Voices at the table A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems Women on Boards Report 2014 The Forum of Executive Women Philadelphia, PA The Forum of Executive Women 2014–2015 Board of Directors Officers Nila G. Betof, Ph.D. President Suzanne S. Mayes, Esq. Vice President Margaret A. McCausland, Esq. Secretary Gloria V. Rabinowitz Treasurer At-Large Directors and Committee Chairs Denise McGregor Armbrister Lisa B. Binder Deana A. Calvelli, AIF, CEBS Lisa Detwiler, Esq. Penny Conly Ellison, Esq. Jane H. Firth Paulette A. Gabriel Katherine Hatton, Esq. Theresa E. Loscalzo, Esq. Gina M. Merritt-Epps, Esq. Robin Neifield Toni Pergolin, CPA Pamela DeGraff Porter Penny Stoker Carole L. Weintraub, CPC Kathleen D. Wilkinson, Esq. Immediate Past President Autumn Bayles This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. PwC United States helps organizations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We’re a member of the PwC network of firms in 157 countries with more than 184,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at www.pwc.com/US PwC refers to the United States member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. Voices at the table: a status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems Women on Boards 2014 offers in-depth statistics on the number of high-level women leaders at Philadelphia-area organizations. In addition to providing its annual analysis of women top executives and board members at the region’s largest 100 public companies, the report for the first time examines the leadership composition of many of the region’s non-profit universities and healthcare systems. Readers of this report by The Forum of Executive Women can compare numbers across sectors, as well as see how women fare in reaching the leadership ranks at individual organizations. Readers also will learn which entities include women among their “top earners.” There are faces behind all statistics, and Women on Boards 2014 features interviews with five women leaders who are making a mark in the Philadelphia region. They share why it is critical for both the corporate and non-profit communities to have a diversity of voices involved in decision-making. In that spirit, this year’s report is aptly named Voices at the table. What’s inside Giving women executives a voice PwC’s perspective 2 A message from the president 3 4 Voices at the table Executive summary 8 Five women having an impact in the Philadelphia region Interviews Women directors and executive officers Board seats, executives and top earners Project methodology Acknowledgments About The Forum of Executive Women Founded in 1977, The Forum of Executive Women is a membership organization of more than 425 women of significant influence across the Greater Philadelphia region. The Forum’s membership consists of individuals holding the senior-most positions in the corporations, non-profit organizations and public sector entities that drive our regional economy and community. Dedicated to a mission of leveraging the power of executive women in the region to advance the impact and influence of women leaders across a broad spectrum of society, The Forum has served as the linchpin for a multitude of initiatives that have sparked critical conversations in executive suites, boardrooms and public policy arenas. The Forum’s members join together to exchange views that expand and strengthen their own relationships and inspire progress toward a world in which women and men share an equal place in leadership, policy and decision-making in all private and public entities. 14 18 23 24 Specific Forum programs range from formal symposiums, CEO Roundtables and a Public Sector Leadership Conversation Series to the publication of research reports and outreach promoting the value of gender diversity on boards and in executive suites. A robust mentoring program with diverse initiatives enhances The Forum’s commitment to build the pipeline of our next generation of women leaders in the 11-county, tri-state Greater Philadelphia region. The Forum is also a founding member of The InterOrganization Network (ION), a nationwide consortium of 15 like-minded women’s leadership groups working collaboratively to advocate for the advancement of women to positions of power in the business world, including boards of directors and executive suites of public companies. About this report Women on Boards 2014 is a joint initiative of The Forum of Executive Women and PwC. The Forum advocates for and facilitates the increased representation of women on boards and in top management positions in public companies in the region. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 1 Giving women executives a voice Diversity of thought. Diversity of insight. Diversity of representation. Women on Boards 2014 tells us how far we’ve advanced in helping broaden the perspectives in the boardroom. And this year the report reaches beyond the public sector to include information pertaining to non-profit universities and healthcare systems in the Greater Philadelphia region. The expansion of the report is notable, because when we talk about the need for women in leadership, it’s important to include all aspects of the business community whether those companies are public, private or non-profit. There are opportunities for women at all these organizations and all can benefit from diversity of thinking. Stakeholders are more interested in board diversity than ever. As a result, boards are increasing their focus on recruiting directors with diverse backgrounds and experiences. Stakeholders recognize the value that alternative insights can contribute to the success of a company, and, as a result, a number of organizations and shareholder groups have undertaken efforts to increase diverse representation on public company boards. In fact, according to PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, 17 percent of directors say their board has already considered recruiting new directors with diverse backgrounds over the past 12 months and 57 percent say they are talking about doing so going forward. Ultimately, getting the governance models right for the future depends on building the right leadership pipeline today. The report includes interviews with five outstanding women leaders who make important decisions for their organizations and donate their time to help improve our community. They share the importance of being on boards, in both corporate and non-profit organizations, and how diversity is critical to the success of both. While we’ve seen improvement in the representation of women in leadership roles over the past six years, we need to do better. While the number of women in executive leadership positions in public companies in the Philadelphia region is on track with the national percentage, we are still falling short in terms of female representation in the boardroom. We’re heading in the right direction, but the pace is very slow and the numbers remain small. Diversity of insight drives innovative thinking, and an assortment of voices at the table is a key factor in helping broaden perspectives, not only in the public company sector, but in all sectors. As a member of The Forum and a woman partner at PwC, I am thrilled to be involved with this very important initiative and hope that the continued focus on board diversity helps to continue shifting the numbers in a positive direction. Thank you, Deanna Byrne PwC Assurance Partner 2 Voices at the table A message from the president This year for the first time, our Women on Boards report includes data about how women are faring in the C-suites and boards of many of the non-profit healthcare systems and universities in the Greater Philadelphia region. Hospitals and universities have a significant impact on our community both culturally and economically. They impact our standard of living, bringing talented students and professionals into the region, providing the healthcare that is so critical to our community, and employing a large segment of the workforce. Our hypothesis was that women would have greater representation