JUHI WARRIER: DRIVING THE DIVERSITY AGENDA AT REVITAL PHARMA INC.

"Congratulations on the work anniversary! Hope you're doing well!" Juhi Warrier's inbox was flooded with wishes from people in her LinkedIn network. A year had passed since Warrier had joined the human resources (HR) team at Revital Pharma Inc.'s (Revital's) Indian unit. The Indian unit was formerly known as Frontier Pharmaceutical Limited (FPL) before being acquired by Revital. A seasoned professional with more than 20 years of experience across varying HR functions and industries, Warrier was hired to bring a fresh perspective and drive change. As only the third female among the 200 leaders in senior management roles, gender diversity was among the top goals on her agenda. Brimming with ideas, Warrier was shocked at the resistance she faced. Not only had her ideas for revamping the talent acquisition (TA) process found no takers, but she had also had a difficult time gaining acceptance as a woman who was a senior leader on the team. She took time to understand the organization and came up with interventions to facilitate change. However, going through the year-end reports, she wondered if she was really doing well. Were her expectations unrealistic, or was the ethos of the past too deep to be uprooted in a few months? What could she do to transform an organization so steeped in patriarchy into a future-ready, diverse, and inclusive organization?

WARRIER - THE VIBRANT HR LEADER

Warrier was brought up in a progressive family in which girls were encouraged to pursue their dreams. Good academically and with excellent people skills, Warrier completed her Master of Business Association degree at a premier business school in India. She started her career in the information technology (IT) industry and worked in various capacities, which allowed her to manage different functional aspects of HR, including recruitment, HR operations, performance management, employee engagement, training and development, career development, and payroll management. The stints in multiple roles helped her master the nuances of HR. Her knowledge, coupled with her enthusiasm and people management skills, led her on a quick path to senior management.

As a head of HR, Warrier was a sounding board for chief experience officers, who respected her expertise and views on people issues in the organization. She enjoyed taking training sessions and even had a short academic stint teaching courses, such as business communication and creative thinking. Warrier was instrumental in refining cultures across departments and organizations, and her work was lauded and recognized not just within organizations but across them as well. She was a well-networked and well- respected individual in the HR profession and active in the HR forums in the city. It was in one such business meeting that Siddharth Kapoor?the chief executive officer (CEO) of Revital's India division? met Warrier. As they talked after the event, Kapoor was impressed with Warrier's personality and subject matter expertise. He was looking for someone to handle employee engagement and change initiatives in his organization, and Warrier seemed to be the perfect candidate. He invited her for a meeting at Revital.

FROM FPL TO REVITAL

FPL was incorporated in the early 1990s as a manufacturer of bulk drugs. The company headquarters was in Hyderabad, a South Indian city that had evolved as one of the major pharmaceutical hubs in the country. The company witnessed steady growth and had 16 production units established across India, with more than 16,000 employees. The manufacturing units had received United States Food and Drug Administration approval for their active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and its medicines were marketed across India and Africa. In 2015, Revital Incorporated?a US-based pharmaceuticals company?acquired a controlling stake in the company. The acquisition of FPL allowed Revital to become a global player by consolidating its supply chain and expanding its product categories. Intended as a backward integration, the acquisition made Revital a leading manufacturer of APIs and other ranges of medicines in forms such as tablets, capsules, and injectables, which were sold across the globe. The turnover in India crossed the billion-US-dollar mark in the subsequent year.

Revital India was headed by the CEO, Kapoor, who reported to the global president. The organizational structure (see Exhibit 1) was based on function, and all operational heads reported to Kapoor. The organization had a presence in 18 different locations in India, including its manufacturing plants, research and development (R&D) centre of excellence, and shared services office; it also had 6 plants in the Asia-Pacific, Middle Eastern, and African regions. The first few years post acquisition were focused on streamlining operations. However, there was not much reorganization following the integration. While the organization's name had changed from FPL to Revital India, the essence of the organization had not changed. The structure, practices, and culture that FPL had been following for more than two decades continued. FPL had a focus on maximizing efficiency at minimum cost. The organization was built for stability, with centralized decision making and multiple levels of hierarchy. Now, as Revital India expanded its global footprint, Kapoor realized the need for the organization to evolve and change with the dynamic environment. With strategic plans drawn envisaging 30 per cent year-on-year growth, Kapoor needed someone to build a team to help achieve the target.

WARRIER AT REVITAL INDIA

Following Kapoor's invitation, Warrier decided to meet the Revital team. After almost two decades in IT, management consulting, and academics, the prospect of working in the manufacturing sector excited Warrier. After several meetings with senior HR team members and a final interaction with the CEO and HR head of the Asia-Pacific region, she was happy to accept the offer from Revital and joined the 180-member-strong HR team in India in 2016 (see Exhibit 2). Her first assignment was to be a "cultural ambassador." Both Kapoor and Warrier felt that fostering a strong work culture was essential to attracting and retaining top talent. In her role as the company cultural ambassador, Warrier was to use her leadership, communication, and problem-solving skills to ensure a positive work culture and manage employee expectations.

