demand for separate accounts in alternative investments. For example, if you look at the SMA space, she explained, the parties involved include funds of funds, single managers new to the field, new platform creators, and single managers already working within the space. How your asset management firm adequately addresses changes from a legal, risk, portfolio management, and operations perspective will be critical to your success.

Considering Regulatory and Client-based Changes

Garnick, speaking from an investor viewpoint, said “I don’t think there’s a single person in this room who thinks [that with more stringent regulations regarding transparency], we could have avoided systematic risk in the industry.” But given that the investment management industry is perceived as one made up of very smart and capable people, she continued, “people are asking ‘why are regulatory changes taking so long?’”

The answer: “logistical issues” and “second order effects.”

For example, Garnick explained, a first order effect of greater transparency at General Motors’ pension fund was that greater liability appeared on its balance sheet – leading its stock price to go down. The second order effect was the movement from pension plans at GM to 401K plans. “The entire retirement financial burden shifts from investors to factory workers,” she explained – for good or bad.

McCarthy talked about how many managers are looking in the wrong place to find out the amount of risk they are exposed to. She said, “the balance sheet tells you where the money has gone. The P&L tells you how much money you made.” She continued, “the balance sheet is the wrong tool for the game…” Managers need to know “what are you exposed to?” and “how much can you make from it?”

Furthermore, she said, “what’s missing now is aggregatability,” ensuring that managers are speaking the same language across the industry.

Citing legislation passed by the House of Representatives in December, as well as legislation currently in the Senate, Topping explained that she believed regulatory transparency is coming to managers in the US in the next year and a half. But she said, regardless of regulatory changes, “I’m getting a lot of clients in the process of registering” already. “There is cache to being a registered advisor now,” she explained.

“We are monitoring for the sort of best practices even unregistered advisors are going to be implementing, because clients are going to demand it.”

Valuation – Measurement and Collateral

Moving to a discussion about valuation, Garnick talked about setting global standards for collateral pools, asking “what kind of collateral are we going to accept across the board?”

McCarthy said, “It [is] not a miracle to uniformly collateralize. You [can], if you [have] good measurement systems. It [is] not unknowable.” For example, “over the counter derivatives are not uniformly bad, but not collateralizing them can be bad.”

Regarding valuation, she continued, “what [is] really required is to move away from a star manager being the only one who knows what something is worth.” Support groups need to be able to independently arrive at valuations, she explained.

Garnick closed the discussion by commenting on succession. Many people working in private equity today are the founders of the market, she said, and moving closer to retirement. According to research, salaries are generally higher during times when regulatory hurdles are low. When regulatory hurdles are higher, there is generally a fall in compensation levels. This may result in a succession issue, as private equity becomes more popular with investors in the coming years as well.

For a more detailed account of the event, stay tuned for video of the panel discussion to be posted on Monday.

Norway is considered one of the most progressive countries with regards to increasing the number of women on boards – thanks to it being an early adopter of legislation to force companies to recruit women to the boardroom. It sounded like a great idea to improve diversity and shareholder returns, and since then many other countries have adopted or considered similar laws. It’s been seven years since the law took affect. Has it made any difference?

Amy Dittmar, associate professor of finance at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business has recently analysed the impact of the Norwegian decision, and she doesn’t think so. Dittmar and her colleague Kenneth Ahern studied what happened after Norway required public-limited firms to have at least 40% of board seats filled by women in 2003. Voluntary compliance in the country failed, so the law made it compulsory in 2006, with a two year transition period. “Boards are chosen in order to increase shareholder wealth,” says Dittmar. “Placing restrictions on the composition of a board will reduce value.”

Dittmar and Ahern’s study found that when a board had a 10% increase in the number of women, the value of the company dropped. The bigger the change to the structure of the board, the bigger the fall in returns.

Was it the women?

More women on boards, lower profits. Not the kind of thing we want to hear. So what caused the companies to struggle? Firstly, let’s be clear that it is not as simple as adding women and taking away shareholder returns.

“The constraint imposed by the 40-percent women quota-led firms to recruit women board members that were younger and had different career experiences than the existing directors,” says Dittmar. “It is reasonable to suggest that these changes led to decreases in firm value because new directors did not have the same monitoring or advising capabilities of the other directors before the imposed change. When firms were free to choose directors before the rule, they tended to choose women that were similar to men directors. This is consistent with the idea that the large demand and small supply for women directors after the adoption of the 40-percent quota forced firms to choose directors that they would not have chosen otherwise.”

Professor Doug Branson, the W. Edward Sell Chair in Law at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert in women in the boardroom, agrees that the supply of capable women vastly outstripped the demand. “One woman, capable in the extreme no doubt, went onto 18 Norwegian boards of directors,” he says. “No director can serve well on more than three or four modern corporation boards. Time commitments alone limit the number of masters anyone can adequately serve. The selection of the same women over and over, as in Norway as well as here in the U.S., crowds out other deserving women candidates, lessens the variety of views we are trying to achieve, and help keeps the glass ceiling in place.”

Waiting for the longer term results

The experience in Norway hasn’t had the quick results that many people predicted, but there’s an evolving opinion that says it is too early to really evaluate what the economic impact of this change will be.

