Women and Performance in Corporate America

Women and Performance in Corporate America The glass ceiling has been shattered. Women like Indra Nooyi, the CEO of PepsiCo.; Angela Braly, the CEO of Wellpoint; and Patricia Woertz, the CEO of Archer Daniels Midland, are proof that women can achieve top leadership positions in corporate America. However, the scarcity of female leaders occupying the top ranks of corporate America, and the significant wage gap between men and women, suggest that there are significant complications along the path toward success for women in the corporate world.The data show that a disproportionately small number of women are making it to top leadership positions in corporate America. According to the US Department of Labor, in 2007 women accounted for 46% of the total work force, and 51 % of all workers in management, professional, and related occupations. Women outnumbered men in occupations including financial managers, human resource managers, education administrators, medical and health service managers, accountants and auditors, budget analysts, and property, real estate, and social and community association managers (US Department of Labor, 2007). However, women hold only 15.2% of board director positions, 15.7% of corporate officer positions, and 6.2% of top earner positions (Catalyst, 2009b). Additionally, according to a 2008 Corporate Library survey, only 2.6% of Fortune 500 companies currently have female CEOs (as cited in Jones, 2009).The data also show that women earn less than men in the work force. The US Department of Labor found that women working full time in 2007 made only 80% of the salaries of men (US Department of Labor, 2008). Studies designed to control for factors other than gender have not been able to account for the wage gap between men and women (Eagly & Carli, 2007, US Government Accountability Office, 2003). Even among CEO's of fortune 500 companies, female CEO's make only 85% of the salaries of male CEO's (Jones, 2009).

The Jewish Law Firm: Past and Present

The rise and growth of large Jewish law firms in New York City during the second half of the twentieth century was nothing short of an astounding success story. As late as 1950, there was not a single large Jewish law firm in town. By the mid-1960s, six of the largest twenty law firms were Jewish, and by 1980, four of the largest ten prestigious law firms were Jewish firms. Moreover, the accomplishment of the Jewish firms is especially striking because, while the traditional large White Anglo-Saxon Protestant law firms grew at a fast rate during this period, the Jewish firms grew twice as fast, and they did so in spite of experiencing explicit discrimination. What happened? This book chapter is a revised, updated study of the rise and growth of large New York City Jewish law firms. It is based on the public record, with respect to both the law firms themselves and trends in the legal profession generally, and on over twenty in-depth interviews with lawyers who either founded and practiced at these successful Jewish firms, attempted and failed to establish such firms, or were in a position to join these firms but decided instead to join WASP firms. According to the informants interviewed in this chapter, while Jewish law firms benefited from general decline in anti-Semitism and increased demand for corporate legal services, a unique combination of factors explains the incredible rise of the Jewish firms. First, white-shoe ethos caused large WASP firms to stay out of undignified practice areas and effectively created pockets of Jewish practice areas, where the Jewish firms encountered little competition for their services. Second, hiring and promotion discriminatory practices by the large WASP firms helped create a large pool of talented Jewish lawyers from which the Jewish firms could easily recruit. Finally, the Jewish firms benefited from a flip side of bias phenomenon, that is, they benefited from the positive consequences of stereotyping. Paradoxically, the very success of the Jewish firms is reflected in their demise by the early twenty-first century: because systematic large law firm ethno-religious discrimination against Jewish lawyers has become a thing of the past, the very reason for the existence of Jewish law firms has been nullified. As other minority groups, however, continue to struggle for equality within the senior ranks of Big Law, can the experience of the Jewish firms serve as a “separate-but-equal” blueprint for overcoming contemporary forms of discrimination for women, racial, and other minority attorneys? Perhaps not. As this chapter establishes, the success of large Jewish law firms was the result of unique conditions and circumstances between 1945 and 1980, which are unlikely to be replicated. For example, large law firms have become hyper-competitive and are not likely to allow any newcomers the benefit of protected pockets of practice. While smaller “separate-but-equal” specialized firms, for instance, ones exclusively hiring lawyer-mothers occasionally appear, the rise of large “separate-but-equal” firms is improbable.