Fighting the Gender Fight at HBS

The pot is stirring at Harvard Business School

Harvard Business School made the front page of the New York Times last weekend.  It wasn't because one of its alumni is perched atop a Fortune 500 company or another announced a blockbuster merger with another mega-company.  It wasn't because one of its alumni is waging a ferocious shareholder campaign to take over a multinational company. And it wasn't because one of its alumni is the announced head of McKinsey, Goldman or Booz Allen.

It was because its dean and staff are fighting a fierce fight to change the culture of the school and make it more accepting of the growing number of women on campus. According to the article, women now comprise 40% of the students in the business school. But the culture still remains entrenched in male dominance--in case-study groups, in classroom discussions, in the assembling of secret societies ("Section X," one is supposedly called), and in seizing the highest-compensation opportunities after graduation (especially in private equity, venture capital, investment banking and consulting). The article points out how males at the school are better at "touching the money," finding easier pathways to lucrative job offers.

Harvard, in the article, is applauded for recent successes and progress. It highlights the efforts of Dean Nitin Nohria and his team of administrators, who want to spawn an environment where women can thrive. And they want to change attitudes and increase the number of women faculty.

In business school, class participation, the art of leading discussion and presenting ideas and arguments, can comprise much of the final grade in a course.  In many Harvard courses, participation, as subjective as it is assessed, can be as much as 50% of the final grade.  Harvard administrators want to change how professors assign participation grades, because aggressive, outspoken males in class--honed by aggressive styles from stints in banking and trading--dominate class discussions, outshine others, and dismiss input of females in class.  Harvard wants to change the classroom dialogue and the benchmarks by which students are evaluated.  They are even recommending women to attend sessions on how to raise their hands (highly, visibly and confidently) in class.

This revolution of sorts, a punishment of old, male conventions and traditions at Harvard, has been welcomed by many, but has caused uneasiness, discomfort in others. The Harvard administrators press on, aware that right now the impact is cast only on campus and that the current group of students are part of a grand experiment.

Frances Frei, one of the deans on staff in the business school, is the face of many of the changes, the one who has decided progress is possible by making "unapologetic" (her favorite word) moves and making things uncomfortable for the old guard.

The article highlights what most have speculated about HBS for years--that the experience of attending the school involves intense immersion inside the classroom, in case groups, and, perhaps most important, outside the classroom in networks, social interactions, and after-hours gatherings. Social success, social connections and even social match-making, it seems, count as much, if not more than, aptitude inside the classroom--in finance, marketing, accounting, and operations management.  Some students worry more about social dynamics than about basic principles of valuing a corporation.

That might be disconcerting to some, especially to those who deem themselves unconnected, disadvantaged, or without means or ties to the business elite. That might be fresh air to those with connections, special ties, and less of a knack for dissecting financial statements, cash flows, and volatile currencies.

That's not the way it should be, asserts HBS's current leadership. And the leadership has decided it will change the ways of the school even if it means making unpopular decisions, some of which have rankled many who knew Harvard better as a two-year fraternity for the sons of the elite.

Will HBS succeed? Will the experiment work? Or will it work on campus, but its impact will simmer once its 900 graduates march off to a resistant real world?

Harvard staffers are operating on an old premise for overhauling a culture. Making changes sometimes means inflicting discomfort and pain. Old ways, old patterns and old prejudices against women must be smashed, not just gingerly dealt with. Taking bold steps requires stirring the pot.  Not only is Harvard guiding female students on how to raise their hands in class, but it is monitoring the tone and flavor of discussion in class and evaluating professors on grade participation. It is even setting strict rules on the costumes women might wear or the parts they play at theme parties or end-of-year follies.

Harvard deans understand that changing Harvard won't mean sudden changes in hiring practices and the work environment at private-equity firms, venture capital firms, banks, trading floors and consulting firms. They hope for some eventual trickle-over impact.  They know what they do at Harvard will be watched and replicated at some business schools--at least those schools that have harbored similar cultures of marginalizing women. They know, too, that graduates today will one day become decision-makers, business chiefs and industry leaders in due course and could be influenced by values they adopted in school.

Has Harvard (not a Consortium school), however, addressed similar issues and a similar feeling of disenfranchisement among under-represented minorities on its Boston campus? Maybe not. Or not as vocally. Some among under-represented minority groups will avow they, too, sometimes feel excluded from social groups or closed, social societies on campus or feel uncomfortable raising their hands and presenting their views in classes filled with boisterous former investment bankers on the front row.

Harvard, or at least this group of deans running the business school these days, hopes that a plan that helps resolve gender issues is a plan that crosses boundaries and creates a culture that is a comfortable, conducive setting, so that everybody can thrive--not just brash former M&A bankers taking a two-year break from Wall Street. 

Tracy Williams

See also:

CFN:  Venture capital and Diversity, 2011
CFN: MBA Diversity:  A Constant Effort to Catch Up, 2012

Muriel Siebert: Wall Street Pioneer

Siebert: A career of firsts

Many people on Wall Street who knew Muriel Siebert well called her "Mickie."  Other people who interacted with her or conducted business with her firm knew about the Chihuahua dog that always tagged along. The dog even shared her office and sometimes interrupted meetings, often scrambling around the office craving attention. Visitors wouldn't dare complain.

On the Street, everybody familiar with her knew about her long career of firsts--the first woman to become a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the first woman to become New York State's top banking regulator, one of the first to found her own brokerage firm, and arguably the first icon in the securities industry for all the women who've followed behind.

They knew, too, about her dogged, determined ways, her bold, sometimes brash manner in speaking up on behalf of women. She thrived in one of the most recalcitrant environments, where men ruled the industry as if it were a college fraternity. From the moment she decided to make a living selling stocks and bonds, she battled old-boys clubs that blatantly disregarded pleas from women and minorities who wanted to crack the core.

Siebert, who died this month at 84 in New York, rubbed Wall Street men the wrong way--not because she wanted to, but she might have felt she had to. She spoke her mind and fussed about gestures and traditions that offended women. (The story is told often about the big ado she made about getting a women's room near the New York Stock Exchange dining room.) The doors she knocked down opened slightly, but only after relentless pounding. In later years, she never hesitated to toot her horn, recount her accomplishments, and remind all within earshot that we were only at the 20-yard-line in a 100-yard dash.

(The sprint for fairness and opportunity continues. Amidst announcements of her death come reports in late August that Merrill Lynch, now part of Bank of America, is settling a long-running lawsuit with black brokers in its retail network for amounts over $150 million.)

After gaining the stock-exchange membership in 1967, she set out on her own, choosing not to tackle the manly bureaucracies at the major brokerage houses of that time (the Paine Webbers, Merrill Lynches, and E.F. Huttons), if those houses would even offer her employment opportunity. She established her own small brokerage firm, eventually reorganizing it as a "discount brokerage house," where she peddled stocks at discount commissions--not bothering to expand into other securities businesses (corporate finance and trading), preferring to stick to what she knew best.

For years, her brokerage firm Muriel Siebert & Co. (and its incarnations through the years) operated within that niche, fortunate to survive in a tough industry, going head to head with bigger, more-capitalized firms that featured, of course, armies of old-school, male brokers. Over time, she eventually took the firm public (Siebert Financial Corp.) and ventured into philanthropy to give back and support other women following her path.

Nonetheless, not many know how she clamored and pushed for progress in other ways.  Late in her career, she formed ties with Napoleon Brandford and Suzanne Shank, senior African-American bankers in municipal finance.  When she decided to expand into municipal finance in 1996, her firm invested in a new affiliate partnership, Siebert, Brandford & Shank, now one of the top minority-owned banks in municipal finance. With more capital, they could win more business and rise higher in underwriting syndicates and tables.  She exploited their connections and experiences in municipal finance, while they took advantage of new capital and the "Siebert" brand.

Siebert fought, struggled and pouted until the end--likely still perturbed by slow progress across all sectors of brokerage and banking in big banks, in hedge funds, in small regional brokerages, and at asset-management companies.