“In hindsight, with the benefit of a longer time horizon, I predict that these businesses will have better results but we may not see them in the near term,” says Betty-Ann Heggie, former senior VP at PotashCorp and a member of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women Hall of Fame. “Boards with more women will be more stakeholder-oriented which will create a long-term advantage but it will have a short-term cost,” she adds. “Thus, their short-term results may not be as favourable.”

However, Heggie believes that there are benefits to sticking with it. “Research shows that organisations with more women on boards will have more women in senior management. As women earn more money, they have a greater say in how it is spent and that affects the economic prosperity of a country. Far from being a doomed exercise, I believe that it will be a shining example for other countries in the future. Hopefully, they won’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

Unfortunately, while in general research does show that organisations with women on boards have more women in senior management, that hasn’t been Norway’s experience to date. They haven’t seen a significant increase in female CEO’s or the amount of women on executive committees.

Lessons for other countries

“While the new law has not been termed a success, neither has it been a failure,” says Branson. “Spain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, among others, are among the imitators.” Other countries looking to adopt an enforced quota scheme would do well to look at the results in Norway and plan accordingly. For a start, Branson advises that it would have been better to phase in the requirement over a longer period of time. “In the rush to comply, Norwegian companies grabbed anyone they could,” he says. “They did not always select the best women.” There could also have been limits on the ‘trophy directors’ – the women that everyone wanted – encouraging them to only take boardroom jobs for a small number of companies.

Countries should also take into consideration the impact that quotas will have on the perception of performance on a board. Did the woman get there through merit or affirmative action? “A mandated quota with respect to any form of diversity on the board has the potential to be counterproductive by suggesting that the presence of a diverse director is because of the quota rather than that the individual director’s merit,” says Jessica Lochmann Allen, Partner in law firm Foley & Lardner’s Transactional & Securities practice who routinely counsels corporate boards on best practices in boardroom diversity.

Lochmann Allen believes that this attitude can minimise the perspectives and insights that such a director brings to the Boardroom, and she’s skeptical about how a quota scheme would work in the U.S. “The institution of a quota system may further inspire a backlash against the directors that are ultimately chosen to fill such quota because of the attitude in corporate America that the SEC and other regulatory bodies have no place in ‘legislating the boardroom’,” she says.

Finally, don’t expect overnight results. If your country adopts quotas, it might make it easier for you to reach the boardroom one day – but nothing about this type of legislative change is short-term.

You are offered a sideways move, either in your organisation or to transfer to another company. Should you take it? While it might be tempting to hold out for a promotion, don’t disregard the possibilities presented by taking a lateral move. We asked five experts for their advice on taking a step sideways.

1. Plan for the long term

   “A lateral move that is made capriciously may be a career limiting move; however, a lateral move that is part of an intentional plan can propel a career forward over the long term,” says Diane Youden, a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers specialising in HR effectiveness.

   Youden advises taking stock of your career path. Where are you now and where do you want to be? A sideways step might be the best thing to do to put you on course for your end goal and further career opportunities down the line.

   As well as considering the job prospects and how these fit with your overall career trajectory, think about who you work with now and who you could be working with if you said yes to taking that lateral move. “If your current supervisor is not a strong sponsor or champion for you, moving laterally can remove this obstacle and reset your career path,” says Youden. “A lateral move can be a strategic move when it broadens your network with key company decision makers, gives you more visibility, gains global exposure, or enhances management responsibilities. All of these attributes contribute to making an individual a more well-round and broader business focused resource – a desirable attribute in your career planning.”

2. Broaden your experience

   “It is obvious that in this economic environment it would be a bad decision to not accept an offer for a lateral career move,” says Nancy Mellard, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services. “However, with that said, it is always a smart move, no matter the economy, for a woman to make a lateral move in order to gain new skill sets and talent or expose herself to areas of the company that she did not have knowledge in before.”

   Mellard believes that taking a step sideways can broaden your experience. “I recently started a mentoring relationship with a young woman at CBIZ,” she says. “When looking at her career moves, she worked in sales for a medical software company before coming to CBIZ. During her time in this position, she had the opportunity to be an integral part of creating an innovative, cutting-edge benefit plan. While this was not a promotion, it was a lateral move as she was able to take that experience with the benefit plan, which was outside of her sales role, and can translate those skills now at CBIZ.”

   Lateral career moves are especially important in your early years with a company, Mellard says, because they can give you lots of experience and knowledge about the company. Travelling too high too quickly may not give you the breadth of knowledge required about the company to perform the most senior roles to your full capacity.

3. Look beyond the salary

   A promotion might give you more cash at the end of each month, but a lateral move could give you a better work/life balance and a broader range of other opportunities. “Look beyond the pay and title and consider the learning opportunities, geographic location, cost-of-living, promotion potential, freedom or latitude, exposure to higher-ups, decision-making ability, and anything else that may be important to you,” says Debra Benton, President of Benton Management Resources, Inc.

   However, Benton cautions against jumping in and accepting any position without thinking it through. “If you make the decision out of laziness or lack of confidence, then, yes, it will affect your career because laziness and lack of confidence affect everything now, and in the future,” she warns.

