Deloitte & Touche was hiring the best and brightest men and women, and proportionately losing 80 percent of the women before they reached partner level.Sex discrimination against women ; Women executives

V. Sue Molina

English

Research Papers in Economics

42 REGIONAL REVIEW Q1 2005
3
COUNTERING STEREOTYPES BY CHANGING THE RULES
n 1992, my employer, Deloitte & Touche USA 
LLP, realized it had a disappearing woman problem. 
We had been hiring men and women in approximately 
equal numbers at the entry level since the early 1980s. 
We knew women were underrepresented among our 
partners, but we had always assumed that in 10 or 12 
years, the women we’d hired in the 1980s would trickle 
up to the partner pool. But here it was, a decade later, 
and only 10 percent of that year’s partner candidates 
were women. Where had all the women gone?
Our then-Chairman and CEO, J. Michael Cook, 
took it upon himself to ﬁnd out what was happening. 
He hired Catalyst, the executive women’s research and 
advocacy ﬁrm, to interview women who had left the 
ﬁrm. Catalyst discovered that 70 percent were work-
ing full-time for other companies and 20 percent were 
working part-time. The 10 percent who were at home 
generally intended to return to the labor market at some 
future time. Women were not leaving Deloitte because 
they wanted to stay home with children. They were leav-
ing because they didn’t want to work at Deloitte.
Many of these former employees perceived Deloitte’s 
culture as male-dominated, not valuing women’s ways 
of perceiving the world and relating to others. They also 
felt that the ﬁrm did not provide sufﬁcient opportunities 
for women to advance. They believed advancement was 
limited for many women because they were excluded 
from informal networks, mentoring, and plum assign-
ments due to assumptions made for them. And the long 
hours and heavy travel schedules for some made jug-
gling work and home life next to impossible. 
That Catalyst survey was a wake-up call to our senior 
management. Our most important asset was our people, 
and we were losing them in droves. This turnover was 
not only costly to us, but also frustrating to our clients. 
What’s more, we were hiring the best and brightest men 
and women, and proportionately losing 80 percent of the 
women before they reached partner level. By deﬁnition, 
the quality of our partnership had to be diluting. We 
knew we needed to make changes quickly or lose even 
more of our highly skilled staff. 
Since that wake-up call, we’ve made a number of 
changes so that women are better able to succeed at 
Deloitte. Some of the biggest changes include: 
•   Implementing reduced work-hour schedules that are 
not just available, but actually used. Because reduced-
hour workers still participate in practice development 
opportunities, recruiting, and other non-client activi-
ties, going on a reduced schedule no longer de facto 
takes people off the path to promotion—although it 
might extend the length of time it takes to get pro-
moted. 
•   Creating a mentoring program that proactively match-
es female senior managers with partners so that the 
women can learn the informal rules of the road for 
advancement.
•   Changing to a “3-4-5” travel schedule, in which our 
consultants are out of town three nights a week, work-
ing in the client’s ofﬁce four days a week, and in the 
home ofﬁce on the ﬁfth day. That way, even consul-
tants who travel extensively can spend more time with 
their families.
•   Improving recruiting practices to increase representa-
tion of women when ﬁlling vacant positions, whether 
at the entry or senior level.
•   Identifying high-potential men and women who are 
currently or will soon be ready to move into leadership 
positions, to reduce the possibility that qualiﬁed can-
didates were overlooked and to increase the number 
of women promoted into senior leadership.
•   Forming an advisory council of outside experts, cur-
rently chaired by former Secretary of Labor Lynn 
Martin, to monitor our progress.
I
changing the face of consulting:  
the women’s initiative 
at deloitte
by v. sue molina Q1 2005 REGIONAL REVIEW 43 
by brad hershbein 
Milestones in working
            women’s legal history
1920 Women receive 
the right to vote with 
the passage of the 19th 
Amendment
1923 Equal Rights 
Amendment (ERA) ﬁ  rst 
proposed by the National 
Women’s Party
1932 The National 
Recovery Act allows only 
one person per family to 
hold a government job; 
many women are ﬁ  red
1948 In Goesaert 
v. Cleary, the Supreme 
Court upholds a Michigan 
law that prohibits wom-
en from working in cer-
tain occupations (such as 
bartenders) on account 
of protecting morals
1963 Congress passes 
the Equal Pay for Equal 
Work Act, barring wage 
discrimination on the ba-
sis of sex, race, religion, 
and ethnicity
1964 Congress passes 
the Civil Rights Act, 
Title VII of which forbids 