Goldman Sachs this year announced a new slate of partners and managing directors--bankers, traders, and managers at the top echelon, the ones who run business units, make decisions about strategy and expansion, and the ones who reap the most in compensation. Only 14% of the new partners (managing directors with large ownership stakes) were women; only 23% of the new managing directors (those without promised large stakes) were women.  At Morgan Stanley, only 17% of new managing directors were women.

Siebert would not have been satisfied, would have been puzzled about such numbers in 2013, and in Siebert-like fashion might have picked up a phone and scolded the CEOs of those firms or might have whispered her disappointment sternly in a corner at Wall Street charity dinner.

Over 45 years, Siebert "leaned in" and pinched a few nerves, ruffled the cuffs of many securities-industry leaders, and griped about unfair practices and unfavorable opportunities for women. Like many pioneers, she worried less about being liked, worried more about progress.

Tracy Williams

See also:

CFN:  Making Demands on Diversity, 2013
CFN:  Getting Pushed Back, While Leaning In, 2013
CFN:  MBA Diversity: A Constant Effort to Catch Up, 2012
CFN:  Making Markets in Her Home Country, 2009

Georgetown Becomes The Consortium's 18th

Consortium Gets DC Footprint

On deck is Georgetown's McDonough School of Business.

This week The Consortium selected Georgetown's business school as the 18th Consortium school. Georgetown will join the other schools formally in July and start admitting Consortium students in the fall, 2014. Consortium Executive Director Peter Aranda made the announcement June 24, marking The Consortium's first new school in three years. Over the past five years, besides Georgetown, The Consortium has added Cornell, Yale, and UCLA and invited back UC-Berkeley after it departed in the early 2000s. 

Georgetown follows the footsteps of other prominent business schools affiliated with The Consortium, including such schools as Emory, USC, Yale, Texas, Dartmouth, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. 

What does Georgetown bring to The Consortium table? It gives the organization an immediate footprint in the Washington, DC, area.  Consortium business schools, often known nationally as top schools by just about anybody who ranks, rates or evaluates MBA schools, are scattered about the country with imprints in major metropolitan areas (e.g., New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta) and with a presence in most regions in the U.S.  But The Consortium had not had a representative school in Washington. The closest business school is Virginia's Darden School.

That attractive location is another plus for a prospective MBA student. Strong MBA applicants have well-reasoned criteria when they choose among top schools.  They examine and choose schools based on course offerings and curriculum, based on a school's strength in certain concentrations (finance, marketing, international business, e.g.), based on faculty and staff they meet in the wooing process, and based on a general vibe, a comfort feeling they are well-suited for the school.

They also may select a school based on geography.  Most strong applicants visualize their lives after school and try to determine where they want to launch careers, where opportunities will be plentiful and where they want to reside over the next decade.  Opportunities and lifestyle in Atlanta will, therefore, make Emory's business school attractive. Opportunities in technology entrepreneurship and Silicon Valley will make UC-Berkeley attractive. The lure of the Midwest will drive Indiana and Wisconsin to the top of lists. For years, NYU has benefited from being a long stone's throw from Wall Street.


Opportunities in international business and Washington being at the crossroads of critical activity in business, law, and government service make Georgetown attractive.

Georgetown's McDonough School is now under the helm of Dean David Thomas, who arrived on campus within the past two years after a heralded career as a professor at Harvard Business School. His specialty there for two decades was organization behavior and human-resource management.  He has already made impressions along the Potomac. For example, taking advantage of the university's strengths in international business and affairs, the business school now requires first-year students to spend three weeks studying the "Structure of Global Industries," which provides a blueprint for students to study all aspects of business from a global perspective.

Thomas apparently also figured the school could do better in diversity initiatives, starting with the student body.  Georgetown hired Shari Hubert as associate dean of admission to increase diversity in applicants and matriculating students. Hubert, an MBA graduate from Harvard, has extensive experience in recruiting in positions she held at Citigroup, GE Capital, and the Peace Corps. Joining The Consortium was an appropriate next step for Thomas and Georgetown.

The McDonough School's MBA program is of modest size by most standards with about 250 students in a full-time MBA class--about the size of Dartmouth's Tuck, not as big as the programs at NYU or Michigan.  (The school has about 1,000 MBA students--including part-time and executive programs--and about 1,400 undergraduates.)

Otherwise, its profile is as familiar as those at other Consortium schools.  Students typically have about five years of work experience and are about 27-28 years old on average. About 1,800 prospects apply to the full-time program with admission rates hovering around 35%.  About 30% of recent classes are women. Also like other top schools, a significant percentage of graduates go into finance (28% in a recent year) and consulting (26%).

This bundle of advantages will now make for tough decisions for the prospective Consortium applicant, who--if she decides she wants to remain on the East Coast--must ponder choosing among rich business-school experiences at Virginia, North Carolina, and now Georgetown.

Tracy Williams

See also:

CFN:  Cornell Makes 15, 2009
CFN:  Welcome Back UC-Berkeley, 2010
CFN:  California Dreamin': UCLA Joins The Consortium, 2010
CFN:  Is the MBA Under Attack, 2013?
CFN:  The Global Imperative on Campus, 2012

Who's Headed into Finance in 2013?

Cornell attracts its share of Consortium finance MBAs

On your mark. Get set. This week, over 300 new Consortium students will launch their campaigns to earn an MBA by heading to New Orleans for the Consortium's 47th Orientation Program.  As in previous years, they will be engulfed by activity, events, recruiters, school staff, seminars, sponsors and celebratory gestures. For most of them, OP is a festive, uplifting time. They pause and take a week-long breath before embarking upon the frenetic pace of graduate business school. 

Among the new MBAs, who's headed into financial services in 2013?

How many among the 300-plus have expressed an interest in concentrating in finance at school or a career in financial services? As they take new twists and turns over the next two years, what do they aspire to do when graduation comes in 2015?

Let's consider the current environment.  The awful, dreadful financial crisis is receding into memory, although there is a haunting, lingering impact. The crisis and economic recession caused upheaval and changed the landscape at banks, broker/dealers, investment funds, insurance companies and private-equity firms.  Financial institutions are rushing to hire just as many experts in compliance, risk management, regulation and technology as they are in luring investment bankers, brokers, wealth managers, and traders.

With steady improvements in the economy  and with remarkable upturns in equity markets, this year's new MBA students won't need to whisper when they declare an interest in financial services. The job or role they dream of may actually exist in two years. Or the job or role may turn out to be something they never knew existed in their first days of a corporate-finance core course.

The new class of Consortium students, after the OP, will disperse and head off to 17 different Consortium business schools all across the country.  Of the total, over 130 have expressed some degree of interest in financial services, even if it is a tentative or preliminary interest. That number already suggests renewed confidence. In previous years, especially during the morale-plummeting crisis years, fewer than 100 dared to raise a hand to say they were interested in banking, trading or investment research.

Many of them, like other non-finance MBA students, are in career transition. Some are opting for finance after stints in other fields (non-profits, public service, engineering, or marketing).  Some are currently in banking or trading and will use the MBA (and what they learn in class) to leap from one segment to another (from, say, private banking to equity research).

No doubt they understand what they are about to take on.  They know this isn't the 1980s, when an MBA graduate Dartmouth could join Morgan Stanley's corporate-finance unit and plan to be there for 20-plus years and, with confidence, take steady, resolute steps to managing director.  They know it's possible Morgan Stanley may not exist (in the way we know it today) in 20 years. (Drexel Burnham, Bear Stearns, Salomon, and Lehman Brothers, favorite firms for MBAs in the 1980s, don't exist in 2013.)

They know they must plan a career in five-year segments. Even in finance, they know they must reinvent and rebrand themselves all the time and be willing to try something new when pushed against the wall. They know they must explore a variety of institutions, segments, roles, and options.  They know, too, the best opportunity may not be at Goldman or Citigroup, but could be at a regional investment fund, at a financial institution in Brazil or at a futures brokerage in Chicago.  If they don't know now, they will learn that roles in compliance, risk management and financial regulation are more valued by some banks than first-year jobs in M&A or on the currency desk.