4. Tick the boxes

   “When recruiters go to market for talent on behalf of client companies, they are seeking a matrix of specific requirements,” says Nancy Keene, director of the Dallas office of global executive search firm Stanton Chase International. “When a company’s Board discusses succession planning, particularly in the office of the CFO, they are looking for specific ‘boxes’ to be checked regarding what the company needs for the current market environment as well as future challenges and opportunities. If you are lacking any of the important criteria, you will not be considered for the position. If no one in the company meets the specifications for the position, it is likely that the company will go outside for talent.”

   If you want to be CFO of your current company, think about what it would take to get there. Keene suggests rotating round different divisions to get SEC reporting experience or spending time as an assistant corporate controller. Get some experience in corporate development, and sign up for the task force looking at post-merger integration.

   “I would even go so far as a stint in investor relations – even if it is in a supporting role,” she adds. “Then, look at revenue experience – typically a key criteria for a CFO role – and jump back into opportunities at the largest operating units. Add an international posting in a critical growth market. Voila! You have the breadth and been there/done that experience to be considered as a ‘fly-up’ to the CFO position.”

5. Identify the value

   “What’s really important is that you must have identified the value in the lateral move,” says Martha I. Finney, workplace consultant and co-author along with Duncan Mathison of Unlock the Hidden Job Market (FT Press). “Even a demotion has value, if it gives you valuable experience and exposure that will later make you more valuable.” Finney advises thinking about the choice you are about to make in business terms. Work out a mini-business case for taking a sideways step, listing the advantages and disadvantages and weighing up the choice like any other piece of workplace analysis. “This way you can remember yourself why you’re doing it,” Finney says. “But you can also articulate the decisions behind this move in an impressive way to future employers.”

   There are plenty of things you can put in your lateral move business case. Finney has a list: “The chance to try something new in a different department or division,” she says, “the chance to build your value to this company and other potential employers, the chance to get the heck away from your boss, the chance to build your network within the company.” All good reasons to step up and step sideways.

Promotions, in the right context, are good career moves. But a lateral job move can be just as good, and just as useful to your long term career goals. Don’t rule out a sideways step before thinking through what it will help you attain in the future!

If Betty Friedan first showed women through a “room with a view” in the 60s, a Pew Report released this month has ever so gently closed the door to that room as well. The Pew report, The New Economics of Marriage: The Rise of Wives, explains why economic gains in marriage are now greater for men than they are for women. The number of men married to wives whose income and education exceed theirs has increased 18% since 1970.

Another gender trend reversal has been boosted by the current economic downturn; the employment of men has been hurt in this recession more than that of women, with men making up 75% of the decline in employment for prime-working-age Americans in 2008. If we call this phenomenon, where three out of every four people thrown out of work have been male the mancession, what tag can we hang on its corollary? According to the Economist, “within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce.” Betty Friedan might have said it is about time. The Economist says this “quiet revolution” is a reason to celebrate.

An increasing number of women step across their thresholds in the morning, gamely suppressing any show of guilt or relief, having outsourced or insourced traditionally “female” household duties. If they are the primary breadwinners for their household, they may wave goodbye to a beloved husband or partner, who stands immobilized by a toddler tugging on a pant leg or an infant testing the burp pad draped over his shoulder. How couples feel about these arrangements depends on a number of variables, not the least of which is whether an implied contract between them has been violated.

Implied Contracts: Your Deal Or Mine?

The stock market crash in 1987, followed by the slide into the savings and loan debacle, generated readership for a book published the same year: When Smart People Fail. As unemployment soared, the implied contracts that corporate America made with hundreds of thousands employees became meaningless. As the authors of When Smart People Fail explain, implied contracts are not just the stuff of organizational psychologists.

“When a couple share a household, they strike an implied contract—a basic deal that determines who gives what and who gets what. This deal has both economic and emotional facets.” Over the course of a long-term relationship, most couples experience disruption to their implied or psychological contracts. Couples who are able to re-negotiate their contract usually navigate past the inevitable bumps and get on the road to a new deal.

But when both the economic and emotional parts of an implied contract unravel, it can be very difficult to get back on course. The authors of When Smart People Fail completed 176 in-depth interviews with once successful people to verify this phenomenon: “Both success and failure are equally disruptive to relationships insofar as they violate the couple’s implied contract.” How women interpret their stories as breadwinners may spring from how they come into these roles.

Doing the New Math – When Daycare Doesn’t Pencil

When small children are part of the equation, the case can readily be made for one partner to provide childcare at home. The breadwinner hand is typically dealt to the partner who earns the most and can provide health insurance benefits.

With the birth of twin boys, the number of children in Brian and Cynthia Walder’s household doubled instantly. Cynthia kept her job in marketing with an insurance firm. Brian quit his job in order to stay home with the children. “It was stressful,” he said. “If you’d asked me five years ago would I be in this spot, I’d say ‘No way.’”

Under the title “She Works. They’re Happy”—in the Fashion & Style section of the New York Times—a photo of the family depicts a convivial huddle of young, smiling faces that could be a poster for the stay-at-home-dad lifestyle.

A planned change—even one that occurs during the last months of pregnancy—affords a couple time and space to work on a redraft of their implied contract and begin the adjustment to their shifting responsibilities.

However, Andrea Doucet, a sociology professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, author of Do Men Mother and a forthcoming book entitled Bread and Roses – and the Kitchen Sink, indicates that changing roles is “not as easy as you’d think it would be. You can’t just reverse the genders.” It’s complicated, to say the least.