in this sector. It turned out that while women do have better representation in “eds and meds,” it is not in as great numbers as we would have guessed. The inclusion of the “eds and meds” data is part of the legacy of the late Happy Fernandez. Happy, a former Philadelphia City Councilwoman, college president, community leader and Forum member, was passionate about the need to have women and greater diverse representation on the boards and in the C-suites of non-profit organizations as well as for-profit corporations. In continuance of her work, we believe that including large non-profit organizations is important in conveying the overall representation of women leaders in our community. The march to gender equity on boards continues to be maddeningly slow. Although there are numerous studies that demonstrate that having a critical mass of women on boards and in the C-suite makes a significant difference in corporate and organizational performance, the numbers continue to inch up all too slowly. The theme for this year’s report is Voices at the table. The report highlights where women have their voices heard at the board table and in the C-suites of the top 100 public companies in the region. It is dismaying that 35 public companies still do not have a single woman on their board. One reason for this report is to encourage companies and non-profits to have more women at the table. Another is to provide you, members of our community, with information to make decisions about how you as individuals, customers, shareholders and patrons of these companies, healthcare systems and universities can advocate for more women at the table. I encourage you to read the report carefully. As leaders, it is our responsibility to raise our voices when we see inequity. We hope you will join us in finding ways to bring more of our talented, smart, capable women’s voices to the tables in the boardroom and C-suites in our region. Sincerely, Nila Betof President A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 3 Voices at the table Executive summary The vibrancy of our community depends on having a diversity of voices involved in decision-making. More women leaders are needed in multiple sectors — f rom public companies to higher education to healthcare — to help make sure that the future of the Philadelphia region remains bright. Baseline data 17 of the region’s healthcare systems 18 colleges and universities 100 largest public companies For the first time, Women on Boards provides an in-depth look at the gender composition of leaders not only at public companies, but also at large non-profit colleges, universities and healthcare systems. The expanded analysis in Women on Boards 2014 shows that women hold a greater proportion of chief executive officer positions and boards seats at non-profits than at for-profit companies, though their representation is still significantly below that of men. The Forum of Executive Women, in collaboration with PwC, conducts an annual assessment of the largest 100 public companies by revenue in the Philadelphia region as part of its mission to advance the number and influence of women leaders. * Public companies data include all executive officers in the company’s Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year-end falling within the 2013 calendar year. Healthcare systems and four-year colleges and universities data include only the president/CEO in the organization’s Form 990 filed for the 2011 fiscal year-end. 4 Voices at the table Women held:* Board seats Top executive positions Public companies 12% 14% Healthcare systems 26% 18% Colleges and universities 29% 39% This year’s report, titled Voices at the table, documents only minimal progress in 2013 in bolstering the ranks of corporate women leaders, according to an analysis of 2013 year-end SEC filings by the 100 companies. The added data on leadership composition at 17 of the region’s healthcare systems and 18 colleges and universities are drawn from a database of public Form 990 filings for fiscal year-end 2011. Although the statistics on women leaders in the non-profit sectors are not as current, they provide a useful baseline for measuring change in the coming years. “The fact is that women’s voices are missing at tables where important decisions are made,” said Nila Betof, President of The Forum. “One of the things that especially shocks me is to see how many companies still don’t have any women on their top leadership teams or on their boards.” Company-specific data for 2013 show that: • 35 of the Philadelphia region’s top 100 public companies had no women on their boards. • Only eight companies had three or more female board members. • 44 companies had no women in their top executive ranks. • Only seven companies had a female CEO. The data show that women aren’t just missing out on executive and board director titles. They also aren’t necessarily reaping the monetary rewards. Consider the statistics on “top earners”: • Women comprised only 10 percent of top earners at the 100 public companies. • Women comprised 32 percent of top earners at healthcare systems. • Women made up 27 percent of top earners at colleges and universities. “There has been so much talk about the need for change and yet there is still not enough action,” said Betof, who is Chief Operating Officer for The Leader’s Edge/Leaders By Design, a leadership development and executive coaching firm. “Women have been a strong presence in the workforce for 70 years. There is an abundance of female talent available. Companies and non-profits need to be encouraged by their boards, shareholders and customers to make a conscious decision to identify, hire and promote talented women.” The Forum collaborated with PwC’s Philadelphia office to conduct the analysis of the Philadelphia region’s top 100 public companies as defined by the Philadelphia Business Journal. In addition to the one-year snapshot, the report includes six-year trend data. Those numbers show that there has been some progress in increasing the proportion of women in top leadership roles, though in absolute numbers women are still a relatively small group. From 2008 to 2013: • The proportion of board seats The percentage of women executives at held by women increased public companies in the Philadelphia 19 percent. region matches national progress, • The proportion of executive according to the latest count by positions held by women Catalyst, Inc., an international organiincreased 24 percent. zation focused on advancing women in business. Nationally, women hold 14.6 • The proportion of top earners who were female increased percent of executive officer positions at 25 percent. Fortune 500 companies, compared to 14 percent at the Philadelphia region’s The expansion of this year’s report largest 100 companies by revenue. to include major non-profits is a However, women hold 16.9 percent of recognition of the fact that colboard seats at Fortune 500s nationally, leges, universities and healthcare surpassing the 12 percent at the local 100 companies. “Women have been a strong presence in the workforce for 70 years. There is an abundance of female talent available. Companies and non-profits need to be encouraged by their boards, shareholders and customers to make a conscious decision to identify, hire and promote talented women.” –Nila Betof, President of The Forum and Chief Operating Officer for The Leader’s Edge/Leaders By Design Continued on page 6 A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 5 Questions to consider For organizations: • What specific steps is your company or non-profit organization taking to place more women on its executive team and board? • What can public companies learn from non-profits about the importance of including women and other diverse groups in decision-making positions? • What can non-profit organizations learn from the corporate sector about assembling boards where specific skills are represented? • How can the corporate sector and non-profit sector work together to advance an agenda that benefits not only women but the entire community? For individuals: • How do you actively and strategically seek opportunities to lead at work and in the community? • Do you recommend talented women to the organizations and boards you are affiliated with? • Do you question your organization — whether as an employee, customer, client or shareholder — as to why women are not proportionally represented in the boardroom and executive suite? Executive summary continued systems — t he so-called “eds and meds” — play a key role as employers and purchasers of good and services in the overall economic vitality of the Philadelphia region. According to a 2014 report by Select Greater Philadelphia, education and health services comprise 21.4 percent of the region’s economy. “These are large, complex organizations that are driving a significant part of our economy,” Deanna Byrne, PwC Assurance Partner, said. “When we talk about the need for women in leadership, it’s important to consider and be aware of all sectors, public and non-profit.” 