MBA students in finance (including those at Consortium schools) tend to head to business schools with strengths in finance, where finance faculty are widely known and where finance recruiters swarm. They also head toward schools that already have a large concentration of students in finance. They want to be with others with similar aspirations or they don't want to be at a disadvantage. Like-minded students want to be with each other.

In this year's class, Cornell and NYU business schools will have the largest number of Consortium finance students. Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Yale and Indiana follow closely behind. These numbers are as expected, because these schools tend to support the largest numbers of Consortium students and some of them have historically attracted many students with an eye on Wall Street, banking, private equity, or investment management.

Students today, including Consortium students, are mindful to keep they must keep options open. When they are asked to indicate an interest before they start school, they will likely show many hands.  Many finance students will say they will pursue finance, plus something else. Often, that will be finance and consulting or finance and marketing.

Consortium students in the Class of '15 are similarly spreading their wings, while they have primary objectives. Over a dozen expressed an interest in venture capital and are likely aware of the difficulty in securing a position in a major venture firm, particularly one that resides on Sand Hill Road in Silicon Valley. Venture-capital firms hire MBAs from top schools and cherish candidates with strong technical experiences (and degrees), but are notably erratic in how they bring on whom they hire.

Another dozen or so are interested in investment banking. That wouldn't be unusual in any class. Despite the topsy-turvy world of investment banking (Who's laying off or reducing staff this week?), investment banking is still an important segment of finance, it will always be here, and there still remains the lure of working for such firms as Goldman Sachs, Lazard Freres, and JPMorgan.

Many more also say they will explore financial management, which captures areas from private banking and asset management to corporate finance at non-financial companies.  Others are interested in finance in specific industries:  real estate and energy, e.g.

The pairing of finance and consulting seems to be as popular as ever.  That might be a result of some students aiming for a particular firm experience (at, say, Goldman Sachs or Booz Allen or Blackstone), hopeful for an opportunity to have a prestigious, meaningful experience in their first few years and not necessarily loyal to a particular industry. Or they wish to be in an advisory function, which is what investment banking and consulting are about.

Not many expressed an interest in community banking, insurance, or financial brokerage.

Students willing to explore multiple concentrations also suggests a few more trends: (a) They know that the optimal dream job for an MBA graduate may not yet exist or is still in the making or (b) They may not yet be familiar with industry details to know they might be suitable for a certain segment. Many MBA candidates will learn over the next two years (or after they are hired by a financial institution) they are best suited for roles in risk management, audit, compliance or research.  The business-school experience is supposed to permit students to explore, get their feet wet in alien territory, and test new fields.

The daunting rat race of the recruiting process hastens the exploration effort, and that's unfortunate. It thrusts the new student into a boiling pot, where they must make career decisions overnight. Students declare where they will go to school in April or May, and by August, before they have sat through one marketing case study, they are swept into the helter-skelter pace of finding a summer internship.

For now, they get to explore, contemplate, and plan.

Tracy Williams

See also:

CFN:  Outlook for MBAs, 2013
CFN:  Consortium Orientation Program, NOLA-Bound, 2013
CFN:  Consortium Orientation Program, Minneapolis, 2012
CFN:  Consortium Orientation Program, 2011
CFN:  Consortium Orientation Program, Orlando, 2010
CFN:  Consortium Orientation Program, Charlotte, 2009

Getting Pushed Backed, While "Leaning In"

Applicable to all under-represented groups?

So the topic that has made a torrent splash in the early weeks of 2013 is a new catch-phrase:  "Lean In," taken, of course, from Facebook COO's Sheryl Sandberg's new book of the same name. The book raced to the top of best-seller lists. The subject--how women can push (or propel?) themselves into the top echelons of business--is relevant. The advice and guidance are useful, although Sandberg acknowledges there are no quick fixes, no one special way to progress along the path, and certainly no assurances that every woman who "leans in" will one day find herself chair of the board.

Nonetheless, Sandberg determined it was time to put the issue back on the table and force companies and business leaders to assess where we are.  She advises women to seize control of their destinies, bang on the door and avoid waiting for it to open.

So next question. Are her advice and guidance relevant to other under-represented segments (URM) in business--Asians, Latinos and blacks? Does her message, including her instructions and urgings, apply to minority professionals? What happens when members of those groups dare to "lean in," ask for what they want, aspire to become senior business leaders and push for opportunity, promotions and adequate compensation? What happens when they "lean in," assert themselves, but then get pushed back, get pummeled or--even worse--outright ignored?  What happens if they are pushed back for not being patient or for being too vocal, too ironclad specific about what they seek in the next 10 years?

Let's now narrow this to minority professionals in financial services.  What happens if those from  URM, who thrive in, say, corporate finance, banking, trading, funds management, or equity research lean in and get pushed back? Get punched and knocked down in their efforts to seize a seat at the leadership table?

Career paths in finance are often rough, brutal--marked by periods of overwhelming workloads, evolving deadlines, demanding clients, mountainous risks, complex deals, blockbuster trades, tough decisions, and severe competition from other firms and from the colleague down the corridor. Many associates or vice presidents are aware it takes more than superior technical skills to get promoted, be rated highly, and win hard-fought pieces of the bonus pie. It takes stamina, perseverance, contacts, mentors, a thick skin, and bits of chance (lucky markets, lucky opportunities, and being in the right group or on the right team in good times).

So how do under-represented minorities in finance put themselves in settings where they can--more often than not--be in the right place in pivotal career moments?  How do they "lean in" to make sure they contribute to important client meetings, deals and projects--the deals and projects that get people noticed and put them on go-to lists of those who get to do bigger deals, manage bigger projects and oversee larger clients? 

Many minority professionals in finance and consulting already know the game; they have already seized half of it by enduring grueling recruiting processes and have earned treasured spots at firms like Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Morgan Stanley or any of the notable private-equity firms, investment managers or hedge funds. Like many women in the same roles, they understand what it takes "lean in." They plotted ways to gain entrance into top schools.  They managed rigorous course loads in business schools and successfully navigated through numbing rounds of interviews.  They know what it takes to be aggressive, stand out, and grab opportunity when the doors open ever so slightly and briefly. 


Those who survive the pressures of doing deals, booking big trades, making investment decisions and meeting budget "lean in" in their roles of banker, trader, analyst, or researcher. They raise their hands to ask for plumb assignments, request to be put on innovative deals, and volunteer for special overseas roles. Always accessible and committed, they give up weekends, holidays and weekday evenings.

After a few years, they know it is critical to be on the inside of strategy sessions, senior management presentations, and any gathering to discuss ways to boost revenues or introduce new products and services.They find ways to nudge inside the doors where the biggest decisions are made.

But as they "lean in" and make exhausting commitments to the firm, the client, the deal, the portfolio and the business, many have not adroitly figured out what to do when they get "pushed back." Getting pushed back occurs more frequently than they expected. Often the push-back occurs for subjective, unfair reasons. Sometimes the push-back is blind-sided gesture on the part of a manager, colleague or management team.

Getting pushed back too frequently for inexplicable reasons leads to discouragement. It triggers floods of emotions and self-reflection:  What did I do wrong? What can I do to alter their perceptions of me? What more can I do to earn visible assignments or prove myself in a bigger role with significant responsibility? Why do they not recognize me when I raise my hand, make noise, stomp my feet and share my ideas for new products, clients and revenue growth?

Sometimes after such self-reflection, they find ways to rebound. Some learn the art of bouncing back and conjure the strength to rebound not once, but time and again. They take a different angle or approach, when they "lean in."  They respond to feedback. They return with an even better project idea, finance model, or client tactic. They re-commit to the team, deal, or firm. They find other mentors to toot their horns or help with a career strategy.

Unfortunately, getting pushed back too often leads to bewilderment and loss of energy and enthusiasm. Eventually it leads talented under-represented minorities (and women) to withdraw or recede while still on the job and ultimately to resign from the job itself. Bouncing back after leaning in and getting pushed back over and over becomes too draining, too stressful. 