The challenges of arranging and rearranging parenting and professional roles is not well-represented by the proverbial balancing of the scale; a better metaphor might be to imagine crossing an ice flow in the spring—while a couple can try to map out a plan, they had best be prepared to respond to the continual shifting underfoot. As explained by an executive in the financial services industry, who prefers anonymity:

“My husband is a full-time stay-at-home dad, so the hours of 8 to 5 were supposedly mine. I was challenging to not respond when our son was crying for food or a diaper change during those first few months. The hours of 5:00 to 8 pm during the week are my opportunity to be with our son, as are the morning hours of 4:30 am (yes, he gets up at 4:30 am!) until I leave for the office. That’s not a lot of time. I also travel for work to various spots around the country. It is difficult to be gone, but knowing that my husband is taking such good care of our son makes it much easier. I have had people on the plane give me a dirty look—one older woman actually scolded me—when I revealed that I had a baby at home and here I am, out on business. From that perspective, it is isolating. I only know of one other mom who is in my situation—and her kids are 4 and 13.”

Dr. Doucet studies couples in the U.S. and Canada in which women are the primary breadwinners. Her Breadandrosesproject.ca includes an online forum where women are invited to comment. One contributor, Jennifer Flory, Jennifer E. Flory, Ph.D., Esq., a Chicago patent attorney wrote:

“I guess my husband and I never really planned for our roles, they just sort of evolved this way. My husband was a successful manager of an IT department… I was a second year associate at my firm when I got pregnant…neither of us liked the idea of someone else caring for our child while we both worked. Moreover, I had a demanding job and could not be relied upon to consistently pick up our son from day care, etc. It also came down to who made more money and whether we could survive on one income. So, when our son was born, my husband quit his job. Quite unexpectedly, when my son turned a year old, we found out that I was pregnant again…with twins. We now have 3 children under 2 and, needless to say, my husband’s job is way more demanding than mine. So many diapers! We’re still working out logistics, but it’s getting easier…I wouldn’t want it any other way.”

When Is Turn-about Fair Play?

When a woman unexpectedly becomes a de facto breadwinner, as many women have in this recession, she experiences the daily pressure of providing for her family, capped by the emotional impact of a forced detour from the couple’s original life plan. The impact of becoming a breadwinner as a result of a change in her partner’s status is conditioned by the original implied contract between the couple. The authors of When Smart People Fail wrote, “In general, a woman’s success is more disruptive to the relationship than her failure, and a man’s failure is more disruptive than his success.”

Onto this 1980s based aphorism, overlay the effects of the mancession which, when it reaches into a household, can set up just this sort of double-whammy. Mutually held expectations may be dashed, dreams may no longer be aim stars, and the “currency” of emotional support may have changed hands. “It can be frustrating. I always dreamed of being the soccer mom who did not have to work outside the home and instead I spend all my time focused on work and keeping the roof over our head and food on the table,” said a business executive who asked be anonymous. “It can be draining to a woman’s spirit when she feels that she is alone and does not have the support and security men traditionally brought to the home.”

It is difficult to separate the economic and emotional contracts that are formed in a relationship, but if a couple is able to do so, they may find it easier to adjust to changing situations. In a society that increasingly promotes flexibility, partners can position themselves to be better able to enjoy their successes and to feel less threatened by their failures “by valuing the emotional contract quite apart from the economic contract.” This greater ease with each other and the changed economic roles of partners has had a positive effect; social research attributes these changes to happier, longer unions. As Stephanie Coontz, director of research and education for the Council on Contemporary Families and author of Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage, said, “Women no longer need to marry up educationally or economically, so they are more likely to pick men who support a more egalitarian relationship.”

A flexible attitude can help couples figure out the day-to-day logistics, and just maybe how they can have it all without doing it all. The financial services executive whose son is now nearly two years old, writes:

“I still am the sole breadwinner for our family and that brings a huge feeling of responsibility. My status quo as of late has been work from 7:30 or 8 am until 5 pm. Go home. Have quality time with our son. Bathe him, put him to bed. Then log back online and work. That way I can feel like I’m able to address all of my work responsibilities and keep things moving forward. It is exhausting and I’m trying to figure out how I can get some more balance in my life. I’ve never had second thoughts or doubts though. I really enjoy what I do, and I feel that being able to do that allows me to enjoy my time with family more. My husband loves being a stay at home dad. This year, my focus is really going to be on how I can get some ‘me’ time without feeling guilty.”

We have only to watch a segment of Mad Men, the television drama about advertising executives in the early 1960s, to gain perspective on the most amazing social change of the times—“a change that affects the most intimate aspects of people’s identities has been widely welcomed by men as well as women.” Where women were once coerced by the business world into choosing between children or a career, they are now heading some of those very same firms that treated women as disposable workers. President Barack Obama spoke about the shift of power from men to women, telling the New York Times that construction and manufacturing “will constitute a smaller percentage of the overall economy,” to such a degree that, “Women are just as likely to be the primary bread earner, if not more likely, than men are today.”

What would Betty Friedan say? When she wrote her seminal book on the captive lives of women in suburbia, a phenomenon like the “rise of wives” could only have been a twinkle in her eye.

Anyone’s who’s ever had to struggle or overcome extreme hardships knows the power of being resilient; the importance of being able to bounce back and keep trudging onwards. According to a new study by Accenture, resilience – or the ability to overcome challenges and turn them into opportunities – also happens to be a much-needed characteristic in the business world; one that is key to keeping your job in a harsh economy.