6 Voices at the table Why women hold more positions of influence in the non-profit sector than in the for-profit world is not clear. In the case of colleges and universities, the Philadelphia region has a strong tradition of all-female, Catholic colleges, and that legacy is still alive to some degree. Of the 18 colleges and universities included in the analysis, seven are headed by women, including one of the largest and most prominent institutions, the University of Pennsylvania. Unlike in the for-profit sector, all of the 17 healthcare systems and the 18 universities had at least one woman on their boards and the majority of them had at least three. University and hospital boards tend to be larger than those at public companies, allowing more opportunities for women to be represented. For up-and-coming leaders, serving on a non-profit board can showcase their skills and in some cases be a springboard for getting onto a corporate board. Non-profit positions generally are unpaid while board members of public companies receive compensation. Still, in the final count, women aren’t nearly as well represented as men on non-profit boards, though it’s often assumed that women run nonprofit organizations. This Women on Boards 2014 report isn’t confined to statistics. It includes interviews with five women leaders in the Philadelphia region who make important contributions to their organizations and the broader community. The leaders share what they’ve learned about the importance of diversity at the board table and provide some insider insights on what corporate and non-profit leaders can learn from each other. They also offer ideas on ways for the corporate and non-profit sectors to join forces to make the region even more dynamic. The Forum of Executive Women, in collaboration with PwC, hopes that by the time next year’s report is produced, many more of the Voices at the table will be women’s. By the numbers Key findings on women leaders Positions held at public companies from 2008 to 2013 Board seats: 868 19% Executive team: 24% Top earners: 848 615 640 515 88 2008 25% 102 68 2013 2008 Public companies* 88 2013 471 43 49 2008 2013 Healthcare systems** 12% 14% 10% 26% 18% 32% Board seats Executive team Top earners Trustee seats President/CEO Top earners Colleges and universities** 29% Trustee seats 39% President/CEO 27% *These numbers come from data compiled from SEC filings for the fiscal year-end that fell within the calendar year ended December 31, 2013, or prior, for the top 100 (by 2013 revenue) public companies as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal 2014 rankings. Top earners **These numbers come from data compiled from Form 990 filings for 2011 fiscal year-end for 17 healthcare systems and 18 four-year colleges and universities as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 7 Five women having an impact in the Philadelphia region Some of the area’s top leaders share their insights on the value of diversity in leadership and highlight ways that for-profit and non-profit organizations can better tap into talent to create a vibrant community. You’ve served in senior corporate positions and on multiple non-profit boards. How are the experiences similar and different? They’re similar in that the work is goal-oriented, whether it’s feeding the homeless, educating young adults or introducing a new banking or financing service. And there are good people with good intentions in both worlds. Denise McGregor Armbrister Senior Vice President, Wells Fargo Corporation As Executive Director of the Wells Fargo Regional Foundation, Armbrister has an up-close perspective on the critical roles that both for-profit and non-profit organizations play in the community. 8 Voices at the table The big differences have to do with availability of resources, bench strength and strategic planning. A non-profit might have a phenomenal executive director, but if something happens to that leader, things aren’t going to go well if there is no bench. There often is no succession plan, especially when an organization is built on the vision of one person. Also, in the non-profit world, there is not as much strategic thinking. Sometimes they are just trying to keep the lights on. How might it help to have more women and minorities on both forprofit and non-profit boards? It’s a diverse country and a diverse world. Whether you’re an institution of higher education trying to attract new students or a company developing a new product, it makes sense to have the input of diverse people throughout the organization. Diversity and inclusion are business imperatives because they take advantage of the creativity and innovation that come from multiple perspectives and provide for more understanding of those whom the organization serves. Is there a memorable moment when being a woman made a difference on a board you’re involved with? Not necessarily a “moment,” but I have an ongoing perspective that comes from being a woman and a woman of color that adds another dimension to the discussion. “By serving on governance/trustees committees, I have an opportunity to bring more women onto the boards, and I provide recommendations from women organizations with which I am involved or familiar. I look for opportunities to connect people and organizations in very specific ways.” Can you think of a situation where the lack of diversity of voices was a disadvantage? It happens much too frequently. I often find myself asking, “What were they thinking?” How do you get more women into top leadership positions at the organizations you’re involved with? By serving on governance/trustees committees, I have an opportunity to bring more women onto the boards, and I provide recommendations from women organizations with which I am involved or familiar. I look for opportunities to connect people and organizations in very specific ways. If a board needs a new member, I want to know, “What expertise are you looking for?” Why is it important for the corporate community to be invested in community issues? Without strong communities, the corporate community cannot succeed. Communities need to see the corporate community involved and investing in projects important to them. How can the corporate and nonprofit sectors work together to make the region vibrant? Corporate entities can’t solve all the issues, so it is critical for them to have a strategy and to identify specific areas of expertise that might be useful to community organizations. Then there needs to be more conversation and interaction with the community. The Wells Fargo Regional Foundation is involved in comprehensive neighborhood planning, but we can’t just go ahead and develop a revitalization plan. We listen to what community leaders and stakeholders have to say. What develops is not our plan, but the community’s plan. On the non-profit side, there’s an opportunity to strengthen organizations through more cooperation, coordination and, in some cases, consolidation. With sources of funding shrinking, non-profits can’t keep competing for the same universe of money and clients. Some non-profits are so passionate about their work and mission that they sometimes forget they don’t have the resources. They will undoubtedly keep struggling unless they work together with other organizations. As a mother of five, you once won the “Hardest Working Mothers in Southeastern Pennsylvania” award. What’s your secret to success at work and home? There is no secret or magic. It takes flexibility within a framework, a good and loving support system and having backup plans with family and friends. Plenty of lists, too. Continued on page 10 A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 9 Interviews continued “I think that because women traditionally have had to look out for themselves in order to get ahead, they don’t necessarily understand the power of a network. Building relationships is so critical to be successful.” non-profits tap unknown or otherwise out-of-reach resources. We can also help mentor talent at non-profits and help them understand how they can still accomplish their mission while being more strategic. When you’re on a board, you need to bring your expertise to the table. Anne Morrissey President and Chief Operating Officer, AmeriHealth Caritas In addition to her position at a forprofit healthcare company that serves some of the region’s most vulnerable people, Morrissey is a board member of the Urban Affairs Coalition, The Philadelphia Foundation and other community organizations. Are there any similarities in your roles in the corporate and nonprofit sectors? Creativity is required in both worlds. Many of the non-profits I work with operate on razor-thin margins and have access to few resources, so it forces them to be creative. For-profit companies also operate in highly competitive environments that require them to be creative. That’s what I enjoy — encouraging people to think differently to develop new and innovative solutions to complex problems. What value can a corporate leader bring to a non-profit board? Because non-profits often don’t have access to the capital markets, they rely on fundraising. Successful relationship-building is an integral part of fundraising. Those of us in the corporate world are in a position to leverage our relationships to help 10 Voices at the table You’ve served on boards where you were the only woman. Any memorable moments? Sometimes even well-meaning board members stop seeing the group’s lack of diversity. As board members approach the conference table, I’m sometimes asked, ‘Where do you want to sit?” My best reply is “Let’s sit boy-girl-boy-girl.” While it usually gets a laugh, it’s an eye-opener and a reminder that we need more women, more diversity, on boards. Can you think of a situation where the lack of diversity on a board was a disadvantage? Not having diversity is always a disadvantage. To be able to compete, organizations need boards that reflect diversity in all its forms — people of different races, backgrounds, life experiences, people who think differently. Do you have any initiatives to get more women into leadership positions at the organizations you’re involved with? I’m a strong believer in mentoring and education. At AmeriHealth Caritas, we identify top performers and place them in robust leadership development programs. It’s a winwin for them and for us. I think that because women traditionally have had to look out for themselves in order to get ahead, they don’t necessarily understand the power of a network. Building relationships is so critical to be successful. Why is it important for both corporate and non-profit leaders to be involved in on-the-ground initiatives? They bring different thinking styles, experiences and mindsets to bear on an issue. Working together, they can build healthy communities, a necessity for any business to thrive. For a for-profit, the partnership can’t just be about giving money. The partnership works best when the service or program being provided helps advance the mission of the company or helps its constituencies. How do you stay focused on the issues that matter? From a tactical perspective, I always tell leaders that they need to work on their top three priorities every day. From a personal perspective, I stay focused by remembering that as a leader of an organization, I am responsible not only for employees but for their families. Every decision I make impacts their careers, their lifestyles and their ability to be a sustainable part of the organization. And their employment reverberates from them into their communities. What do you like most about Philadelphia? Philadelphia is a city of small neighborhoods rich with culture and people who care about their families, their communities and the city. I also appreciate how open Philadelphia is. It’s an inclusive city that welcomes different lifestyles, different types of families. Kathleen Owens, Ph.D. President, Gwynedd Mercy University As a leader in higher education and chair of one of the region’s most visible non-profits, Project HOME, Owens understands the value of community groups, corporations and colleges and universities working together to solve problems. You’re the first lay president of a former women’s Catholic college. What are the key issues you’re facing? Cost and affordability of a college degree; student preparedness for college learning; graduation and retention rates; and the proposed “one-size fits all” rating system for American colleges and universities that is under development by the federal government. There is a lot of concern about whether a ranking system can capture factors that make universities what they are — t hings like student engagement, relationships with faculty and service learning opportunities. Another important issue for all universities is sexual assaults on campus. We have to make sure we are both in compliance and doing the right thing for students. women in higher education administration. Personally, I actively seek out younger women who appear to have an interest in academic administration and support their participation in professional development opportunities. A greater percentage of women than men graduate from college and earn advanced degrees. So why are there discrepancies in opportunity later in their careers? Despite the gender equality issues women face in the workplace, including lower pay, surveys have shown women tend to be more engaged than men in their workplace. That finding makes me wonder if women are making decisions about their employment on a more inclusive set of factors, which certainly includes salary, but places equal or more value on other dimensions of employment, such as job satisfaction, social well-being and physical well-being. That said, there is still a lot of room for improvement in terms of salary and opportunities to lead. Can you think of an example when having women board members made a difference? My University’s Board of Trustees includes a few women who are members of the religious community that founded the University. While there are too few of them to carry a vote, the nuns’ clear and compelling voices and commitment to the mission and traditions of the institution help shape just about all of the decisions made by our 25-member board. Do you have any initiatives to prepare young women to be tomorrow’s leaders? As a member of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium for Higher Education, Gwynedd Mercy University has a grant from The Henry Luce Foundation’s Clare Boothe Luce Program to increase the number of women in fields where they are underrepresented — science, mathematics, computer science and engineering. How can more women enter the top ranks of academia? There are a number of formal programs sponsored by the American Council on Education and other organizations to increase the number of “Despite the gender equality issues women face in the workplace, including lower pay, surveys have shown women tend to be more engaged than men in their workplace.” What skills do you need for your role as Board Chair of Project HOME? Like any trustee on a non-profit board, I am expected to bring time, talent and treasure. As Board Chair, I bring a wealth of experience in matters related to board governance and board leadership. While Project HOME’s core mission differs from my university’s mission, I am intimately aware of the challenges and opportunities that face mission-centric organizations. The complexity of Project HOME’s operations is similar to that of running a university. They’re both 24/7/365 operations. How can universities and corporations work more together? We need conversations between CEOs and heads of universities to talk about mutually important issues. How can we better prepare students to be future workers? What skill sets are companies looking for? How can companies provide meaningful internships for students? In addition to my Board of Trustees, I have a 35-member President’s Council made up of local corporate, educational and community leaders. They are a great resource and keep us pointed in the right direction. Continued on page 12 A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 11 Interviews continued Jane Scaccetti Shareholder and Chief Executive Officer, Drucker & Scaccetti As a public accountant specializing in tax and financial services, Scaccetti consults with businesses of all sizes and serves on major boards, including Pep Boys, Mathematica Research Policy, Temple University, Salus University and Temple University Health System. Three out of 10 directors at Pep Boys are women. Has that critical mass made a difference? I experienced what studies show. As a lone female board member when I voiced an opinion or raised an issue, I would hear, “she said.” When there were two women serving on the board, things improved to “they said.” Now that there are three women, we hear, “What did you say?” The influence on decision-making is gender-neutral. Can you recall an instance when having female members made a difference on a board you served on? A company was setting a strategic direction with women as the targeted customer but still proposed executing the strategy as if they were selling to men. They didn’t understand how women make purchasing decisions. The female board members suggested that women valued services differently. Focus groups supported this but the interpretation of the data wasn’t jiving with the execution. The women on the board persisted and suggested a successful change in advertising and employee training to reach female customers in a more effective way. Any instance when a lack of diversity of voices was a disadvantage? I watched a board committee become enthralled with a candidate because he was once a great athlete. They asked questions mostly about his athletic accomplishments. Our constituency was 50 percent female, 50 percent of color, yet the board committee had one female, two men of color and nine white males. After the interview, when I questioned the shallowness of the candidate’s answers to technical questions and experience, a member looked shocked that I was challenging a great athlete. So any ideas on how to increase the presence of women on boards? One option that can work but is receiving headwinds is to give women in senior management positions, but not the CEO, an opportunity to serve on a board. This requires senior management to support a woman focusing on something other than her “A board composed of C-suite executives and consultants, where the pool of women is greater, produces wonderful dynamics. Consultants approach problems in a manner that allows them to learn how that company operates, its culture, its strengths, its weaknesses.” 12 Voices at the table corporate responsibilities. An alternative that can be effective is to recruit consultants — lawyers, accountants, business management and technology experts — to serve on boards. A board composed of C-suite executives and consultants, where the pool of women is greater, produces wonderful dynamics. Consultants approach problems in a manner that allows them to learn how that company operates, its culture, its strengths, its weaknesses. CEOs who serve on another company’s board sometime struggle not to assume that their corporate experience is the solution to this company’s issues. You work with many different sectors of the economy, including large corporations, universities and healthcare. What are a couple of common issues they face? A major one is IT infrastructure and cybersecurity. Changing basic technology is costly — hardware, software and training, and by the time you update the next generation of technology is available. With the massive data breaches over the last year, boards are now warned they must protect or mitigate the risk to the organization and its stakeholders. Another common issue is the danger of being swept up in short-termism— that intense focus on the next quarter or two under the premise you are trying to increase shareholder value. Sometimes a strategy takes years to develop, not quarters. A focus on too short a term can be a threat to longterm stability and growth. How might it help to have more women and minorities on both forprofit and non-profit boards? Boards should more closely reflect their constituency, leading to a better understanding of the products and/or services, the employees and the customer. If you understand each of these important factors, it follows you will make better decisions. “There need to be more economic opportunities for women, more mentoring opportunities and increased civic engagement by women. The Commission is making a difference in all of these areas.” Is there a memorable moment when your voice as a woman leader made a noticeable difference? In my previous job, I was involved with a part of the organization that was just acquired. They had excellent products but they were not delivering sustainable results. Sue Schick Chief Growth Officer, United Healthcare Community & State As Chair of the Pennsylvania Commission for Women, Schick understands the obstacles that women still face in the workplace, and she also sees ways women can create more opportunities for themselves. You serve on multiple non-profit boards. How does that experience differ from being an executive leader? Any similarities? What businesses can learn from non-profits is that sense of having a connection to a mission. At a corporation, the mission doesn’t always resonate throughout the organization. As an executive leader, every day when I walk into my office, I have to think about what our mission is. Who are we here to serve and to help? Who are our stakeholders? On the other hand, some non-profits are so tied to their mission that they lose sight of the business elements of their organization. For any organization, it’s about having a clear mission and a solid culture in order to build a strong team to promote and live that mission. They were focused on the left-brain side — the product — and were missing the importance of relationships. I suggested they focus more on building strong relationships with distributors to get necessary results. Can you think of a situation where the lack of diversity of voices was a disadvantage? When I was in consulting, I worked in employee benefits. Many of the people we called on were women, yet we were a male-dominated team. I was the only woman on the team. I remember one meeting where our team had to present to a client and the client’s representatives were all women. We didn’t get the job. I’m convinced they didn’t select us because even though we gave a solid presentation, they didn’t think we could serve them in the same way a more diverse team could. Women make most healthcare decisions for both themselves and their families. Do more women need to be represented in corporate leadership positions to better reflect the tremendous influence that women consumers have in the healthcare sector? I’m lucky to work at an organization where 50 percent of our leaders are women. We have to strive for workplaces where the voices of women are welcome at all levels of the organization. In the healthcare industry, we have to be focused on innovation, relationships and compassion. Customer service representatives are constantly hearing people’s life stories. One of our workers came up with the idea of sending “compassion notes” to members dealing with a tough issue. The idea came from a woman. That’s an example of having strong EQ (emotional intelligence). You’re Chair of the Pennsylvania Commission for Women. What do you see as the biggest challenges that need to be addressed? There need to be more economic opportunities for women, more mentoring opportunities and increased civic engagement by women. The Commission is making a difference in all of these areas. Why aren’t more women in top leadership ranks? You can look at all the societal and environmental issues that impede progress, but you can also ask, “What can I do to get to a better outcome?” I may not be able to change the status quo, but I can control other things. I can help promote other women. I can seek out mentors and be a mentor. I can present myself in a way that will make it more likely I will get the promotion or be paid more. You have three sons. How has that experience sharpened your leadership skills? My sons are 26, 24 and 17, and what I’m learning from them now is how to work best with millennials on my team. I’ve learned that millennials value flexibility in work and they want to be recognized for what they do. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 13 Women directors and executive officers (as listed in SEC filings) Philadelphia Business Journal 2014 rank l ▲ Company name Directors Executive officers 1 AmerisourceBergen Corp. Jane E. Henney, M.D. ∆ Kathleen W. Hyle ▲ June Barry Peyton R. Howell 2 Comcast Corp. Judith Rodin, PhD ▼ 3 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. Marillyn A. Hewson Lois D. Juliber ▼ Ellen J. Kullman ln $ 4 Sunoco Logistics Partners LP Kathleen Shea-Ballay $ Meghan Zaffarese 5 Aramark Holdings Corp. Lynn B. McKee $ Christina T. Morrison $ Karen A. Wallace 6 Lincoln National Corp. M. Leanne Lachman ▲ 7 Crown Holdings Inc. Jenne K. Britell, PhD ▲ 8 Campbell Soup Co. Mary Alice D. Malone Sara Mathew ▲ Denise M. Morrison n $ Tracey T. Travis Charlotte C. Weber Irene Chang Britt Ellen Oran Kaden $ Denise M. Morrison n $ 9 Universal Health Services Inc. Eileen C. McDonnell Debra K. Osteen $ 10 UGI Corp. Anne Pol M. Shawn Puccio Monica M. Gaudiosi $ 11 Airgas Inc. Paula A. Sneed Ellen C. Wolf 12 Burlington Stores Inc. Tricia Patrick Joyce Manning Magrini 13 FMC Corporation K'Lynne Johnson Andrea E. Utecht $ 14 Triumph Group Inc. 15 Ametek Inc. Ruby R. Chandy Elizabeth R. Varet 16 Unisys Corp. Alison Davis Denise K. Fletcher ∆ Leslie F. Kenne Janet B. Haugen $ M. Lazane Smith 17 AmeriGas Partners LP Anne Pol Kathy L. Prigmore 18 American Water Works Co. Inc. Julie A. Dobson Martha Clark Goss ▲ Julia L. Johnson ∆ Susan N. Story n $ Sharon Cameron Maureen Duffy Kathy L. Pape Susan N. Story n $ Kellye Walker $ Chairs Board of Directors Chairs Audit Committee ∆ ► Chairs Governance/Nominating Committee Chairs Finance and Investment Committee ▼ n Ellen J. Kullman ln $ Lisa M. Buckingham Ellen Cooper Chairs Compensation Committee Chief Executive Officer $ Bold The chart includes information on the top 100 public companies by 2013 revenue as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. 14 Voices at the table Top Earners Forum member Philadelphia Business Journal 2014 rank l ▲ Company name Directors Executive officers 19 Urban Outfitters Inc. Margaret Hayne Margaret Hayne Wendy B. McDevitt $ 20 PHH Corp. Jane D. Carlin ∆ Deborah M. Reif ▼ Kathryn M. Ruggieri 21 Toll Brothers Inc. Christine N. Garvey 22 Vishay Intertechnology Inc. Ruta Zandman Lori Lipcaman $ 23 Chemtura Corp. Anna C. Catalano Billie S. Flaherty $ 24 The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack M. Shan Atkins ▼ Jane Scaccetti ▲ Andrea M. Weiss 25 Teleflex Inc. Patricia C. Barron ∆ 26 West Pharmaceutical Services Inc. Myla P. Lai-Goldman, M.D. Paula A. Johnson, M.D. 27 Healthcare Services Group Inc. Diane S. Casey, R.N. 28 SEI Investments Co. Sarah W. Blumenstein Kathryn M. McCarthy Kathy C. Heilig 29 DFC Global Corp. 30 CDI Corp. Anna M. Seal H. Paulett Eberhart n $ 31 J&J Snack Foods Corp. 32 Knoll Inc. Kathleen G. Bradley Sarah E. Nash Stephanie Stahl Pamela J. Ahrens Karen E. Clary Lynn M. Utter $ 33 Aqua America Inc. Mary C. Carroll Ellen T. Ruff 34 Radian Group Inc. Lisa W. Hess ► Jan Nicholson ∆ Teresa A. Bryce Bazemore $ Catherine M. Jackson 35 South Jersey Industries Inc. Sarah M. Barpoulis Sheila Hartnett-Devlin ▲ Sunita Holzer Kathleen A. McEndy Gina Merritt-Epps $ 36 Quaker Chemical Corp. Patricia C. Barron Margaret M. Loebl $ 37 SLM Corporation Carter Warren Franke Marianne M. Keler 38 Checkpoint Systems Inc. Julie S. England Sally Pearson 39 Dorman Products Inc. 40 Liberty Property Trust 41 Brandywine Realty Trust 42 EPAM Systems Inc. 43 Destination Maternity Corp. Melissa J. Payner-Gregor ∆ 44 Hill International Inc. Camille S. Andrews ∆ Chairs Board of Directors Chairs Audit Committee ∆ ► Karen Flynn Rachael M. Bushey Katherine E. Dietze M. Leanne Lachman Ginger Mosier Chairs Governance/Nominating Committee Chairs Finance and Investment Committee ▼ n Catherine H. Emma Chairs Compensation Committee Chief Executive Officer $ Bold Top Earners Forum member The chart includes information on the top 100 public companies by 2013 revenue as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 15 Women directors and executive officers continued Philadelphia Business Journal 2014 rank l ▲ Company name Directors Executive officers 45 UniTek Global Services 46 QlikTechnologies Inc. Deborah C. Hopkins 47 Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust Rosemarie B. Greco ∆ 48 Chesapeake Utilities Corp. Dianna F. Morgan 49 Globus Medical Inc. Ann D. Rhoads ▲ 50 Penn Virginia Corp. Marsha R. Perelman Nancy M. Snyder $ Joan C. Sonnen 51 Five Below Inc. 52 Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. Nancy S. Lurker Jennifer L. Armstrong Elizabeth V. Jobes 53 Entercom Communications Corp. 54 CSS Industries Inc. Rebecca C. Matthias ∆ Laurie F Gilner 55 Nutrisystem Inc. Andrea M. Weiss Dawn M. Zier n $ Kiera Krausz $ Dawn M. Zier n $ 56 Incyte Wendy L. Dixon, PhD Paula J. Swain $ 57 Hersha Hospitality Trust Dianna F. Morgan 58 InterDigital Inc. Jean F. Rankin 59 CubeSmart Marianne M. Keler Deborah R. Salzberg 60 StoneMor Partners 61 Vishay Precision Group, Inc. 62 JGWPT Holdings Inc. 63 PhotoMedex Inc. 64 SL Industries Inc. 65 RAIT Financial Trust S. Kristin Kim 66 WSFS Financial Corp. Anat Bird ▲ Jennifer W. Davis ▼ Peggy H. Eddens 67 Dover Downs Gaming & Entertainment Inc. 68 RCM Technologies Inc. 69 Resource America Inc. 70 Lannett Co. Inc. 71 The Bancorp Inc. Betsy Z. Cohen ln $ Mei-Mei Tuan Betsy Z. Cohen ln $ 72 Beneficial Mutual Bancorp Inc. Karen D. Buchholz Elizabeth H. Gemmill ▲ Marcy C. Panzer Pamela M. Cyr Joanne R. Ryder $ Chairs Board of Directors Chairs Audit Committee ∆ ► Glorminda Abad McAllister Kathleen M. McCarthy Carole Dalton Slover Diane Adams $ Deborah C. Lofton Elaine B. Bittner $ Beth W. Cooper $ Louise C. Kramer $ Jannie K. Lau Randi A. Sellari $ Chairs Governance/Nominating Committee Chairs Finance and Investment Committee ▼ n Chairs Compensation Committee Chief Executive Officer $ Bold The chart includes information on the top 100 public companies by 2013 revenue as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. 16 Voices at the table Top Earners Forum member Philadelphia Business Journal 2014 rank l ▲ Company name Directors Executive officers 73 BioTelemetry Inc. Rebecca W. Rimel Heather C. Getz, CPA $ 73 Sun Bancorp Inc. 75 Bryn Mawr Bank Corp. Andrea F. Gilbert ▼ Lynn B. McKee Alison E. Gers $ 76 Univest Corporation of Pennsylvania Margaret K. Zook Kimberly Detwiler Karen E. Tejkl 77 OmegaFlex Inc. 78 Marlin Business Services Corp. 79 Artesian Resources Corp. 80 Institutional Financial Markets Inc. Rachael Fink 81 ICG Group Inc. Suzanne L. Niemeyer 82 Universal Health Realty Income Trust Cheryl K. Ramagano $ 83 PuriCore Inc. 84 Dover Motorsports Inc. 85 WPCS International Inc. 86 MeetMe Inc. Jean B. Clifton 87 Cape Bancorp Inc. Althea L.A. Skeels 88 inTEST Corp. 89 Republic First Bancorp Inc. 90 USA Technologies Inc. Deborah G. Arnold ∆ 91 Fox Chase Bancorp Inc. RoseAnn B. Rosenthal 92 Parke Bancorp Inc. 93 Innovative Solutions and Support Inc. 94 JetPay Corp. 95 Ocean Shore Holding Co. Dorothy F. McCrosson ∆ Janet M. Bossi $ Kim M. Davidson $ 96 Alteva Inc. Kelly C. Bloss l Jennifer M. Brown $ 97 TF Financial Corp. 98 Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania Inc. 99 ProPhase Labs Inc. 100 DNB Financial Corp. Chairs Board of Directors Chairs Audit Committee ∆ ► Michele B. Estep $ Lynne C. Wilson $ Dian C. Taylor ln $ Nicholle R. Taylor $ Marella Thorell $ Jennifer L. Finch Dian C. Taylor ln $ Nicholle R. Taylor $ Marella Thorell $ Joan B. Ditmars Michele Pollack $ Rhonda Costello $ Elizabeth A. Milavsky $ Elizabeth A. Kaspern $ Lorraine A. Wolf Linda Tabas Stempel Mildred C. Joyner Chairs Governance/Nominating Committee Chairs Finance and Investment Committee ▼ n Chairs Compensation Committee Chief Executive Officer $ Bold Top Earners Forum member The chart includes information on the top 100 public companies by 2013 revenue as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 17 Board seats, executives and top earners for Public Companies (as listed in SEC filings) Board of Directors Executives Top Earners % % Total Female Female Board Board Board Total Female % Female Top Top Top Seats Seats Seats Executives Executives Executives Earners Earners Earners AmerisourceBergen Corp. 10 2 20% 7 2 29% 5 0 0% Comcast Corp. 12 1 8% 7 0 0% 5 0 0% E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 12 3 25% 7 1 14% 5 1 20% Sunoco Logistics Partners LP 8 0 0% 9 2 22% 5 1 20% Aramark 11 0 0% 7 3 43% 5 2 40% Lincoln National Corp. 11 1 9% 8 2 25% 5 0 0% Crown Holdings Inc. 12 1 8% 7 0 0% 6 0 0% Campbell Soup Co. 15 5 33% 11 3 27% 5 2 40% Universal Health Services Inc. 7 1 14% 5 1 20% 5 1 20% UGI Corp. 9 2 22% 7 1 14% 6 1 17% Airgas Inc. 12 2 17% 15 0 0% 6 0 0% Burlington Stores Inc. 6 1 17% 9 1 11% 5 0 0% FMC Corporation 11 1 9% 7 1 14% 6 1 17% Triumph Group Inc. 11 0 0% 4 0 0% 6 0 0% Ametek Inc. 8 2 25% 6 0 0% 5 0 0% Unisys Corp. 10 3 30% 13 2 15% 5 1 20% AmeriGas Partners LP 9 1 11% 13 1 8% 8 0 0% American Water Works Co. Inc. 9 4 44% 14 5 36% 6 3 50% Urban Outfitters Inc. 7 1 14% 8 2 25% 5 1 20% PHH Corp. 10 2 20% 8 1 13% 6 0 0% Toll Brothers Inc. 10 1 10% 4 0 0% 4 0 0% Vishay Intertechnology Inc. 10 1 10% 6 1 17% 6 1 17% Chemtura Corp. 8 1 13% 7 1 14% 5 1 20% Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack 9 3 33% 8 0 0% 7 0 0% Teleflex Inc. 11 1 9% 3 0 0% 4 0 0% West Pharmaceutical Services Inc. 11 2 18% 12 2 17% 5 0 0% Healthcare Services Group Inc. 9 1 11% 9 0 0% 5 0 0% SEI Investments Co. 6 2 33% 10 1 10% 5 0 0% DFC Global Corp. 7 0 0% 7 0 0% 5 0 0% CDI Corp. 8 1 13% 8 1 13% 6 1 17% J&J Snack Foods Corp. 5 0 0% 6 0 0% 5 0 0% Company Female The chart includes information on the top 100 public companies by 2013 revenue as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. 18 Voices at the table Female Board of Directors Executives Top Earners % % Total Female Female Board Board Board Total Female % Female Top Top Top Seats Seats Seats Executives Executives Executives Earners Earners Earners Knoll Inc. 9 3 33% 7 3 43% 6 1 17% Aqua America Inc. 10 2 20% 7 0 0% 5 0 0% Radian Group Inc. 11 2 18% 7 2 29% 5 1 20% South Jersey Industries Inc. 11 3 27% 9 2 22% 6 1 17% Quaker Chemical Corp. 9 1 11% 11 1 9% 5 1 20% SLM Corporation 14 2 14% 5 0 0% 5 0 0% Checkpoint Systems Inc. 9 2 22% 5 0 0% 6 0 0% Dorman Products Inc. 6 0 0% 6 0 0% 6 0 0% Liberty Property Trust 8 2 25% 5 0 0% 5 0 0% Brandywine Realty Trust 7 0 0% 7 0 0% 6 0 0% EPAM Systems Inc. 7 0 0% 5 1 20% 3 0 0% Destination Maternity Corp. 8 1 13% 4 0 0% 4 0 0% Hill International Inc. 7 1 14% 9 1 11% 5 0 0% UniTek Global Services 7 0 0% 10 3 30% 3 0 0% QlikTechnologies Inc. 7 1 14% 7 2 29% 6 2 33% Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust 11 1 9% 6 0 0% 5 0 0% Chesapeake Utilities Corp. 12 1 8% 5 2 40% 5 2 40% Globus Medical Inc. 7 1 14% 7 0 0% 5 0 0% Penn Virginia Corp. 6 1 17% 6 2 33% 4 1 25% Five Below Inc. 8 0 0% 5 0 0% 4 0 0% Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. 7 1 14% 9 2 22% 5 0 0% Entercom Communications Corp. 7 0 0% 7 1 14% 5 1 20% CSS Industries Inc. 8 1 13% 5 1 20% 5 1 20% Nutrisystem Inc. 8 2 25% 3 2 67% 5 2 40% Incyte 7 1 14% 6 1 17% 5 1 20% Hersha Hospitality Trust 7 1 14% 6 0 0% 5 0 0% InterDigital Inc. 8 1 13% 7 1 14% 5 0 0% CubeSmart 8 2 25% 3 0 0% 4 0 0% StoneMor Partners 9 0 0% 3 0 0% 5 0 0% Vishay Precision Group, Inc. 5 0 0% 3 0 0% 3 0 0% JGWPT Holdings Inc. 8 0 0% 4 1 25% 3 1 33% PhotoMedex Inc. 8 0 0% 2 0 0% 2 0 0% SL Industries Inc. 5 0 0% 2 0 0% 2 0 0% RAIT Financial Trust 8 1 13% 5 0 0% 4 0 0% WSFS Financial Corp. 11 2 18% 10 1 10% 5 0 0% Company Female Female The chart includes information on the top 100 public companies by 2013 revenue as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 19 Board seats, executives and top earners continued Board of Directors Executives Top Earners % % Total Female Female Board Board Board Total Female % Female Top Top Top Seats Seats Seats Executives Executives Executives Earners Earners Earners Dover Downs Gaming & Entertainment Inc. 7 0 0% 4 0 0% 4 0 0% RCM Technologies Inc. 6 0 0% 6 0 0% 3 0 0% Resource America Inc. 9 0 0% 10 0 0% 5 0 0% Lannett Co. Inc. 7 0 0% 6 0 0% 5 0 0% The Bancorp Inc. 11 2 18% 7 1 14% 5 1 20% Beneficial Mutual Bancorp Inc. 11 3 27% 7 2 29% 5 1 20% BioTelemetry Inc. 8 1 13% 7 1 14% 5 1 20% Sun Bancorp Inc. 12 0 0% 9 1 11% 6 1 17% Bryn Mawr Bank Corp. 10 2 20% 6 1 17% 5 1 20% Univest Corporation of Pennsylvania 11 1 9% 7 2 29% 6 0 0% OmegaFlex Inc. 6 0 0% 5 0 0% 3 0 0% Marlin Business Services Corp. 7 0 0% 5 1 20% 5 1 20% Artesian Resources Corp. 5 2 40% 8 3 38% 6 2 33% Institutional Financial Markets Inc. 8 0 0% 5 1 20% 3 0 0% ICG Group Inc. 9 0 0% 4 1 25% 3 0 0% Universal Health Realty Income Trust 6 0 0% 4 1 25% 4 1 25% PuriCore Inc. 7 1 14% 2 1 50% 2 1 50% Dover Motorsports Inc. 7 0 0% 5 0 0% 4 0 0% WPCS International Inc. 6 0 0% 3 0 0% 3 0 0% MeetMe Inc. 6 1 17% 5 0 0% 4 0 0% Cape Bancorp Inc. 10 1 10% 6 2 33% 5 1 20% inTEST Corp. 7 0 0% 5 0 0% 3 0 0% Republic First Bancorp Inc. 6 0 0% 6 1 17% 5 1 20% USA Technologies Inc. 8 1 13% 2 0 0% 4 0 0% Fox Chase Bancorp Inc. 7 1 14% 5 0 0% 5 0 0% Parke Bancorp Inc. 10 0 0% 7 1 14% 3 1 33% Innovative Solutions and Support Inc. 6 0 0% 3 0 0% 3 0 0% JetPay Corp. 7 0 0% 3 0 0% 3 0 0% Ocean Shore Holding Co. 7 1 14% 6 2 33% 5 2 40% Alteva Inc. 5 1 20% 6 1 17% 7 1 14% TF Financial Corp. 9 0 0% 4 2 50% 3 1 33% Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania Inc. 11 1 9% 4 0 0% 5 0 0% ProPhase Labs Inc. 6 0 0% 2 0 0% 2 0 0% DNB Financial Corp. 8 1 13% 6 0 0% 3 0 0% 848 102 12% 640 88 14% 471 49 10% Company Total Female The chart includes information on the top 100 public companies by 2013 revenue as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal. 20 Voices at the table Female Board seats, executives and top earners for Four-Year Colleges and Universities (as listed in Form 990 filings) Board of Trustees/ Directors Executives Top Earners* Total Female % Female Board Board Board Female President/ Total Top Top Top Seats Seats Seats CEO Earners Earners Earners Arcadia University 36 18 50% No 5 1 20% Cabrini College 22 12 55% Yes 5 3 60% Delaware State University 16 2 13% No 5 1 20% Drexel University 47 10 21% No 5 1 20% Eastern University 33 6 18% No 5 2 40% Gwynedd Mercy University 21 13 62% Yes 5 3 60% Holy Family University 19 9 47% Yes 4 2 50% Immaculata University 29 21 72% Yes 5 2 40% La Salle University 38 7 18% No 5 0 0% Neumann University 24 11 46% Yes 5 1 20% Philadelphia University 28 4 14% No 5 1 20% Saint Joseph’s University 33 6 18% No 5 0 0% Temple University 36 4 11% Yes 5 0 0% Thomas Jefferson University 39 4 10% No 5 0 0% University of Pennsylvania 61 19 31% Yes 5 1 20% Villanova University 38 8 21% No 5 0 0% Widener University 30 6 20% No 5 2 40% Wilmington University 9 1 11% No 5 4 80% 559 161 29% 39% 89 24 27% Four-Year Colleges and Universities Total Female % Female *The data were derived from the 2011 year-end filing of the organization’s Form 990. The “Top Earners” category is comprised of the five highest compensated individuals. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 21 Board seats, executives and top earners for Healthcare Systems (as listed in Form 990 filings) Board of Trustees/ Directors Executives Top Earners* Total Female % Female Board Board Board Female President/ Total Top Top Top Seats Seats Seats CEO Earners Earners Earners Abington Health 21 6 29% No 0** 0** N/A Aria Health 15 3 20% Yes 5 1 20% Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 28 6 21% Yes 5 1 20% Cooper Health System 24 5 21% No 5 0 0% Crozer-Keystone Health System 19 5 26% Yes 5 1 20% Doylestown Hospital 20 11 55% No 5 2 40% Einstein Healthcare Network 23 7 30% No 5 5 100% Grand View Hospital 11 1 9% No 5 0 0% Holy Redeemer Health System 16 2 13% No 5 1 20% Inspira Health Network 15 2 13% No 0** 0** N/A Jefferson Health System Inc. 12 2 17% No 0** 0** N/A Kennedy Health System 11 1 9% No 0** 0** N/A Lourdes Health System 18 7 39% No 5 3 60% Mercy Health System 16 10 63% No 5 2 40% St. Mary Medical Center 13 4 31% No 5 2 40% Temple University Health System 16 1 6% No 5 2 40% Virtua 12 1 8% No 5 1 20% Total 290 74 26% 18% 65 21 32% Healthcare Systems Female The data were derived from the 2011 year-end filing of the organization’s Form 990. The “Top Earners” category is comprised of the five highest compensated individuals. **Denotes instances of no disclosure of reportable compensation from the organization. 22 Voices at the table % Female Project methodology Public companies This project was conducted using a consistent methodology based on available SEC filings. The scope of the research was comprised of the top 100 (by 2013 revenue) public companies as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal (Vol. 32, No. 46) 2014 rankings. For each of the public companies, data were compiled from the company’s SEC filings for the fiscal year-end that fell within the calendar year ending December 31, 2013. If filings for the company’s fiscal yearend falling within the 2013 calendar year were missing or unavailable, the latest available filings prior to December 31, 2013 were used and have been identified as such. For the trend analyses, data were used from prior years’ research efforts from the SEC sources. Note that the top 100 companies do change from year to year based on merger activity and changes in revenue, so the trends must be interpreted accordingly. Directors and named executive officers who held their positions as of the date of the SEC filing were included in the statistics presented. Data for executive officers were compiled using each respective company’s Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year-end falling within the 2013 calendar year. Data for directors and top earners were compiled using the proxy statements immediately succeeding the Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year-end falling within the 2013 calendar year. Top earners were identified as those who were disclosed in the executive summary compensation table, or equivalent, within each company’s proxy statement immediately succeeding the Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year-end falling within the 2013 calendar year. Top earners may include former executive officers who no longer hold an executive position as of the date of the SEC filing. Note: former executive officers were not included in the charts as executive officers; however, they were included as top earners where appropriate. Healthcare systems and four-year colleges and universities This project was conducted using a consistent methodology based on available Form 990 filings. The scope of the research was comprised of 17 healthcare systems and 18 four-year colleges and universities as listed in the Philadelphia Business Journal (Vol. 32, No. 46). While the Philadelphia Business Journal listings included many of the region’s healthcare systems and colleges and universities, Philadelphia Business Journal noted that “Only those that responded to our [Philadelphia Business Journal] inquiries were listed.” The report was limited to non-profit organizations. As a result, the following for-profit entities were not included: Hahnemann University Hospital, St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children, Chestnut Hill Hospital and The Art Institute of Philadelphia. Four-year colleges and universities that report to higher boards outside of the Philadelphia region also were not included: Rutgers University– Camden, Pennsylvania State University branch campuses, Millersville University of Pennsylvania, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, Rowan University and The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. University of Pennsylvania Health System was not on the healthcare system list because it is part of the University of Pennsylvania and did not have a separate filing. University of Pennsylvania and University of Pennsylvania Health System were reported in the four-year colleges and universities under University of Pennsylvania. Data were compiled from Form 990 for the 2011 fiscal year-end. This is the first year reporting this data. Due to a lag in filing, 2011 was the latest year in which all of the participants had filed the Form 990. In analyzing the leadership composition at colleges, universities and healthcare systems, the report only considered the position of president/CEO. However, the top earners category is made up of the top five earners at each of the organizations. All attempts were made to collect accurate information and any errors in the data were unintentional. A status report on women leaders of Philadelphia-area corporations, universities and healthcare systems 23 Acknowledgments The Forum of Executive Women would like to thank all of the individuals who gave of their time to be profiled in this report. And we extend our appreciation to the following contributors, for without them this report would not have been possible. PwC The Forum is pleased to include PwC as our Women Upfront sponsor and thanks them for serving as the strategic sponsor on the Women on Boards report. • Ed Lovelidge, PwC Philadelphia Metro Managing Partner • Deanna Byrne, PwC Assurance Partner and Forum member • Nancy Beacham, PwC Assurance Partner • Kelly Thornton, PwC Assurance Partner • The PwC team members including: Amy Frazier (Forum member), Kimberly Strickland, Dayi Miriam Shou, Diamond Lipscomb, Colleen Crowley, Tanya Brockenbrough, Sarah Gilhorn, Andrea Lane, and Esther Sportello Writer/editorial content Susan FitzGerald, Philadelphia-based writer, editor and journalism instructor The Forum of Executive Women: Women on Boards Report Subcommittee • Autumn Bayles • Nila Betof, President, The Forum of Executive Women • Jane H. Firth, Chair, Women in Executive Leadership and Governance Committee • Sharon S. Hardy, Executive Director, The Forum of Executive Women • Vicki Kramer • Leslie Stiles Printing Harriet Weiss CEO, CRW Graphics The Forum remembers the late Judy Grossman who served as The Forum’s Associate Director and Project Manager of the Women on Boards report for many years. It is with appreciation and admiration that we remember her dedication to every aspect of this report. 24 Voices at the table The Forum of Executive Women 1231 Highland Avenue Fort Washington, PA 19034 T: (215) 628 9944 F: (215) 628 9839 E: [email protected] www.forumofexecutivewomen.com Sharon S. Hardy Executive Director Julie A. Kaeli Associate Director To view this report electronically, please scan the code below. MIX Paper from responsible sources FSC® 0000000 This publication is printed on Anthem Matte. It is a Forest Stewardship Council™ (FSC®) certified stock containing 10% post consumer waste (PCW) fiber. © 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the United States member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. PwC United States helps organizations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We’re a member of the PwC network of firms in 157 countries with more than 184,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at www.pwc.com/US.
© Copyright 2018