How to bounce back from the push-back is usually the kind of guidance many mid-level finance professionals from under-represented groups (including women) crave:

When senior managers compose the deal team that will work on the billion-dollar underwriting for, yes, Sandberg's Facebook, how should they barge their way onto the team? When the team is being composed to advise Google, Eli Lily or John Deere on its next major acquisition, how do they ensure they are selected?

When a sector leader selects someone to lead a business group in London, Brazil or Tokyo, how do they win such a coveted assignment? When the institution rolls out a new product to a new client group in a different part of the country, how do they make sure they have a fair shot at the opportunity to lead the product campaign?

When they do extensive research, exquisite financial modeling or insightful analysis and come up with novel ways to assist a client or structure a financing, how do they ensure their voices are not silenced and their ideas not stolen?

As year-end approaches, when they review their accomplishments and contributions, how do they ensure in evaluation season their rankings or ratings won't slip, because they don't have champions or advocates on their behalf or because others diminish their contributions?

There is no formulaic solution to handle the "push-back."  Much depends on the environment, the firm culture, the immediate surroundings, management hierarchy and the financial state of the institution. Much also depends on personal goals and priorities (something Sandberg's book examines from cover to cover).  In all cases, it helps to reassess a situation, review those personal priorities, maintain confidence, and recommit to what is important. In some cases, it even helps to "lean on" others more experienced (not necessarily "lean in") who have traversed the same corporate routes and endured similar push-backs and setbacks.

Motivated and talented minorities and women lean in continually--every day, throughout the year, in every transaction, trade, client session, or discussion of risks, revenues, investments and new products.  They want to understand the best ways to thwart the "push-back." And they want encouragement and energy to rebound one more time with confidence that all the effort has a chance to pay off.

Tracy Williams

See also:

CFN:  Making Demands on Diversity, 2013
CFN:  Venture Capital Diversity Update, 2011
CFN:  MBA Diversity: A Constant Effort to Catch Up, 2012
CFN:  How Mentors Can Help, 2009
CFN:  Mentors:  Still Critical and Necessary, 2010
CFN:  Affinity Groups, 2011

Making Demands on Diversity

Rogers: "We are just not fighting hard enough."

Last fall, John Rogers of Ariel Investments found a convenient forum to discuss the state of diversity in finance. At a SIFMA diversity conference last October, he scolded executives and the rest of the industry about the woeful numbers from under-represented groups in senior roles. "The state of diversity in the industry," he reportedly said, "is appalling."  He added, "Ninety percent of leaders talk a big game, but...we have gone backwards. We are just not fighting hard enough."

Rogers is Ariel Investments' founder and CEO. He, also, happens to be a pioneering African-American in the industry, one who has been a prominent investor and leader in mutual funds for 30 years. Hence, Rogers is no new kid on the block, not an industry novice who just appeared on the scene to make this striking, candid observation.  He has seen dozens of market trends and phenomena, endured more than a few volatile markets, and followed a few decades of diversity patterns. The patterns, he says now, appear to be as unsettling as occasional market collapses.

He stepped into the investment arena in the 1980s, and with sufficient backing and varied contacts courageously started his own mutual-fund company in 1983. Like many minorities who surfaced on Wall Street (or in Chicago, where he has always been headquartered) years ago, Rogers perhaps had high expectations regarding diversity. Perhaps he expected over three decades, minorities would have prominent, visible, and impressive roles in every senior niche in every aspect, perch or segment of finance--in banking, trading, investing, funds management, securities processing, etc. Everywhere.

Three decades would have been ample time for the first wave of large numbers of minorities and women in finance to appear now in substantial numbers in board rooms, corner officers, and trading rooms. Within three decades, blacks, Latinos, Asians and women should have prominent roles within  those hush-hush huddles that determine who gets promoted, who gets paid handsome bonuses, who is tasked on headline-wining deals, and who gets the precious amounts of capital that is allocated for business expansion and investment.

But in 2012-13, he tells eFinancial Careers: "It's unfortunate. One of the most lucrative parts of the economy; it's so dynamic, offering so much wealth, and people of color have not participated."

He adds, "Here in Chicago, at so many funds and banks, you can count the number of black partners on one hand.  That's just the reality of it. It's something that needs to be addressed.  People aren't demanding that industries reflect the societies in which they live."

In perhaps the final chapters of his career, Rogers is recommending that those in positions of influence should call for or take bold action: Make stronger demands, ask questions, and push harder for banks, firms and funds to do something. He recalls an occasion recently where, in working with a bank on a specific negotiation, he asked curtly why he didn't see minority representatives. By the next meeting with the same investment bank, he said, the firm had hired its first black banker.

Why might it be time for bold, aggressive tactics? Why do his words resonate? It's likely frustration and disappointment after so many years of effort. It's the puzzlement about what can be done and where do go from here, especially as major institutions struggle with current business models and announce lay-offs routinely. It's also the squashing of lofty expectations from the 1980s and 1990s, when banks and Wall Street firms opened their doors (with some outside thrusts, of course) to minorities and women and welcomed them to entry-level analyst and associate programs. They hustled to find competent, diverse talent, while at the same time, the talent sought them out.

The expectations then were that after 10-15 years of doing deals, managing portfolios, teams and large client relationships, trading large sums (in the tens of millions), doing research, making sales calls, overseeing complex financial models and advising on investments, the vast wave of minorities would now be running operations, sectors, business segments, subsidiaries in Europe or Asia, or much of the firm itself.  They would be the ones with significant roles in deciding how to restructure a large banking unit, deciding whether to acquire other funds or banks, or deciding where to invest billions of dollars of capital over the next few years.

Granted, there are some minority and women bankers in such roles. And some have risen to the top echelon--either leading the institution (American Express or Merrill Lynch, e.g.) or leading an entire sector (investment banking at Citi or Credit Suisse, e.g.). (Women have previously held the CFO slots at Citi, Morgan Stanley, Lehman, and JPMorgan Chase and chief risk roles at Lehman and BoA.) But expectations had been much higher long ago, because many thought the hardest part about Wall Street was simply getting through the door.

In ensuing years and even today, getting into a lucrative Wall Street spot is still complex, agonizing and difficult. Yet retention and promotion to the top rungs remain even more complex, agonizing and difficult.

Diversity initiatives, retention efforts, networking, and mentoring programs sometimes work. They pave the way for opportunity, provide support and encouragement, and help instill confidence in those who sometimes shrug and want to give up.  Rogers now suggests that all these efforts, and more, need to be capped off with strong demands.

Many institutions nowadays are struggling with reorganizations and uncertainty about reform, but with improved market conditions, they don't have the excuse of having to fight for survival while the financial system is about to collapse.  To their credit, most major financial institutions devote enormous amounts of time, funds and priorities to diversity. And they support internal "affinity" programs to provide career support for women and professionals of color. On the other hand, private-equity firms, financial sponsors, hedge funds  and venture-capital firms, often indifferent about such initiatives, operate as if it were the 1970s.


The pipeline continues to dwindle at mid-levels, as senior associates or junior vice presidents, including women and minorities, become discouraged about senior opportunities or pathways to managing director or become more demoralized, disenchanted, marginalized, or "plain ol' tired" of figuring out how to get to that top echelon. Many depart before they reach their fifth anniversary in the firm.

Thus, throughout the year, when institutions explore the candidates eligible for promotion to the top ranks, many women and minorities have already opted out or the few who remain are not well known to many or don't want to expend the enormous emotional energy to fight the fight.

Rogers suggests institutions and funds--big and small and in all facets of the industry--need to go beyond the placid endorsement of programs. They need a swift kick sometimes in the rear to be reminded that all can do better. All must do better.