The global research study entitled Women Leaders and Resilience: Perspectives from the C-Suite was conducted in support of International Women’s Day and the study marks Accenture’s sixth consecutive celebration of this global celebration, which honors the economic, political, and social achievements of women past. It is the company’s hope that their female-focused research helps fuel the dialogue on key issues affecting women in the workplace.

The Findings

Accenture surveyed more than 500 senior executives – including CEO’s, COO’s, CFO’s, and CHRO’s – of mid- to large-size companies in 20 countries across Europe, Asia, North America, and Latin America. According to the research, these execs believe that women are slightly more resilient than men. Results showed that companies are providing female professionals with a variety of programs aimed at developing resilience.

One might think that during an economic downturn, women’s programs would be the first to go – thankfully, this has not been the case. Accenture actually found that many corporate professional development programs specific to women have remained intact. Forty-eight percent of all respondents reported making no changes in the past year to leadership programs for women. Just three percent of executives surveyed reported eliminating leadership programs, mentoring activities, or minority leadership programs. Even more surprising, in the middle of a recession, 18 percent reported making moderate to extensive increases to leadership programs and 22 percent said they had augmented their mentoring programs, while 17 percent said minority leadership programs at their companies had been enhanced.

Adaptability, Flexibility, and Strength of Purpose

Of the 500 corporate leaders surveyed, a whopping 71 percent cited resilience as “very to extremely important” when determining who to retain. Though the respondents were almost evenly divided on the topic of who is most resilient (with slightly more respondents favoring women), a shocking 60 percent revealed that their companies are actively providing women with career enhancing assignments and 40 percent report preparing women for senior management roles.

Adrian Lajtha, Chief Leadership Officer at Accenture, believes that women who are resilient will be more successful in the workplace and give their companies a major advantage. “Resilience – the combination of adaptability, flexibility and strength of purpose – may be the new criterion for professional advancement,” Lajtha said. “In the current world of economic uncertainty and intense competitiveness, organizations that instill resilience in their up-and-coming leadership will have a clear advantage.”

Self-Confidence and Seniority

Self-confidence is believed to be a key characteristic of the resilient; after all, if you don’t believe in yourself, how can you persevere? Without it, a failure is just a failure and not an opportunity to learn and grow. In this respect, Accenture’s regional findings are also quite interesting. The company found that 44 percent of North American executives surveyed believe that Baby Boomers have the most self-confidence; meaning, those in more senior roles are most resilient. Their Latin American, European, and Asian counterparts; however, believe that younger women in the workforce – those of Generation X – are more self-confident and more resilient.

Nellie Borrero, Accenture’s impassioned Global Human Capital and Diversity Lead, believes that women in the workforce – no matter what generation they may be from – must learn how to bounce back and prove to their company that they’re worth keeping around during tough economic times. “Women need to realize that if they’re not showcasing resilience, their bosses may begin to question whether or not they bring value to the company. They must be able to turn difficult situations into opportunities; they need to figure out how they bring value to the company and then build upon that and market it.”

It was also found that respondents associate resilience and adaptability most frequently with seniority; they said senior managers are most resilient, followed by middle managers and, lastly, by employees below manager.

Can it be Taught?

The question remains: Can resilience be taught? Is it a characteristic that can be learned? Those surveyed believed that it can be, which is why many companies are now focusing on developing programs that teach women how to be resilient. Following what can only be described as a catastrophic 2009, Borrero believes 2010 is a crucial time for women to prove themselves.

“Women have to begin looking at all of these challenges they face and start turning them into opportunities. Not only does it showcase their ability to get through difficult times, but it will also prove to be key in helping younger women identify the critical behavior that is resilience,” Borrero said. “If you feel insecure and are lacking self-confidence, identify mentors that can help because young women are looking up to you and it’s important to teach them how to be resilient; set the example.”

Today is International Women’s Day and we are pleased to celebrate it with all of the amazing women in our community.

An encouraging start to this week was Kathryn Bigelow’s historic double Oscar win for best picture and best director.

We believe this is a step in the right direction, not just for the entertainment industry, but for all industries. We need to achieve a critical mass of female leaders to change perceptions around what a leader looks like.

We also believe that there is immense value in building a strong network based on educational content. This week we are hosting our second networking breakfast for senior women in investment management. If you wish to join us to discuss Risk and Transparency in this field, please contact me – we may have couple of spots left. You can also read theglasshammer.com on Thursday for full coverage, or sign up for our newsletter to receive this and other top stories in your inbox each week.

Every day is International Women’s Day on theglasshammer.com. We want to see you succeed.

Sincerely,

Nicki Gilmour
CEO
Theglasshammer.com

At 13, a fearless McCarthy declared her intention to major in political science. For many, that would be precocious; for McCarthy, it was just part of her college life, which began at that age. Of the University of Washington’s experimental “Early Admissions” program, said McCarthy, “was a really enjoyable experience. In high school, they are much less forgiving of ‘nerds’ than they are at college. It was a kinder situation socially than I’d been in before. ”

After graduating university at the age of 17, she attended Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Science. To earn some money while earning her Master’s, she took a part-time job at a student loan agency updating spreadsheets. After a short time there, she realized that she had found her true calling—finance.