Warrier chalked out several plans, such as holding open houses, town halls, team meetings, training programs, and mentoring sessions, but her enthusiasm was not reciprocated by employees. Her boisterous morning greetings were met with curt nods at best?otherwise, they were ignored. Such a reaction dampened Warrier's spirits, as she was used to people flocking to her for advice and acting on her instructions. Described as a warm and approachable leader in her previous organizations, she found the aloofness unsettling. With hardly any other senior leaders who were women, she missed connecting with people who could mentor or support her in the new organization. She tried talking to her peers and subordinates to understand the reason for this difference. She was told that "a woman in a leadership position" was an "alien concept" in their company. Women in accounting, finance, or junior administration roles were accepted; however, employees were not used to being directed by women. Because her role was more of a support function, Warrier did not seem to be making any headway with the team. With the title of cultural ambassador, she felt people were not taking her seriously and, instead, saw her as someone in charge of cultural events in the organization. Warrier discussed the issue with Kapoor, who acknowledged that "acceptability" within the system was an issue and suggested a change to the more "concrete" functional role of "head of TA." Kapoor posited that, in a functional role, Warrier would have more power to bring about change in the organization. Warrier thought through the suggestion and accepted the role change.

HEAD OF TA

Warrier felt that TA was the right starting point in the drive toward diversity. Revital India's gender ratio appeared to be skewed, with women comprising 10 per cent of its workforce and barely 1 per cent of its senior management. However, this figure was close to the pharmaceutical industry average. Per reports by Mercer India, while the female representation in general industry was 15 per cent, in the pharmaceutical industry, it was 11 per cent. ¹ In the IT sector (where Warrier had previously worked) women comprised 34 per cent of the workforce and 51 percent of the entry level workers.²

Warrier spent the first couple of weeks understanding the staffing process at Revital. The typical practice involved the TA team first collating the staffing requirement of the organization. This was done by identifying the number of vacancies across locations, functions, and the organizational hierarchy. The vacancies could be replacement positions (due to employee exits) or newly approved positions for the year. The TA team then discussed the position requirements with the hiring manager to understand not just the position requirements but also the team composition, deliverables expected, team structure, career path, and deadline by which the position had to be filled. All the relevant details were captured as background notes.

The TA team handled the hiring requisitions for all locations in India and for the Asia-Pacific team on a requirement basis. The roles for which the team generally hired included manufacturing, quality, shop-floor supervisors for the manufacturing plants, R&D personnel for the centre of excellence, and various support functions, such as finance, quality, engineering, administration, and HR.

The team tried sourcing for these positions through different media, such as online job portals, social media platforms, and campuses. Suitable candidates were shortlisted based on their resumes. The TA team then contacted the candidates and gathered further information, such as experience. Profiles considered to be a good fit were shared with the hiring managers (i.e., the line managers who had generated the requisitions) for technical evaluation. The final five or six shortlisted candidates were called for interviews. The interviews were conducted by a technical panel identified by the hiring department. The final selection decision was made by the hiring managers. Warrier noted that all the technical panels had only male members. Further, 95 per cent of the shortlisted candidates were also men. The team had hired

¹"11 Females to Every 100 Male Workers: Pharma's Gender Diversity is a Sad Story," Moneycontrol.com, July 26, 2017, accessed January 28, 2020, www.moneycontrol.comews/trends/11-females-to-every-100-male-workers-pharmas-gender-diversity-is-a-sad-story-2336693.html.

²Heidi Vella, "Indian IT firms improve gender diversity but need more women in the boardroom", Techwire Asia, March 8, 2017. https://techwireasia.com/2017/03/india-gender-diversity-women-tech-boardroom/.

approximately 1,800 candidates across India during 2016. The selection rates of women to men varied from 1:7 to 1:25 for certain positions. While the entire process seemed quite methodical and streamlined, Warrier was able to identify several areas that had scope for improvement.

REVAMPING THE TA PROCESS

One of the first processes Warrier managed involved hiring for a senior R&D position. Three candidates were shortlisted and called in for a personal discussion round with a panel of senior R&D officials, all male. All the shortlisted candidates were also male. The panel comprised the head of R&D for India and his two direct reports at the vice-president level. The panel was technically qualified (all 3 were doctorates from reputed educational institutions) and highly experienced (with an average of 20 years of experience in the industry). Warrier met with the candidates and completed the preliminary pleasantries and formalities. When the panel was ready for the interviews, Warrier escorted the first candidate into the discussion room. She completed the introductions and sat down with the panel for the interview. Suddenly, there was a dead silence in the room. Warrier narrated the situation: "The expectation was that I would bring the candidate in and thereafter leave the room, and it was subtly conveyed to me. At this point, I conveyed firmly and politely that I was part of the panel and would not be leaving. I ensured that I sat through all three interviews."