Tracy Williams


See also:

CFN: Affinity Groups at Major Institutions, 2011
CFN: Venture Capital and Diversity, 2011
CFN:  Diversity Update, 2011
CFN:  Diversity:  Staying on the Front Seat, 2009

Knocking Down Doors in Venture Capital

Jenn Wei, a Stanford MBA who once worked in investment banking, is now researching, chasing and negotiating deals in technology as a venture capitalist at Bloomberg Capital.  Last week, in postings that appeared widely in business media, including VentureBeat.com, she wrote about the startling, but not surprising lack of women in venture capital--in Silicon Valley (California), in Silicon Alley (New York) and at other pivotal venture spots around the country.

She reminded us of the glaring scarcity of females at negotiating tables, within network huddles when ideas are bantered about, and in closed-door meetings where entrepreneurs, deal-doers and investors decide the right amounts for an early-round investment to support the next new thing.


She offered a few reasons why women are not prominent in the industry and dared to propose solutions. She said women desperately need role models in the industry and industry participants need to take time to understand the likes, interests, and proclivities of women.

Her observations won't knock down doors, nor will they force those who run the best-known venture-capital firms to change the look, face and appeal of the industry overnight.  As much they should be, they aren't focused on demographics of who's who and who's where as much as they desperately chase the next "disruptive" technology enterprise.

But gosh, she makes a point that is obvious to anybody who takes a moment to survey who is in the industry--from those at entry levels to those who sign off on the big angel investments. Who's exactly roaming the corridors at top venture-capital firms? What did they do to prepare to be in the right place and the right time? Whom did they know?

CFN examined the statistics of the industry last year. See CFN-Venture Capital and Diversity.  Women comprise about 11% of the venture-capital professionals (based on industry surveys last year), while blacks and Latinos are virtually invisible at the major firms (firms such as Accel, Greylock, Sequoia, and Kleiner Perkins).  (Asians and Asian-American comprise about 9%.)

Wei pointed to the Midas List, a Forbes-magazine list of the top 100 in venture capital, those responsible for making the most lucrative investments in technology, those who have had successful track records in sniffing out the next Facebook or Zynga and getting in early, while accumulating board seats and significant numbers of pre-IPO shares. She had trouble finding women on the list. And she wondered why.

In the list's top 20, there are no women. Women have had modest success in leading technology firms (e.g., at eBay, H&P, Facebook, Yahoo, etc.). So why haven't they been leaders in venture capital? (Or why, for that matter, are blacks and Latinos still invisible in the industry?)

The top 20 on Forbes' list includes familiar names, including those who would likely be in a Venture Capital Hall of Fame, if such existed. It includes Marc Andreessen, Jim Breyer, John Doerr, Reid Hoffman, and Peter Thiel--not necessarily household names, but wealthy investors (a billionaire here and there) and legendary leaders of venture funds.

What typifies this top 20 among the top 100, beyond the fact that a little luck here and there certainly counted for some of their success and wealth?

1.  While some like Thiel and Andreessen became venture investors after their blockbuster successes from a start-up they founded (PayPal, Netscape, etc.), most of the others started out working in investor funds and worked their way up because of investment-related experiences, contacts, opportunities they took advantage of, and solid track records. Many of the same--without a doubt--joined the right venture firms and fell into the arms of sympathetic mentors willing to help someone follow their paths.

2. Many of them, plugged into technology updates and gifted with insight about technology trends or market behavior, hit more than a few home runs by getting in early in recent years with investments in Groupon, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, NetFlix, Pandora and Zynga.  One or two home runs helped build a reputation, which helped establish more contacts, funding, or entrees into whatever niche of the industry they needed or wanted to be in.

3.  Many have science, math, and engineering undergraduate degrees, permitting them to exist comfortably among professional engineers, computer scientists, or 22-year-old coding geeks.

4.  But most of this group are financiers at their core, competent in evaluating investments over 3-, 5- 7-year horizons, able to comprehend balance sheets and funding needs of start-up companies, expert at assessing growth prospects of a new company, sensitive to the tweaked structures of the capital structure of a young company, and experienced in deciphering board-room behavior.

So it's not a surprise that most in this group of 20 and a substantial number in the top 100 have MBAs in finance from top schools (Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton, being prominent in the top 20, and Consortium schools Berkeley and Michigan also being prominent in the top 100).

Basically qualities, characteristics and experiences many women (and others from under-represented groups) possess.  The doors are slightly ajar, and they might have to be knocked down in order for everybody to get in.

Tracy Williams

MBA Diversity: A Constant Effort to Catch Up

For the past three decades, top business schools have hustled every way they can to improve levels of diversity on their campuses. They have aggressively recruited under-represented minorities (URM) and women. They have participated in pipeline programs like the Consortium. They have sponsored scholarships and funded fellowships.

But two weeks ago, a Wall Street Journal article suggested that for many schools it's a one-step-forward, two-steps-back effort. Graduate business schools from Harvard and Stanford to the Consortium 17 have made praiseworthy progress among some segments (Asians, internationals), but insubstantial progress in others.

"While many top programs boast that ethnic or racial minorities comprise a quarter or more of their student bodies," the Journal's Melissa Korn wrote, "most of that population is Asian-American, a group that is statistically overrepresented at business schools when compared with their proportion of the U.S. population at large." Among blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, the numbers are still low, she reported, "a sign, some say, that b-schools have much more work to do to attract students."

So what's the trend? In what statistical rut are business schools mired? At some schools, why have there been disappointing trends in URM applications?

The Journal reports that many of the top schools promote proudly the fact that in recent years in any given class, minorities make up over 25 percent (over 30 percent at many schools). Yet for under-represented minorities (excluding Asian-Americans), the percentages hover near 10 percent and below with little discernible improvement over the past several years.

The Journal and others, therefore, refer to "degrees of diversity."  Certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and geographies are well-represented. Other groups are not.

Take a peek at recent numbers.  Almost all top-tier business schools provide updates and class profiles and report the information in a similar manner, which makes for fair comparisons. Some schools, such as Yale and NYU, report the percentages of both minorities and under-represented minorities.  Minorities (U.S. residents only) comprise 25% of last year's first-year class at Yale (SOM). Under-represented minorities (blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans), however, consisted of only 7% of the class.  At NYU, the percentages were 34% and 16%, respectively. 

Consortium CEO Peter Aranda was interviewed in an accompanying Journal article about the same topic and challenge.  "(Business schools) have a role in preparing future business leaders to succeed in the environment we live in, where someday soon everyone will be a minority," he told the Journal's Korn. "One of the things that troubles me about the MBA curriculum is that it pays attention to diversity from an employment perspective only. We need to look at diversity as a strategic initiative. How do we develop goods and services for niche markets? How do we communicate through marketing vehicles that resonate with those communities?"


The original article touched nerves and attracted a flood of comments, many from anonymous readers making careless, insensitive statements regarding the value of diversity. Some readers harshly criticized business schools for bothering to make it priority.  Some respondents swore off diversity and wished people would stop the discussion or apparent obsession. Aranda explained why businesses must care.

The deans of the same prominent business schools might admit among themselves that a whining chorus of anti-diversity makes it harder to improve statistics. Many in this chorus prefer business schools to admit solely on the basis of GMAT and GPA scores and let the numbers and percentages fall where they may. To their credit, the schools' admissions offices remain steadfast in their effort to "compose" a class of excellence, competence, diversity and variety.

The diversity challenge also incorporates business schools' ongoing struggle to ensure women are sufficiently represented on campus. Whether it is women or URM, some schools see progress in some years only to see a sudden, inexplicable downturn in other years. Many schools are not quite sure whether success is a 50-50 male-female ratio or success is ensuring the percentage of women never falls below 30%.  At UCLA, NYU, Dartmouth and Yale (all Consortium schools), women comprised at least 33% of recent classes. At Harvard, 40%; at Columbia, 35%.

What are the ongoing problems and challenges for business schools? Why has there been this statistical rut among URM? What can business schools do to encourage more applications?


1.  Convincing URM of the value of an MBA. MBA candidates must address a list of introspective questions before they launch the long process to apply and get admitted to a top school: Do I need an MBA? How I can use it to reach certain professional goals or achieve success in business? Can I pursue the same goals without it or with other degrees or certifications (JD, CPA, MS, or CFA)?  Can I gain similar knowledge in other ways (other graduate courses, part-time programs, online programs, in-house corporate training)?