McCarthy reminisced: “I remember thinking ‘I’m enjoying this more than I’m enjoying my supposed career.’ Just the fact that I was updating spreadsheets caused me to understand how you could use them. And then I met some of their investment bankers who would do bond issues from time to time so I started to understand where the money came from.”

An ace in the hole—a letter from stockbrokers she’d worked with to Bankers Trust—helped McCarthy get an interview and the rest is history. She was hired as a salesperson on the derivatives desk at the bank in 1986, the very early days of OTC derivatives.

She said, “It was a really weird beginning to my finance career. It was pretty funny doing that job with absolutely no finance understanding. I didn’t have a strong enough math background; a lot of it I just learned on the job. Watching how financial instruments paid off under different market conditions, trading them and watching what happened as markets changed…that’s what I needed to do in order to understand them.” She laughed, “I was really lucky I didn’t get fired at the time.”

Six months in, they had her do trade interest rate swaps. “Why they took that risk on somebody with no finance background, I don’t know, but it was a very powerful learning experience for me. It was one of the best things that happened to me in terms of me understanding products because I’m pretty tactical.”

After a few years of hard work at BT, luck landed McCarthy in France, trading equity options, regardless of her lack of experience in that field. “I’d never done equities and never done options” she said, “but it was another incredible opportunity.” Another move found her selling equity derivatives to pension funds and asset managers in Northern Europe.

Making It All Work

When McCarthy became pregnant with her first child, she wondered how she would be able to do it all. “People I had been working with who had small children also had wives that stayed at home. The men were all putting in face time, staying until 9 PM, making bets and throwing balls. I was truly perplexed as to how I was going to make it all work.”

Towards the end of her pregnancy, McCarthy was offered a role as market risk manager for Europe, effectively moving her to the control side from the selling side of the business. “This was a more manageable career for somebody with a child. In a risk management role, I was able to have a more flexible life. I think I picked the role more because of that, even though I—again—wasn’t 100% sure of what the risk management crew did at the bank.”

She learned quickly, and was soon enamored with risk management. As market regulators at the time were launching the market risk side of Basel I, McCarthy got to sit on Bank of England practitioner panels and work with the regulators on proposals to ensure they had the least distortive impact of dealing with market risk. Once again, “it was lucky timing,” explained McCarthy. “What looked like it would be a ‘Mommy track’ career in staff function became something very important.”

Five years later, in response to the crisis in asset management around structured notes and money funds, BT moved McCarthy back to New York to head up a risk management group. “Our team measured the risk content of funds, not just by the ratings but by how the funds were affected by changes in the interest rate. The tools we developed—both software and a service—were sold to other asset managers so it became a profit center instead of just a control group for the Bank.”

Over the next seven years she shepherded that project “in one form or another.” She also returned to her hometown of Seattle, where she continued to sell the risk management service from her home. It took her some time to get used to the new work environment. “I telecommuted but was on a plane three days out of every five,” she explained. “My first month doing it, I would get dressed up and put on high heels because I was afraid I would lose the thread. I had child care for my child and a separate office in the house so I could keep it quite distinct but I didn’t have people around me to remind me that we were working and the kitchen is right there. It was much different than being in an office.”

“However,” she added, “I learned to really enjoy it. What I found was that I had the pressure of a difficult business plan to execute and that keeps you beautifully focused.” McCarthy continued, “For the first time of my life, I wasn’t on a trading floor and I was able to do a lot of articles and written material I wasn’t able to do before. I had assumed that I must have some form of ADD but it is remarkable how productive you can be when you remove all the people and the other distractions.”

Important Lessons

In 2003, she was approached to be the head of market risk with Washington Mutual. She made the move and, ultimately, also took on operational risk for the bank, going from the buy side back to the sell side. McCarthy was forthcoming when discussing her affiliation with the now-defunct bank: “It is hard to have that stain on my résumé. Being the risk management person for a bank that went down is not a popular thing but I wouldn’t trade it for anything. When an institution is under duress you can learn some important lessons about risk management. I think the knowledge and learning that I had there was amazing.”

She continued, “Every place had issues making sure the valuations were supportable but those in the mortgage banking industry had to deal with it earlier and more completely than other folks who were really caught off guard by it. Everybody has some experience with cost cutting but different places do it more or less well. In a lot of cases, Washington Mutual did what they could to keep people with organization to the bitter end, which is not always easy to do. It did engender a lot of loyalty among employees with that firm.”

In early 2009, McCarthy joined Russell as the Chief Risk Officer, returning once again to buy side risk management activity. Yet in spite of her success within the risk management industry, McCarthy feels odd about giving advice to others coming up in the industry. When pressed, McCarthy stressed the importance of moving beyond generalist skill and getting specialized and detailed, without getting pigeonholed. “You need to be a bungee jumper, get way down to the depths and details and way high up to see the corporate strategy.”

On the secret to her own success, McCarthy said, humbly, “You would think that the industry—finance and investment banking—would only reward those who are ‘greed is good’ Gordon Gecko types. But when I looked at why I got well reviewed or why I got promoted, it was for getting along with peers. That is misunderstood by a lot of people in these jobs. I was never the smartest one or the most quantitative or even the one who made the most money as salesperson. And I never was the best trader. But I consistently could work with a team.”