discrimination on the 
basis of race, ethnicity, 
religion, and sex
1967 President John-
son’s Executive Order 
11375 requires federal 
agencies and contractors 
to actively ensure that 
women are not discrimi-
nated against in educa-
tion or employment
1968 The Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) rules 
sex-segregated help-
wanted ads are illegal 
unless a bona ﬁ  de reason 
exists for them
1969 California passes 
the nation’s ﬁ  rst no-fault 
divorce law
1969 In Bowe v. 
Colgate-Palmolive, the 
Supreme Court rules 
that women meeting the 
physical requirements 
can work in previously 
male-only jobs
1972 Title IX of the 
Education Act mandates 
that all educational pro-
grams receiving federal 
aid cannot discriminate 
on the basis of sex
1972  In Eisenstadt 
v. Baird, the Supreme 
Court rules that unmar-
ried people have a right 
to use contraceptives, a 
right that married people 
received in Griswold v. 
Connecticut in 1965
1972 Congress 
strengthens the Equal 
Pay Act to apply to exec-
utives and professionals 
and empowers the EEOC 
to enforce its rulings 
through legal action
1973 In Roe v. Wade, 
the Supreme Court e�  ec-
tively legalizes abortion 
nationwide
1974 In Cleveland 
Board of Education v. 
Laﬂ  eur, the Supreme 
Court rules it is uncon-
stitutional to require 
women to take maternity 
leave on the assumption 
they are physically inca-
pable of working
1977 Indiana becomes 
the 35th and last state to 
ratify the ERA, 3 states 
shy of the 38 needed
1986 In Meritor Sav-
ings Bank v. Vinson, the 
Supreme Court ﬁ  nds 
that a hostile or abusive 
workplace can constitute 
sex discrimination 
1993 Congress passes 
the Family and Medi-
cal Leave Act (FMLA), 
requiring large employers 
to provide their employ-
ees up to 12 weeks of un-
paid leave for pregnancy 
or family illness
1997 The Home Depot 
settles a sex discrimina-
tion suit with over 7,000 
of its female employees 
for more than $65 million
1998 The Supreme 
Court ﬁ  nds that employ-
ers can be held respon-
sible for sexual harass-
ment of employees by 
supervisors, regardless 
of whether management 
speciﬁ  cally knew of the 
misconduct
2003 In Nevada 
Department of Human 
Resources v. Hibbs, the 
Supreme Court rules that 
the FMLA applies to 
state government 
employees as well as 
federal and private-
sector workers
2004 After brieﬂ  y 
going to court, Morgan 
Stanley settles for $54 
million a suit brought by 
the EEOC on behalf of 
340 of the company’s 
female managers and 
executives. Merrill Lynch, 
Morgan Stanley, and 
Smith Barney (Citigroup) 
have together paid out 
more than $150 million 
in settlements so far
Milestones in working
            women’s legal history
Three factors helped us to make 
such radical changes. First, our se-
nior leadership, in the early 1990s and 
today, has been visibly committed to 
making this happen. In 1993, with 
the launch of our Women’s Initiative, 
our CEO attended all the Women’s Initiative meetings, 
held a press conference to announce its kickoff, and 
kept everyone talking about how we could improve 
the environment for women. Second, we had a strong 
business case. Turnover was costing us millions of dol-
lars each year; we needed to stop the bleeding and ﬁ  nd 
ways to retain our people. And third, we held ourselves 
accountable. As accountants, we love numbers. So we 
track the pipeline, promotions, gender gap in turnover, 
ﬂ  exible work arrangements—all the elements that keep 
the door open for women. And we rely on the outside 
advisory council to keep our feet to the ﬁ  re.
In the last decade, the environment at Deloitte has 
become much more favorable for women—and for that 
matter, for men. For the last eight years, we have had 
the highest percentage of women partners, principals, 
and ﬁ  rm directors among the major accounting and 
professional services ﬁ  rms. Our gender turnover gap 
is almost completely gone. We now routinely appear 
on Working Mother’s and Fortune’s lists of the best 
companies to work for, and we have also been able to 
attract more clients because we have more staff sta-
bility on assignments. We still face many challenges 
ahead in maintaining an environment where women 
and men have equal opportunities for promotion and 
leadership at Deloitte. But we know that because of the 
strength of our Women’s Initiative, we will continue 
to progress. S
V. Sue Molina is a retired partner and former Nation  al 
Director of the Initiative for the Retention and Advance-
ment of Women at Deloitte & Touche USA LLP.
Deloitte built 
a business 
case for 
improving 
its work 
environment
b
e
t
t
m
a
n
/
c
o
r
b
i
s

Changing the face of consulting: the women's initiative at Deloitte

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/nerr/rr2005/q1/section3d.pdf

Changing the face of consulting: the women's initiative at Deloitte

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics