Economic View: Why Emerging Markets Should Look Within

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International New York Times.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account »

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »

DealBook: Obama Says Law School Should Be Two, Not Three, Years

DealBook: Next Microsoft Chief Should Pare the Menu

Corner Office: A Great Manager Should Expect a Peaceful Vacation

Q. You started out as an architect. Tell me about that experience.

A. I worked in an architectural firm in New Haven for about two and a half years. The lessons I learned working there far exceeded anything I could have learned in business school from an entrepreneurship perspective.

The owners not only focused on the current projects, but also constantly looked ahead for other opportunities. I learned about the relentless pursuit of business from them. They were very focused. When we got a little too rambunctious on the floor where all the draftsmen were, they’d say, calm down, let’s keep going.

Q. What were some other early management lessons for you?

A. Like many people who move from doing to managing, I probably stayed more involved at a granular level than what’s optimal. When you do that, you spend less time managing. Whenever you don’t know what to do, you revert back to what you know, which is, “Let me do it because I can get this done.” The challenge that created was that I wouldn’t necessarily develop people as quickly as I probably should have, because I would often say it’s easier for me to do it, and then they’d watch. But that’s not the same as giving someone the guidelines and saying, “You do it,” and though it may not be exactly the way I would have done it, I can give guidance.

I probably did not do that as well as I could have early on. If you develop people, it means fewer phone calls and fewer interruptions when you’re on vacation. If you haven’t developed them, then you’re tethered to the organization. Some people love to know they’re needed constantly, and that people have to call them. Unfortunately it’s common, but it’s not the best for the organization. I found that when I’m on vacation and getting calls and constant e-mails, then I must not be doing as good a job as I should to make sure that the group can perform without me.

Q. What kind of culture did you want when you started your own firm?

A. I wanted this company to be operated in a way that doesn’t have the faults or shortcomings that people might have seen at their prior employer. Any large organization has certain issues. I wanted to make sure that we’d do whatever we could to mitigate those. The biggest issues are people not necessarily being valued for their performance and instead being caught up in the bureaucratic hierarchy, where they were either going to survive or thrive or do poorly because of the area they worked in, or their careers could be enhanced or held back by their relationships or lack of relationships.

I want this to be a complete meritocracy. That’s something you have to make sure you constantly let people know. You’ve got to judge people on their merits. You have a variety of personalities, and it never fails that anyone, including me, might prefer to spend time with one person instead of another. But if people are professional, productive and an asset to the firm, my personal preferences shouldn’t have anything to do with it. I try to make sure I emphasize that regularly.

Q. One big challenge for C.E.O.’s is to make sure they get out of the bubble that naturally gets created around them, because people only want to bring them good news. How do you counter that?

A. Probably the most honest and direct and frequent feedback I get is from my wife, who is a senior fixed-income salesperson here and a partner in the firm. Sometimes my colleagues may not want to come directly to me to find out what I think, or they’ll want to get a message to me, and they will go to her. I don’t always agree with her assessment of me or a situation, but it’s good to hear the input in an unfiltered way from someone else, rather than people just telling me everything I want to hear.

Q. How do you hire?

A. The first thing I look for are the nonverbal components of one’s overall presence and presentation. Would I buy from this person? Would I want to do business with that individual? Do they look me in the eye? Do they have a certain energy level? Do they seem confident? Those are the kinds of things that really matter most.

I care less about your résumé in terms of the places you worked or where you went to school. What I do care about is how your résumé can give me insights into why you went from one position to another. I’m listening for how someone weaves together the changes in their career, and why they left one job for another. We all make mistakes. We all have setbacks. I’m listening to why someone left.

If I see multiple positions where there wasn’t necessarily progression, that’s always a point of concern for me. I listen closely if someone had a position that is a major change from the rest of their career — if there’s an outlier role. It’s not the worst thing to say, “I was laid off, and I needed a job and so I pursued this position, I gave it a shot, but I eventually went back to my area of specialization.” That’s perfectly fine.

But when people try to present the story of their career so that every move was a step up, everything was perfect and everything is wonderful, then I have to question whether they are realists. Are they going to be someone I’d feel comfortable working with? Or are they going to be constantly putting a spin on everything that happens?

I also don’t want anyone who’s constantly going to tell me what I want to hear, or what they think I want to hear. I find there are times when, if I make my view known too early, then I’ve just shaped the whole direction of the conversation. So when I’m interviewing someone, I will ask them how they feel about certain issues and points, and how they feel about certain organizations.

Before I describe how Williams Capital operates, I want to hear about their ideal environment. I want to hear how they interact with their colleagues rather than me saying, well, here’s the way Williams Capital is, because then I’ll just hear something similar back from them.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

DealBook: Judge Says Bernanke Should Testify in A.I.G. Case

Why Witness Preparation Should Start With the Basics

All too often we are presented with the challenge of a difficult witness who seems intent on doing more damage than good for the case. It?s the corporate executive impatient with being on the receiving end of a question. It?s the medical professional personally offended by having his or her care criticized. It?s the person scared to the point of anger who doesn?t understand why he or she is involved in the case and is afraid of the outcome.

Judges: Should Justices Be Involved in Judicial Discipline Cases?

A recent Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline case is highlighting divisions in opinion over whether the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction to address judicial discipline cases.

Executive Says Crew Should Have Acted to Prevent Spill

“Do I wish the crew had done more? Absolutely,” said Steven L. Newman, chief executive of Transocean. “We acknowledged we should have done more.”

Mr. Newman’s measured and partial acknowledgment of accountability goes to the heart of the United States District Court trial, now in its fourth week, to assign responsibility for the disaster.

Mr. Newman said that while his company was responsible for a “narrow slice” of the drilling operations, including providing pressure tests that produced faulty readings before the explosion, it was the oil company BP that “has everything under its umbrella.”

The trial bundles suits brought by the Justice Department, several state governments, private businesses and individual claimants against BP and its contractors. Lawyers for tens of thousands of people and businesses seeking redress for damages claim that BP, Transocean and Halliburton are grossly negligent for mismanaging safety procedures.

The Justice Department is arguing that BP was grossly negligent and ultimately responsible for a series of mistakes because it designed the well, selected the contractors and managed the drilling operation. While BP has acknowledged mistakes, it says that its contractors also made serious errors that caused the well blowout, and over the last two weeks several trial witnesses appear to have helped make its case.

Geoffrey Webster, an expert witness in marine engineering for the plaintiffs, testified earlier that Transocean had neglected to properly maintain and operate the rig and its critical blowout preventer and did not adequately train its crew.

The crew deliberately disabled the automatic functions of a gas alarm system that should have alerted the crew to hazardous gases rising from the well, according to Mr. Webster. He also testified that the Transocean rig crew failed to use lines designed to divert the escaping oil over the side of the rig, using small, low-pressure tanks on the rig instead that were inadequate to the task.

Those errors, he said, contributed to allowing escaping oil to reach the rig deck and set it on fire, conclusions that had been documented in previous government reports.

Another contractor-defendant, Halliburton, which had mixed the cement for the well, has also faced some embarrassing questions at the trial in recent days. Thomas Roth, a senior Halliburton executive who was in charge of cementing operations at the time of the spill, acknowledged that due to the well design and other factors, “the cement placement was going to be a job that would have a low probability of success.”

Halliburton also revealed last week that it had recently found leftover samples of cement slurry at a Louisiana lab that may have been from the same mixture that sealed the well three years ago. The company acknowledged that the notes related to the samples had been discarded.

The legal ramifications of the development remain unclear since Halliburton has asserted that it provided sufficient samples to federal and state agencies over the years. But one of the plaintiff’s lawyers earlier in the trial accused Halliburton of having conducted undocumented cement tests in which results had not been disclosed. BP has accused Halliburton of destroying evidence of its cement testing.

“To shift responsibility to Transocean and Halliburton is good for BP,” said Edward F. Sherman, a law professor at Tulane University. “They would like to argue that the primary actors were Halliburton and Transocean employees and BP was not responsible for their failures and therefore BP could not be grossly negligent.”

The trial, which started in late February, is unfolding in two phases. The first will determine whether BP and its contractors were guilty of gross negligence – wanton and reckless behavior or disregard for reasonable care that is likely to cause harm or injury – in causing the accident. The second phase will determine how much oil actually spilled.

Together, the determinations by District Court Judge Carl J. Barbier will decide how much BP and the others will have to pay in fines. Under the Clean Water Act, fines could range from $1,100 for every barrel spilled through simple negligence to as much as $4,300 a barrel through gross negligence.

Talks to settle out of court appeared to have reached a stalemate.

“The window may have closed once the parties became entrenched in the litigation,” said Blaine G. LeCesne, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. “At this point, BP is likely to take its chances and hope the allocation of fault is spread more equally among all the defendants.”

BP has already pleaded guilty to 14 criminal charges, agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines and other penalties and shaken up its management. It has also paid out roughly $9 billion in a partial settlement with businesses, individuals and local governments.

Because of its contracts with BP, Halliburton and Transocean are protected from most spill costs, aside from punitive damages, even if they are all found to have been grossly negligent. Transocean has already pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor criminal charge of violating the Clean Water Act and has agreed to pay $400 million in criminal penalties. Halliburton has not settled with the Justice Department and claims that it was simply following BP’s instructions.

Why Witness Preparation Should Start With the Basics

All too often we are presented with the challenge of a difficult witness who seems intent on doing more damage than good for the case. It?s the corporate executive impatient with being on the receiving end of a question. It?s the medical professional personally offended by having his or her care criticized. It?s the person scared to the point of anger who doesn?t understand why he or she is involved in the case and is afraid of the outcome.

Should I Aim for In-House or Another Law Firm?

Q: I have been a member of the bar for 15 years and with my firm, a litigation boutique started by a group of former BigLaw partners, for the last 10 years. It is now clear to me that I need to move on although I have not been told as much and believe I have time on my side to find whatever it is I am looking for. My problem is deciding what to do next. Do I go in-house or move to another firm? What size firm or company do I want to work for? The single most important criterion for my next position is that I have the opportunity to participate in the growth of a business -- law firm or corporate.

My problem is that my main practice area is in a very discrete area of litigation. Everyone knows everyone so I am very concerned about networking with the people who are most able to help me find opportunities at another law firm. On the other hand, I know almost no one in-house from whom I could seek advice, information, and referrals. Any advice on getting started on figuring out what my next step should be?

-- Nowhere to Network

A: Dear Nowhere to Network,

You identify two problems. First, you are unsure about your next move. So far, you know only that a new position must offer you the prospect of playing a role in the growth of the organization. You ask whether you should pursue opportunities with law firms or corporate legal departments and wonder about the size of the organization. Those questions just scratch the surface of what to seek in an employer, and only you can answer.

To address those issues, and others, you must understand your personality, as well as assess your work values and goals. Based on your 15 years of experience, what has been satisfying and what would you like to avoid? You may wish to consider the following questions and others that may spring from them. With whom do you want to work – attorneys, business people, others? What personality traits would you like colleagues to possess? What industries appeal to you? What is the mission of the organization? What is the organization’s culture? What qualities does the organization value? What role would you like to play, aside from participating in the organization’s growth? How transferable are your skills and how can you demonstrate their transferability?

Your second problem is identifying individuals with whom you can network. The way that you approach networking may partly depend on the basis for your understanding that you must make a transition, "have not been told as much," and have time to do so. Sometimes attorneys know that a move is necessary based on behavior or oblique statements by individuals in the organization. They have not yet received direct confirmation, but see the signs. At other times, attorneys are motivated by the realization that their current position is no longer satisfying; nothing else is pushing them to change.

Individuals are likely to be more skittish about networking when they are concerned about jeopardizing a secure job than when they believe their position is tenuous. Still, fear of discovery can be powerful in both situations. Yet, giving in to that fear can keep you frozen, which can result in either remaining tethered to a secure and unsatisfying position for many years, or scrambling to network to find a new position when asked to leave your current employment.

So, another question is how much time you can afford before you begin to network. Even though the attorneys in your practice area are a close-knit group, evaluate the nature of your relationship with them. Determine whether you can count on them to keep your conversations confidential. If there are only a limited number of practitioners in your practice area and you wish to remain in it, you may have no other way to let key players know of your interest in making a change. Consider, too, whether attorneys in your current firm may be willing to help with your transition.

You need not confine networking to the attorneys in your tight group, especially if you are interested in taking your career in a different direction. Regardless of whether you continue in your current practice or move into a new area, talk to attorneys in other practices; law school alumni who work in-house and may be identified through your law school or a search in www.martindale.com; individuals who work in corporations on the business side; friends; family members; and others with whom you come in contact. Your network can include individuals who work in fields aside from law. Do not limit your efforts to people you already know. To improve your chances for successful networking, you must expand your networks as far as possible.

As you seem to recognize, networking is the most effective job search method. Once you determine the next step in your career, you must weigh the risks and rewards of networking. At the same time, consider the consequences of not networking. You have somewhere to network. The question is: do you venture there?

Sincerely,
Linda E. Laufer

Linda E. Laufer was the author of the weekly Crossroads column at New York Lawyer, a publication of New York Law Journal. Laufer is an experienced career counselor and former practicing attorney.

This column originally appeared in New York Lawyer on July 6, 2009 and is reprinted from the New York Lawyer website.

Why Witness Preparation Should Start With the Basics

All too often we are presented with the challenge of a difficult witness who seems intent on doing more damage than good for the case. It?s the corporate executive impatient with being on the receiving end of a question. It?s the medical professional personally offended by having his or her care criticized. It?s the person scared to the point of anger who doesn?t understand why he or she is involved in the case and is afraid of the outcome.

Should I Aim for In-House or Another Law Firm?

Q: I have been a member of the bar for 15 years and with my firm, a litigation boutique started by a group of former BigLaw partners, for the last 10 years. It is now clear to me that I need to move on although I have not been told as much and believe I have time on my side to find whatever it is I am looking for. My problem is deciding what to do next. Do I go in-house or move to another firm? What size firm or company do I want to work for? The single most important criterion for my next position is that I have the opportunity to participate in the growth of a business -- law firm or corporate.

My problem is that my main practice area is in a very discrete area of litigation. Everyone knows everyone so I am very concerned about networking with the people who are most able to help me find opportunities at another law firm. On the other hand, I know almost no one in-house from whom I could seek advice, information, and referrals. Any advice on getting started on figuring out what my next step should be?

-- Nowhere to Network

A: Dear Nowhere to Network,

You identify two problems. First, you are unsure about your next move. So far, you know only that a new position must offer you the prospect of playing a role in the growth of the organization. You ask whether you should pursue opportunities with law firms or corporate legal departments and wonder about the size of the organization. Those questions just scratch the surface of what to seek in an employer, and only you can answer.

To address those issues, and others, you must understand your personality, as well as assess your work values and goals. Based on your 15 years of experience, what has been satisfying and what would you like to avoid? You may wish to consider the following questions and others that may spring from them. With whom do you want to work – attorneys, business people, others? What personality traits would you like colleagues to possess? What industries appeal to you? What is the mission of the organization? What is the organization’s culture? What qualities does the organization value? What role would you like to play, aside from participating in the organization’s growth? How transferable are your skills and how can you demonstrate their transferability?

Your second problem is identifying individuals with whom you can network. The way that you approach networking may partly depend on the basis for your understanding that you must make a transition, "have not been told as much," and have time to do so. Sometimes attorneys know that a move is necessary based on behavior or oblique statements by individuals in the organization. They have not yet received direct confirmation, but see the signs. At other times, attorneys are motivated by the realization that their current position is no longer satisfying; nothing else is pushing them to change.

Individuals are likely to be more skittish about networking when they are concerned about jeopardizing a secure job than when they believe their position is tenuous. Still, fear of discovery can be powerful in both situations. Yet, giving in to that fear can keep you frozen, which can result in either remaining tethered to a secure and unsatisfying position for many years, or scrambling to network to find a new position when asked to leave your current employment.

So, another question is how much time you can afford before you begin to network. Even though the attorneys in your practice area are a close-knit group, evaluate the nature of your relationship with them. Determine whether you can count on them to keep your conversations confidential. If there are only a limited number of practitioners in your practice area and you wish to remain in it, you may have no other way to let key players know of your interest in making a change. Consider, too, whether attorneys in your current firm may be willing to help with your transition.

You need not confine networking to the attorneys in your tight group, especially if you are interested in taking your career in a different direction. Regardless of whether you continue in your current practice or move into a new area, talk to attorneys in other practices; law school alumni who work in-house and may be identified through your law school or a search in www.martindale.com; individuals who work in corporations on the business side; friends; family members; and others with whom you come in contact. Your network can include individuals who work in fields aside from law. Do not limit your efforts to people you already know. To improve your chances for successful networking, you must expand your networks as far as possible.

As you seem to recognize, networking is the most effective job search method. Once you determine the next step in your career, you must weigh the risks and rewards of networking. At the same time, consider the consequences of not networking. You have somewhere to network. The question is: do you venture there?

Sincerely,
Linda E. Laufer

Linda E. Laufer was the author of the weekly Crossroads column at New York Lawyer, a publication of New York Law Journal. Laufer is an experienced career counselor and former practicing attorney.

This column originally appeared in New York Lawyer on July 6, 2009 and is reprinted from the New York Lawyer website.

Why Witness Preparation Should Start With the Basics

All too often we are presented with the challenge of a difficult witness who seems intent on doing more damage than good for the case. It?s the corporate executive impatient with being on the receiving end of a question. It?s the medical professional personally offended by having his or her care criticized. It?s the person scared to the point of anger who doesn?t understand why he or she is involved in the case and is afraid of the outcome.

Neb. AG: Juvenile lifer hearings should proceed

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning requested a court order Tuesday that would let the state pardons board commute the sentences of prison inmates serving life for crimes they committed as juveniles.

Should I Aim for In-House or Another Law Firm?

Q: I have been a member of the bar for 15 years and with my firm, a litigation boutique started by a group of former BigLaw partners, for the last 10 years. It is now clear to me that I need to move on although I have not been told as much and believe I have time on my side to find whatever it is I am looking for. My problem is deciding what to do next. Do I go in-house or move to another firm? What size firm or company do I want to work for? The single most important criterion for my next position is that I have the opportunity to participate in the growth of a business -- law firm or corporate.

My problem is that my main practice area is in a very discrete area of litigation. Everyone knows everyone so I am very concerned about networking with the people who are most able to help me find opportunities at another law firm. On the other hand, I know almost no one in-house from whom I could seek advice, information, and referrals. Any advice on getting started on figuring out what my next step should be?

-- Nowhere to Network

A: Dear Nowhere to Network,

You identify two problems. First, you are unsure about your next move. So far, you know only that a new position must offer you the prospect of playing a role in the growth of the organization. You ask whether you should pursue opportunities with law firms or corporate legal departments and wonder about the size of the organization. Those questions just scratch the surface of what to seek in an employer, and only you can answer.

To address those issues, and others, you must understand your personality, as well as assess your work values and goals. Based on your 15 years of experience, what has been satisfying and what would you like to avoid? You may wish to consider the following questions and others that may spring from them. With whom do you want to work – attorneys, business people, others? What personality traits would you like colleagues to possess? What industries appeal to you? What is the mission of the organization? What is the organization’s culture? What qualities does the organization value? What role would you like to play, aside from participating in the organization’s growth? How transferable are your skills and how can you demonstrate their transferability?

Your second problem is identifying individuals with whom you can network. The way that you approach networking may partly depend on the basis for your understanding that you must make a transition, "have not been told as much," and have time to do so. Sometimes attorneys know that a move is necessary based on behavior or oblique statements by individuals in the organization. They have not yet received direct confirmation, but see the signs. At other times, attorneys are motivated by the realization that their current position is no longer satisfying; nothing else is pushing them to change.

Individuals are likely to be more skittish about networking when they are concerned about jeopardizing a secure job than when they believe their position is tenuous. Still, fear of discovery can be powerful in both situations. Yet, giving in to that fear can keep you frozen, which can result in either remaining tethered to a secure and unsatisfying position for many years, or scrambling to network to find a new position when asked to leave your current employment.

So, another question is how much time you can afford before you begin to network. Even though the attorneys in your practice area are a close-knit group, evaluate the nature of your relationship with them. Determine whether you can count on them to keep your conversations confidential. If there are only a limited number of practitioners in your practice area and you wish to remain in it, you may have no other way to let key players know of your interest in making a change. Consider, too, whether attorneys in your current firm may be willing to help with your transition.

You need not confine networking to the attorneys in your tight group, especially if you are interested in taking your career in a different direction. Regardless of whether you continue in your current practice or move into a new area, talk to attorneys in other practices; law school alumni who work in-house and may be identified through your law school or a search in www.martindale.com; individuals who work in corporations on the business side; friends; family members; and others with whom you come in contact. Your network can include individuals who work in fields aside from law. Do not limit your efforts to people you already know. To improve your chances for successful networking, you must expand your networks as far as possible.

As you seem to recognize, networking is the most effective job search method. Once you determine the next step in your career, you must weigh the risks and rewards of networking. At the same time, consider the consequences of not networking. You have somewhere to network. The question is: do you venture there?

Sincerely,
Linda E. Laufer

Linda E. Laufer was the author of the weekly Crossroads column at New York Lawyer, a publication of New York Law Journal. Laufer is an experienced career counselor and former practicing attorney.

This column originally appeared in New York Lawyer on July 6, 2009 and is reprinted from the New York Lawyer website.

Social Media and Electronic Communication Statistics Lawyers Should Not Ignore

Like it or not, social media and electronic communications are here to stay and they are tools that cannot be overlooked in the legal marketing strategy by law firms and lawyers. Here are 10 statistics that should not be ignored.

Why Witness Preparation Should Start With the Basics

All too often we are presented with the challenge of a difficult witness who seems intent on doing more damage than good for the case. It?s the corporate executive impatient with being on the receiving end of a question. It?s the medical professional personally offended by having his or her care criticized. It?s the person scared to the point of anger who doesn?t understand why he or she is involved in the case and is afraid of the outcome.

Why Witness Preparation Should Start With the Basics

All too often we are presented with the challenge of a difficult witness who seems intent on doing more damage than good for the case. It?s the corporate executive impatient with being on the receiving end of a question. It?s the medical professional personally offended by having his or her care criticized. It?s the person scared to the point of anger who doesn?t understand why he or she is involved in the case and is afraid of the outcome.

Social Media and Electronic Communication Statistics Lawyers Should Not Ignore

Like it or not, social media and electronic communications are here to stay and they are tools that cannot be overlooked in the legal marketing strategy by law firms and lawyers. Here are 10 statistics that should not be ignored.

How and Why Female Attorneys Should Pursue Power

Why talk about power?

Power is part of leadership. Women constitute just 15 percent of equity partners and hold only 20 percent of the seats on the highest governing committees at the nation's top law firms, according to the "Report of the Seventh Annual National Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms," a forthcoming study by The National Association of Women Lawyers and The NAWL Foundation.

Now, more than ever, as legal organizations adopt new strategies to deal with a rapidly changing profession, women's voices are desperately needed at the table. Studies by Catalyst and other organizations show increased profitability and lowered risk with three or more women on corporate boards.

Power impacts success and satisfaction. The reality is that women succeed within their organizations when their ambition is fed, their contributions valued and their work-life balance manageable. Challenging assignments, equitable compensation and access to flexible schedules all flow from having power.

Power creates choices. Equity partners working part time experience less stigma than fixed income partners, according to a September 2009 study for the Project for Attorney Retention, "Reduced Hours, Full Success: Part-Time Partners in U.S. Law Firms." The power derived from having a book of business gave the part-time partners the ability to take lead roles in their cases, to structure the work on their cases in a manner consistent with their schedules and the work, to choose the attorneys with whom they worked and to negotiate for proportional compensation.

Power affects pay. The 2012 Partner Compensation Survey by Major, Lindsey & Africa found that the gap between women partners' compensation and their male counterparts' has grown to 46 percent. Male partners now earn an average of $734,000, while female partners are paid $497,000. Importantly, while origination fees may account for some of the disparity, a gap persists even when the findings are adjusted for comparable books of business.

A potential reason for this disparity may be inequities in the credit process, according to "New Millennium, Same Glass Ceiling? The Impact of Law Firm Compensation Systems on Women," a July 2010 study for The Project for Attorney Retention and Minority Corporate Counsel Association. In that study, 55 percent of women partners reported being denied their "fair share" of credit; nearly 30 percent reported intimidation, threats or bullying over credit; and 39 percent reported dissatisfaction with how disputes over credit were resolved.

Getting a critical number of women in positions to influence compensation decisions is crucial to eliminating real and perceived inequities in the compensation process.

Notably, the fifth NAWL annual survey on retention and promotion found that the few large firms that had three or more women in their top 10 rainmakers had eliminated the gap in male/female compensation.

PATH TO POWER