Indeed, McCarthy’s story is one of luck, of knowing when to take risks, and how to rise above the fray. “I hear and read the advice people give women about the professional way to do things,” she said. “I sort of bumbled along more and didn’t get too dinged for it. I managed to not be as deliberate as some women are in their careers but ended up in an enjoyable job beyond my wildest imagination.”

We want you to become a stronger businesswoman. Literally. But while you know exercise can strengthen your body, did you know it can strengthen your brain too?

A number of recent studies show that aerobic exercise increases brain functioning (see articles from the New York Times, Scientific American, and ABC News). With exercise being both good for your mind and body, there’s no excuse to not do it, right?

Oh wait, there’s just that one small detail: time. In this post we offer some tips for both finding the time and also wanting to find the time (in other words, how to make exercise fun).

If You Have 10 Minutes

Most doctors recommend 30 to 40 minutes of exercise daily. But who says you have to do it all at once? It can be hard to find 30 free minutes at a time, but there are often 10 minutes here and there when you can fit a workout in. And, if you can find spare 10 minutes slots 3 times a day, voila! You’ll accomplish the recommended 30 minutes of activity (hear NPR’s take on this idea). Now, what to do with those ten minutes? While some days a brisk ten minute walk will do, here are some other suggestions for more variety in your 10 minute workout:

• 100 Calories in 10 Minutes – Try this ten minute workout from About.com that incorporates a different exercise each minute. It starts and ends with a minute of walking, and in between there’s jogging, jumping jacks, and more.
• Oprah’s 10 Minute Workouts – The health section of Oprah.com offers three detailed ten minute workouts, complete with helpful images of how each move should be done.
• 10 Minute Full Body Workout – This 10 minute workout comes from Lance Armstrong’s trainer Peter Park, and works on strength moves for every area of your body.
• 10 Minute workouts for the Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced – The SparkPeople site offers multiple ten minute workouts that combine cardio and strength training. Click on each exercise for a detailed explanation and video example of it.
• 8-minute workouts – You’ve probably heard of 8-minute abs (and arms, and legs, and stretch), which came out years ago. Well, they’re now available for free on YouTube, accessible to you as long as you have an internet connection. Yes, they’re only 8 minutes, but these workouts are challenging enough to make that okay. If you still want to get in a 10 minute workout just start and end with a minute of walking. Doing three or four of these workouts a day is easy to do since they work different parts of the body.

Exercise as an Indulgence

While “I have no time” is often the excuse behind not working out, it’s not always the whole reason. Many people just find exercising to be a chore. So the first step in becoming more active is to re-imagine it. Instead of thinking, “I have to work out” think “I get to work out.” Make exercise your “me” time. When you work out you get to have 10 minutes, 30 minutes, maybe even an hour to yourself. That’s time to not think about deadlines, or conference calls, or email, but rather, about how you’re feeling and how to feel even better. It’s also a chance to catch up on some other fun things you might not have time for, like:

• Podcasts: Catch up on NPR’s Fresh Air, learn some quick and dirty tips from Grammar Girl or the Nutrition Diva, take a different look at the world with Radio Lab, or immerse yourself in This American Life (my personal favorite). If you have an iPod or an MP3 player you can stock up on audio entertainment, a perfect distraction at the gym.
• Books: Remember when you used to read books? Countless novels, mysteries, and biographies. If it seems like there’s never a free moment these days use your gym time to read what you want. If you’re riding a stationary bike, scaling the stair climber, or walking on the treadmill it’s very easy to read that book that’s been sitting on your bedside table since who-knows-when.
• Magazines: If you don’t have time for books then you probably really don’t have time for magazines. But again, the gym is an opportunity to partake in reading what you want (whether it’s O Magazine, Wired, or In Touch Weekly).

Knowing how to maintain a high level of productivity while sticking to a grueling travel schedule may have given Shannon Vetto an edge when she came to Russell Investments in 1997. Before then, at Price Waterhouse LLP, Vetto worked as a client service audit manager in the firm’s investment company group—in Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. Every few weeks she found herself in a new location, examining a new set of books and addressing a new set of circumstances.

For a financial asset firm seeking management capacity for a global product launch, itinerant experience like Vetto’s would prove to be a prescription for success. “It was pure luck,” she insists, “that I managed to get involved in an effort that was really Russell’s development overseas.” Vetto took a job as a manager in Operations at Russell, a role in which she was responsible for global vendor relationship management, fund accounting oversight, and financial statement preparation. She was quickly positioned to lead the development of operational infrastructure for Australian Funds products in Russell’s Sydney office, and in Russell’s investment trust business in the Tokyo office. Vetto recalls that she was new to the firm and wasn’t yet anchored in such a way that would make it difficult to relocate overseas.

Vetto’s tongue-in-cheek observation: The deal closer may have been that “I was okay with the travel.”

Identifying the Lift Factor

“For about the first seven years, I had one major product development assignment after another.” In a cycle that was reminiscent of the vertical velocity of a thermal updraft, Vetto helped to build out the firm’s operational development efforts overseas. By 2000, she had joined the fund structure group where she worked as a fund structure engineer. During this time, Vetto was able to keep one hand on the development and presentation of product design. “When I first started at Russell, there really weren’t product-specific titles or roles,” she said. Her work was recognized as adding substantive value to the firm’s international growth, but Vetto found she wanted to bring into focus what was actually providing lift to the effort. “People thought I was involved in an operations exercise. I told them that the value they were experiencing really had very little to do with operations, but instead was product development work. That was why what I was doing was working. I had a good understanding of how to work through a development cycle, and I was doing the operations piece at the same time.”