Business schools seek to convince women and those from URM that the MBA has long-term (or life-time) value and is worth every bit of pain it takes to apply, get in and get out. Sometimes schools stumble and fail to get candidates to apply. The numbers show it, as applications from URM groups haven't increased significantly over the years. Moreover, all candidates (especially those from URM) wrestle with other troubling factors (salary loss, opportunity costs, relocation, getting reacquainted to rigorous academic study), factors that undermine any value they determine the MBA has.


2.  Convincing URM there will be opportunities after graduation and a fair chance to pursue them. Most candidates who apply to top schools understand the difficulties of getting admitted, the chores in preparing and submitting applications, and the tough course load.  Applying to Dartmouth, Chicago, Northwestern, Stanford or Virginia business schools is an exhaustive process, although programs such as the Consortium and MLT make the process easier. Applicants study for the GMATs, arrange for recommendations from reluctant bosses, write a batch of essays about their career visions, and arrange for interviews, knowing the chances for admission at top schools is slim.

They know, too, business school at Michigan, Virginia, Dartmouth or Yale will be hard. The hours are long. Students have little down time. They don't know, however, if the hard work, time, strain and perseverance will pay off.

Those in URM groups don't want guarantees that an MBA from Cornell will win them six-figure entry-level spots at Merrill Lynch or McKinsey; they usually just want assurance there is a fair chance and reasonable opportunity that two solid years immersed in school will lead to something promising.  Pursuing an MBA involves taking a risk. Candidates assess that risk in the same way they might assess an investment opportunity. If they perceive (as some minorities do in some industries, such as private equity, venture capital or hedge funds) they won't have a fair chance or they won't be able to establish contacts within those networks to earn a spot, then they will be less likely to apply.

This phenomenon is especially important when current economic times induce doubt in the minds of many who consider an MBA at top school:  Why pursue the degree, when the chances of getting a job at Merrill Lynch, McKinsey, BlackRock or Blackstone are remote? Why pursue the MBA if I'm told it takes special ties and connections to get on board at Kleiner Perkins or Booz Allen? Or if I get the job, will a topsy-turvy economy force me out a year later?

3.  Convincing URM that the sacrifices and costs are indeed worth it (or can be offset by fellowships or long-term rewards). The costs to attend a top school are exorbitant. Add to that the two years of salary, bonus and possible advancement the student won't accrue, while she is away from current employment. There, too, will likely be relocation, time away from family, and a lingering anxiety that they might have made a wrong decision. 

For some, especially among URM groups, the costs (tuition, living expenses, and travel) are too much. They can't make the numbers make sense. Why, they may ask, should I pursue an MBA at Harvard, if I must move a thousand miles to Boston, find a place to live, and spend over $70,000 and then be engulfed in scrambling to pay back student loans for decades to come? Many outstanding URM candidates curtail all efforts to apply right at the moment they assess costs. The sacrifices and costs can't be rationalized.

Business schools and pipeline programs such as the Consortium, Toigo, and MLT have done an outstanding job over the past three decades helping candidates overcome financial hurdles--especially by providing fellowships, scholarships or other forms of financial aid.  Often, believe it or not, many in URM groups are not even aware of this assistance and candidate support.  Business schools perhaps can do a better job explaining to candidates how going to Emory, Carnegie Mellon or Chicago is affordable.

4.  Convincing URM there will be realistic chances to advance far in business.  Some justify the time in school and appreciate the contacts, knowledge, networks, and experiences during those two years. Some are confident they will do well and find lucrative entry-level opportunities once they get to where they want to go.

But many may have doubts about their chances to get far beyond entry levels, get promoted, be fairly recognized and advance to high rungs in an organization.  If I get into Virginia or Michigan, they perhaps ask, and if I am fortunate to gain an offer in private equity, corporate finance, venture capital, or real-estate development, will I have fair chance to advance to the top--become a principal, partner, senior vice president, chief financial officer, or part owner? Should I bother, if I know the chances for advancement to the top are remote?

5.  Convincing URM there are others like them who have succeeded.  Often blacks, Hispanics, women and Native Americans gain confidence in their ability to advance when they see others like them achieve. If Hispanics and women are scattered at the highest levels at the most reputable consulting firms and banks, then Hispanic and women applicants would be encouraged to pursue graduate school--if they know others with similar backgrounds are there.

In some industries or segments of finance, women and minorities have advanced to the highest levels of management, but often at a slow, sluggish pace. Still, some women and URM have quietly ascended to less-visible, yet important roles as sector heads, corporate-function heads, subsidiary heads, or substantial contributors to business goals, deals, transactions, acquisitions, and new products.  Potential candidates are aware of these achievements, but not as much as they should, at least sufficiently enough to be confident they can follow right behind.

6.  Most of all, convincing URM they have the ability and aptitude.  They hear and read about the suffocating workloads of students in top schools (the courses, the problem sets, the cases, the group discussions, the projects, and the exams). Sometimes they fear they lack ability and time-management skills to thrive in school. Often they have the academic breadth, experiences and backgrounds to do well, but aren't confident enough they can handle the work and time pressures. Hence, they shy away from applying.

Other factors may also have an effect on the number of candidates from URM groups and women.

1.  International students.  While business schools eagerly pursue diversity, they also pursue international students. They are devoting time and resources to both efforts. Notice the numbers in recent years of students from India, Europe and China. Schools sell themselves to prospects, recruiters and other professors and deans on the basis of diversity, geography and foreign flavor.  In a recent year, at UCLA, NYU, Dartmouth, Yale, Wharton, Columbia, and Harvard business schools, foreigners comprised at least 32% at each school. While schools are pounding the pavement to increase the numbers of women and URM, they are also criss-crossing the globe to admit international candidates.

2. The lure of other professions.  There remains the possibility that lagging growth in applications among women and URM is due to the attractiveness of other professions. Business, finance, marketing and the uncertainties or whims of corporate life may be less attractive to some than, say, positions in government, education, non-profit activity, medicine, or law. A financial crisis in recent years certainly has discouraged some candidates from pursuing careers in banking, finance, and capital markets.

The admissions offices at business schools at times feel they are panting while climbing a steep uphill path. They continue their efforts, nonetheless. They are rewarded when they observe the thrilling success stories of the women, blacks, and Hispanics who do find their ways into the corridors of Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan or USC.

They applaud themselves (and the pipeline programs that climb side by side with them) when they learn their URM applicants-turned-students go on to become campus leaders and eventually outstanding deal-doers at Morgan Stanley, investment researchers at BlackRock, financial managers at American Express, business managers at John Deere, managing directors at Goldman Sachs, CFO at Eli Lily, or president of a blazing new start-up.

Tracy Williams

See also:
1.  CFN:  Diversity and Venture Capital, 2011
2.  CFN:  Diversity, Top 50, 2012

Diversity Top 50: "Making the List"

Publishers publish lists because they think readers swarm to them. There are lists (and rankings) for almost everything. There is a cottage industry of lists. Some are frivolous, many are arbitrary, and others are humorous. Most are meant to sell magazines and newspapers or attract attention. Some are a serious attempt to report a trend or celebrate the efforts and programs of participating institutions.  Lists occasionally confuse, because students, readers, consumers, and business people who peek at them don't know what is subjective, credible or useful.

Finance professionals rush to see deal lists, underwriting rankings, league tables for transactions, M&A rankings or rankings of the best capitalized financial institutions. The list of business-school rankings can be useful, except what list is most reliable or captures the correct attributes of an MBA education? What list is updated and, beware, what list uses irrelevant criteria? There are many b-school lists--from the Economist and BusinessWeek to U.S. News, Financial Times, and (occasionally) the Wall Street Journal.

