1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. government agencies

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