“I became very passionate and vocal about product development, insisting that it was a discipline and a skill set that needed to be evolved in the business and staffed with that kind of mindset. It took a long time for product development to become part and parcel of my job, but over time I was able to adapt my role. The evolution likely occurred to appease me since I was so determined that this thing had some legs. I basically said, ‘Just give me the job and I will show you what I mean.’”

Vetto explained that she and a colleague in London “were given the opportunity to deliver against a product development goal, but we were able to build more into our roles” as expectations had not been precisely outlined. With no exact guidelines to follow, Vetto and her colleague knew that whatever tack they took, it had to produce a very positive value-add. “Our biggest risk was not achieving success early on, so we decided that we needed to focus on what was highly visible and would deliver more immediate success.”

Vetto and a handful of colleagues formed a product development subcommittee and began to work globally to build Russell’s product line outside the U.S. For the next few years, the work definitely had more of a pull through feeling than a push through effort. Eventually though, Vetto explained, “A corporate infrastructure and governance process was developed which allowed us to be more adept at what we did.” As the committee carried out its work, it became clearer that they needed to ratchet up the business support for the funds they were building and launching. The message Vetto received was “Now that you have product development matured within the business, it is time to focus on product management.” Integrating her passion for product with the experience of many global product launches, Vetto came to lead the Product Development and Market Research group.

“Throughout my entire career I have maintained a passion and intention around the products within a business,” Vetto says. In 2007, she returned to Russell’s Sydney office to head product development, product management, and market research for the Australasian region. Vetto relocated to the U.S. in early 2009 to take the role of managing director for product services for Russell’s Private Client Services group. Today, Vetto is taking her product development and product management knowledge to another leading edge in Russell’s global Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) business.

Producing Different Better Outcomes

Vetto has long been a strong advocate of—and has worked steadily for—maintaining women in position at Russell’s upper decision-making levels. “The extent to which you can explore ideas and possibilities can only be invigorated with diversity. Diversity produces better, greater outcomes. And the thematic diversity between men and women produces amazingly different and improved outcomes.” A recent study, Women Matter, by McKinsey & Company would bear up Vetto’s observations. The study points to nine leadership behaviors that improve organizational performance, and are believed to be approaches that will help to effectively manage change and to capture global trends. Five of these leadership behaviors are shown to be applied more frequently by women than men. “I feel very strongly—and have experienced this directly— that the approaches that men and women take are different. I believe this is fact-based; I don’t even think you can argue it,” Vetto said. Being the only woman member of a leadership team generates both tangible and intangible dynamics, as those who have had this experience will attest. “The dynamics of decision-making bodies with and without women are very different, especially if there is more than one woman,” said Vetto. Certainly, diverse and complementary leadership behaviors matter, but proportion matters too. The McKinsey study found that there must be a critical mass of at least three women in the upper echelons of a company in order to challenge the dominant code of a firm’s culture, spread good leadership practices, and positively influence organizational and financial performance.

The paths that women take while navigating the differences between genders, across cultures, and among countries may result in very different career experiences from those of their male colleagues. “I personally think that today’s mandate to do more with less is producing really interesting outcomes, especially for women,” Vetto said, “Because I think that specifically in financial services women have managed to build careers in a highly successful industry without a lot of fat in it,” which serves as evidence of the willingness on the part of women to tackle whatever it is that needs to be done. Vetto believes that compensation models need to reflect this. “The financial services industry has been lucky enough to have very lucrative compensation models. But the companies that will win will be the ones that focus on their clients,” said Vetto. “We exist to build better outcomes for the investor.”

Taking Our Own Advice

”Work-life balance is a topic “very near and dear to my heart right now,” said Vetto, “The most important thing is that women have to take it upon themselves to find their own work-life balance as mothers and wives and women who run homes. The social stigma for a man doing that is very different so their approach is going to be different, the way that they think about it is different, and we can’t get advice from them. That’s just the way it is, as opposed to anything negative. It will never change.”

If they were to hear Vetto say, “Women just will not sacrifice certain things in their lives,” her co-workers might recall the cupcakes she proudly brings into the office on holidays—whimsical cupcakes Vetto has joyfully baked with her daughters. “We need to give ourselves the license to have flexibility and not feel guilty about that and to not feel we are something less than because of it,” Vetto said. “Never, ever apologize for needing flexibility. The minute you apologize for needing it, your mindset will change and your performance will be impacted. Current economic conditions may have unintentionally made it more difficult to demonstrate the value that we add while still maintaining the flexibility we need. Without really intending to, we might end up going backward instead of forward.”

When asked to offer some advice to other women in business, Vetto was ready with clear, bold guidelines. “Celebrate your differences rather than apologize. Accept the challenge of being a woman in business. Build the bonds with the women around you; we are here for each other.” Vetto is an executive to whom these adages are more than just words. She lives them, and if you are a woman within her circle of influence, she will expect you to do so, too—and she will support you on that path. “It is,” she says, “extremely important that you pay it forward.”