One current list always seems to be useful or eye-opening.  Useful for business professionals to detect and evaluate opportunities.  Useful in making decisions about where to pursue a career or where there might be, say, a legitimate chance for a woman to become CFO. Useful in determining what companies value input of all employees from all backgrounds. The rankings probably change with minimal variation from year to year. What better way, however, to determine more fairly whether companies are practicing what they preach or what they espouse in mission statements on the front of annual reports.

That would be a list of the top U.S. companies for diversity. Many magazines or organizations produce diversity lists from time to time--including Black Enterprise magazine.  The latest list comes from the publication Diversity, Inc.--which this week produced its list of the top 50 companies in diversity (its 13th year). It also presented various subsets of the same--top companies in diversity for executive development, recruiting, culture, Asian-Americans, blacks, Hispanics and LGBT communities.

All lists purport to be (or pretend to be) the results of objective measurement and inputs. All lists present what they claim are objective criteria.  The mere selecting (and omitting) certain criteria that they say will be used objectively is a subjective process. Thus, all lists are subjective. But where possible, readers can glean invaluable information or trends and find out what they want to know:  Who's walking the walk, talking the talk?

In Diversity's list, financial institutions, particularly large banks, brokerage firms, asset managers and dealers, aren't prominent. That's not new.  Most large, notable financial institutions have legitimate diversity programs and have made laudable efforts the past decades. Financial institutions, however, aren't necessarily pace-setters in diversity.  They have been embroiled in turmoil the past years, and banks, insurance companies and broker/dealers continue to fight to survive, remain relevant and must navigate the burden of reams of regulation.

Let's get the criteria out of the way first. Diversity, Inc. used four primary criteria--CEO commitment, human capital, corporate communications, and suppliers.  It sent surveys to over 1,000 participants and asked them to respond to a booklet (perhaps overwhelming to some) of over 300 questions. 

In the latest list from Diversity, Inc., the accounting/consulting firms fare the best for diversity among financial services companies.  Pricewaterhouse led the entire list, Ernst & Young and Deloitte squeezed into the top 10, and Accenture and KPMG are in the top 25.

Card companies American Express and Mastercard are also in the top 25.  Insurance companies do well, too. Aetna, Prudential, MetLife, and AllState make the top 50.

One common thread among these names is that most have large, diverse bases of customers.  Because those who purchase their products are diverse, they will be sensitive to, aware and respectful of the importance of diversity--diversity among employees and diversity in senior management.

Bank of America, Capital One, and Wells Fargo have the same--customers in the millions, branches in the thousands, a presence in just about every state in the Union, and an appreciation that all who use their services (mortgages, credit cards, wealth management, etc.) come from myriad backgrounds. All three make the top 50 in 2012. 

Some prominent well-known financial institutions are missing:  Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and Citi don't make the top 50. Indeed they are institutions that would happily participate in providing survey responses and aspire to be on the list. They likely took the time to fill out surveys and answer questions thoroughly and use the platform to boast about progress and special efforts (e.g., MBA fellowship funding for under-represented groups at JPMorgan and Goldman). Diversity, Inc. concluded they hadn't done enough, or other companies do more.

Many other finance firms won't be found, because they hesitated to participate, are embarrassed with their efforts, disagree with the idle exercise of surveys and lists, or deemed this is not a priority:  hedge funds (Citadel), securities exchanges (NYSE, CME, Nasdaq), institutional trading firms (BCG Cantor, Jefferies, Knight), asset managers (BlackRock), retail brokerages (E*Trade, Scottrade), and private-equity firms (Blackstone).

Some of the same above don't have the required 1,000 employees to be included. Some are "all right" with diversity or will proclaim they are '"for it," but haven't devoted resources, energy or passion. Some might argue they have legitimate programs, but don't think it's necessary to flaunt their efforts by devoting resources to complete pages of survey questions. Most firms, however, will bother, because they don't like the market penalty they risk taking (among customers, especially), if they are not on the lists. 

(Note, too, the prominent absence of technology companies Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.)

Pricewaterhouse and Ernst & Young were highlighted for recruiting and retention and promoting women into executive positions.  Deloitte was noted as a top firm for Hispanics, while Wells Fargo was cited as the best in community development. American Express is in a top 10 for developing women for senior roles.

Consortium sponsors do well in these surveys and lists. That's no accident.  They include past and current sponsors (including financial-services companies American Express, Deloitte, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and KPMG). The same resolve they have in sponsoring and recruiting from pipeline/inclusion programs such as the Consortium (and Toigo, SEO, MLT, and others) is the same resolve they have in promoting employees, developing senior managers and celebrating the differences and input from people of all backgrounds.

Tracy Williams

Role Models and a New Network

NYU-Stern graduate Daria Burke

Who are the women of color, the women from under-represented groups who occupy "C-suite" positions at companies involved in global business? A roster of such names usually includes Ursula Burns at Xerox, Andreae Jung (until earlier this month) at Avon, and Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo, CEOs of companies with billions in revenues and even greater numbers in market value.

Burns, Jung, Nooyi and others preside over companies, business sectors, geographic units, corporate brands, major subsidiaries and functions in finance and treasury. They would also be women from who hustled, regrouped, paused to raise families, scratched, climbed and willed their way into top spots, board rooms and significant leadership positions.  Their  few numbers, while growing, suggest there is still a ways to go. Those in CEO roles, such as Burns, Nooyi and Jung, are known and are seen commanding the podium at shareholder meetings or outlining strategic plans in a broadcast on CNBC.

Those below the CEO rung may not be as widely known outside of their industries and are not prominently profiled  in the business media. As such, they aren't presented as role models as widely as they could be--especially as role models for younger women contemplating a similar corporate-ladder climb or a long-term career in business after the MBA.

That's where Daria Burke, a Consortium alum and MBA graduate from NYU-Stern, stepped in.  She is doing her part by establishing a network of black women with MBA degrees, with corporate promise and with the resolve to succeed in business. Earlier this year, she and others established a new group, called Black MBA Women. The group has its own website and Linkedin group.
 
Burke wanted the group to go beyond sharing experiences and expertise about business opportunities in a network forum. She also wanted network members to learn about, study and follow the career steps of other successful black women in business. For many black women at or near the top rungs, there are lessons that can be shared or advice that can be exploited, based on their experiences.

Hence, the group will present and highlight success stories to share with members. It will spread the news and show what has been accomplished by black women in senior business positions, whether they were CEOs, CFOs, or heads of international marketing and sales, legal and compliance, client relationships, Europe subsidiaries, Asia expansion, risk management, technology and systems, or human resources.

The new group's mission is "to reinforce and create a strong network of African-American women with top MBAs."  The group will try to influence and encourage younger professionals and students and "empower the next generation of young black women by increasing their access to education and business networks."  Hence, identifying role models, presenting the profiles of women in senior roles, and heralding their achievements are primary objectives.

Burke says in the website she was concerned about the "staggering number of African-American girls and post-collegiate women" who don't know about the business successes of black professional women with MBAs from top schools.

She said this week, "I was truly inspired to create this organization by my personal network and by all the young ladies I meet and speak to about going to business school."  She added, "I've gotten a wonderful reception so far and am grateful for the support."

Since graduating from Stern four years ago, Burke has worked in various marketing roles--her specialty.  She is currently Director of Makeup Marketing (North America) at Estee Lauder, steadily rising into roles of greater responsibility and impact.  At Stern she was a student leader in the school's Association for Hispanic and Black Business Students (AHBBS). Today, she is the head of that group's alumni group and decided, along with others, they can do their part to support black women MBA students and alumnae.

The group's website features "Power Profiles" that highlight the business accomplishments and career paths of black women in senior business roles. They include Tracey Travis, the CFO at Polo Ralph Lauren, who has an MBA from Columbia.  Ursula Burns, Xerox's CEO, is featured with a profile that highlights her engineering background. Burns used her undergraduate and graduate degrees in mechanical engineering to launch a 32-year (thus far) career at Xerox.  She was named CEO in 2009.

Edith Cooper, global head of human capital management at Goldman Sachs, also profiled, started out in the firm's energy group and now manages all facets of the firm's recruiting efforts and diversity hiring.  Cooper received her graduate business degree from Northwestern-Kellogg. Rosalind Brewer, CEO at
Sam's Club, is featured, as well.

As Burke hopes to show, dozens, hundreds, if not thousands, of young students may not have been aware of the women in these roles, the bottom-line responsibilities they have at large, major companies, the quiet, effective influence they have in diversity initiatives, and the impact on younger women just from being in the position.

Burke encourages women to join the group as members on the website or via Linkedin.

Tracy Williams

Composing the MBA Class of '14

Tuck: Over 2,700 applications for just 250 spots

At top business schools, including the Consortium 17, this is the time of the year  admissions offices fine-tune and compose a new class that will start in the fall.  Many schools have rolling admissions, while most schools notify applicants during the spring. The Consortium, too, notifies those who will be invited for membership and those who will have earned full fellowships.

How will the Class of '14 be different? How will it be like others? What do members of the class hope to achieve from two years on campus?

The application numbers and statistics are likely similar to those in recent years.  At selective schools from Harvard to Haas at Berkeley and from Chicago to Carnegie Mellon, gaining an acceptance letter for a spot in the first-year class is still a hard task and the result of perhaps a half-year process of securing recommendations, writing essays, taking tests, visiting campuses, expressing interest and trying hard to be patient and hopeful. In recent years, NYU-Stern and UC-Berkeley have accepted just 15% of all applicants for full-time programs. Over 4,000 apply to Stern; over 2,700 each to Michigan and Dartmouth-Tuck,  which accept fewer than 18%. 

Total applications across the country fluctuate somewhat from year to year. A dismal economy or financial crisis, such as what we've endured, with irony sometimes sustains the aggregate applications number.  Young professionals may choose to wait for a recovery while in the classroom or to transition from areas with little opportunity to areas of growth.

Market conditions, the economic environment, past personal experiences, the general outlook and total costs: All are factors that influence who return for the MBA, where they choose to attend, and what they hope to get from a rigorous, grinding experience.

Is this year's class more interested in unconventional segments, start-up situations or small boutiques, or do they prefer the formal tracks from an experience at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey?

This year's class, just as those who matriculated in the past three years, is familiar with volatility.  They know volatile markets, but they are also acquainted with volatile opportunities and even a volatile, teasing, uncertain recovery.  Thus, they will approach the business-school experience, knowing they must be flexible, realistic and willing to explore something new and different.

They may write in admissions essays they hope to pursue consulting, investment research or brand management, but they know the environment may force them or even encourage them to change their minds and pursue start-ups, community activities, or even industrial management. They may tell admissions officers they hope to work in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, but two years later may accept job offers in Indonesia, Ghana, or Boston (as even some recent Consortium graduates have done).

A current student may have her eyes on an associate position at Morgan Stanley in M&A, but she won't be close-minded and will consider opportunities at General Motors, Google, Pfizer or even the World Bank or Zynga. 

Those who went to business school until the late 2000s to study finance, especially those who attended known, reputable institutions, could almost chart and measure their ambitions. They could make a conscious decision to go into consulting, investment- or private-banking, trading, research, venture capital or private equity; they could proceed through a check-list of to-do's to get from school to a cubicle at Carlyle, Blackstone, Wells Fargo, New York Life, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America or a hedge fund in Chicago or Greenwich.  They could expect to stay put for about 5-10 years, or at least until a vice-president promotion.

In 2012, the current classes approach the finance landscape differently. Someone just admitted to the business school at UNC, UVA or USC may visualize and dream of being in private banking at UBS or in investment management at Aetna , but won't slam the door if a San Francisco-based start-up turns him on to a role in corporate strategy or if a pharmaceutical firm invites him to work in its venture-investments unit.

Business school in 2002 might have been a springboard to a lucrative spot at Morgan Stanley or McKinsey, if the student studied hard, learned a lot, kept up with markets and played the recruiting and networking games astutely and unrelentingly.  In 2012, business school still provides an entry into the most coveted spots in banking, finance and investing, but this crop of students will be happy to explore something they never considered, if the opportunity makes sense, allows for rapid personal growth, and offers something on the long-term horizon.

Thus, within the ranks of the Class of '14, there will still be large numbers interested in corporate finance, interested in spots at Goldman, UBS, Barclays, Paribas or JPMorgan, and willing to pursue investment banking, equity research or bond trading in the new, highly regulated environment. There will still be more than a few interested in consulting at McKinsey, BCG and Deloitte.

Yet there will be quite a few who will change their minds in school, will discover a pursuit more pleasing, will choose not to  to go through marathon-like motions to chase a Wall Street dream job, or will learn they prefer strategy, operations, marketing, product innovation, and distribution  more than investment analysis, corporate finance and capital markets. The top banks, firms and funds won't have trouble finding attractive candidates, but a coveted offer from Citi, Booz, or Merrill  won't be the be-all or end-all.

Tracy Williams

Consortium MBA: Going the Entrepreneur Route

Consortium Alumnus Boomer

Sometimes experienced professionals among minority groups choose the route of being an entrepreneur--taking a risk and having the courage to go out on their own. They do so, once they figure out the timing and are confident about resources, opportunity, and often family support and understanding. There is a long history of blacks, Latinos and women, who gained experience at established institutions and decided to start their own firms in banking, brokerage, or investment management. Muriel Siebert, widely known as a pioneer in the industry, started her own retail brokerage decades ago after a long stint as New York state's supervisor of banking.  Her firm evolved partly into Siebert Branford Shank, now an established women- and minority-owned firm and prominent in municipal finance.  MR Beal, Loop Capital, Guzman, W.R. Lazard, Blaylock, Advent, Williams Capital and Utendahl are other examples of minority firms that launched after their principals learned the ropes at places like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. In many cases, the same firms received welcome capital injections and processing support from the owners' old firms.

Despite the hurdles (raising new capital, navigating regulatory requirements, winning new business and mandates, and gaining trust among trading counterparties), women and minorities continue to test opportunities to do it on their own.

In recent weeks, Consortium alumnus Allan Boomer decided to step away from an apparent secure environment of a large financial institution and start his own asset-management company.  Boomer has gained approval from regulatory bodies and has opened the doors to his new firm, Momentum Advisers. The firm will focus on investment advisory and financial planning. 

Boomer is an MBA from NYU-Stern and was affiliated with both the Consortium and Toigo. Before he made his move, he studied his chances and the market landscape, assured himself that certain contacts and clients will follow, brought in other partners and expertise and courageously made the move. Boomer had clients, contacts, experience, pedigree, and investment knowledge, but the hardest part of the effort may have been to make the decision. After the decision, he then had to comb through a maze of registrations, compliance and regulation, and choose securities-clearing partners. At the same time, he had to convince clients to follow him and announce that Momentum was open for business.

Years ago, before the move was more a long-term dream and after NYU, Boomer worked on Wall Street into various roles, starting at Merrill Lynch.  He soon departed for Goldman Sachs, where he worked for seven years and eventually became a Vice President in Private Wealth Management with clients, products, a global network, and hundreds of millions to manage.

At his new firm, Boomer will start with 15 clients (institutions and individuals who meet his current minimum requirements) and over $30 million under management. He says he hopes to reach $100 million under management in three years.  Michael Glickstein, also an NYU-Stern MBA, will be a strategic partner in the new firm. Jontue Long will join him as an investment advisor.  Rudy Cline-Thomas will also be a strategic partner.

At Momentum, Boomer and his partners hope to increase assets under management not only by importing old clients or contacts, but growing in other niches. For example, the partners plan to tap into money management for corporate executives, athletes, and entertainers.  Boomer spoke about managing money and affairs among sports stars at a conference at Wharton last December, hosted by its African-American MBA Association. He formally announced Momentum was open for business a few weeks ago in New York City. The group still must hustle and compete in a grinding, tough business, but  Boomer and partners are anxious, excited and hopeful.
 
To learn more about Boomer's firm, go to www.momentum-advisors.com, or contact him directly in LinkedIn. 

Tracy Williams