The post-interview phase saw a huge debate about this, which went on for a couple of days. The discussion revolved around why "she"?a woman?had to be on the panel of senior-level interviewers when technical discussions were conducted. The panel members also insisted that the role of HR was only to coordinate and not be part of the decision. The business heads and line managers saw HR as a support role providing administrative assistance. Ignoring personal remarks about her being "too bossy," "getting into others' business," and "interfering in areas where she had no expertise," among other things, Warrier put her foot down and laid down some guidelines. She insisted that, as the TA lead, she would be present during all senior-level hiring in the organization.

For the first time in the organization, interviewing skills and process training programs were conducted. Further, as part of the selection process, it was mandated that an HR representative be part of the panel that interviewed candidates, and that their feedback would also be recorded and taken into account when making the final decision to select a candidate. Although grudgingly at first, with time, there was greater acceptance within the company of HR's role in the hiring process.

Warrier got her team to build a candidate database, which would ensure a talent pipeline that could be tapped as needed. The database consisted of the details of potential candidates and their current industries. This helped the team keep track of talent, especially for critical positions where the supply of candidates was limited. Warrier ensured that the team vetted the profiles well and shared the 10 best profiles with her. She would then share five of the profiles with the hiring manager. The stringent screening process ensured that, in 95 per cent of cases, 1 of the 5 candidates would be hired. This allowed the HR team to improve the efficiency of the recruitment process by saving costs and reducing hiring time.

Warrier understood the need to push the diversity agenda, as it was the way forward for building an innovative global organization. However, the idea of gender diversity did not find favour in the deeply patriarchal organization. Stereotypes about manufacturing not being suitable for women, and biases such as "think manager, think male"³ were deeply rooted. Though such issues were addressed in training

³"Think manager, think male" referred to a cognitive bias wherein traits typically associated with leaders, such as "forceful," "dominant," "strong," "competent," or even "heroic," were stereotypically associated with men. Because the expectations of what made a good leader were masculine, men were more likely to be seen as a good fit, and the leadership potential of women was less likely to be recognized. Programs, people were not willing to accept that there was a problem. Because the proportion of women was so low at even entry-level positions, a leadership pipeline was virtually nonexistent. Warrier wanted to begin by making changes at the entry level to gain greater acceptance of women in the workplace, as it was difficult to find talent at the senior level.

Hiring for most entry-level positions was done through campus recruitment. Warrier understood that the upcoming campus placement in 2017 would be a good starting point to advance the gender diversity goals. With all the changes she had initiated over the past six months, she felt confident in improving the proportion of women hired.

THE CAMPUS SEASON: EXPERIENCES AND SETBACKS

The number of fresh graduates that Revital had to recruit in 2017 was 200, from 8 different academic streams. Of the positions that needed to be filled, 40 per cent were for graduates and 60 per cent for candidates with post-graduate degrees. Based on the campuses to be visited, the academic streams they offered, and the departments in which the graduates were to be placed, the technical panelists were identified. Typically, based on the relevant business unit and academic stream, a team of three technical panelists would be identified. Of the 24 panelists identified for inclusion on a technical team, 3 were women. Although a low number, Warrier felt that this was a good first step toward representation, as in previous years, these panels were 100 per cent male. From the HR department, seven members coordinated the entire exercise across India, of whom three were women. The team was scheduled to go for campus recruitment visits across India.

The team, consisting of 4 technical panelists and 2 HR members, arrived at one of India's premier campuses, looking to hire for 15 positions in different functions, including R&D, quality, and regulatory affairs. The process to be followed was first to conduct a written examination; then, students would give a presentation on the topic of their final semester project. Finally, the students who did well in the first two rounds were interviewed. The entire process was expected to take two days, after which the results would be collated and the list of selected candidates would be announced. As Warrier collated the merit list at the end of the second day, she was happy to note that the list contained 11 women and 4 men. However, the reaction she got from the technical panel was one she had not anticipated.

The technical panelists asked her for the complete list of students with the detailed evaluations and told her categorically to change the number of selected students to 11 men and 3-4 women. Warrier lost her cool. A heated debate ensued wherein Warrier accused the team of chauvinism, discrimination, a disregard for meritocracy, and a lack of fair play. The technical team retorted with statements such as, "you do not understand the world of R&D and manufacturing" and "women will not be able to do the jobs that will be required of scientists in 'our' world;" they even accused her of trying to fulfill "her feminist agenda". Some of the statements made by the panelists were as follows:

Sometimes we test chemicals in very hazardous environments within the labs. The chemicals are harmful; the reactions could be dangerous. We cannot expect girls to be comfortable in such environments and do not wish to harm them in any way.

Sometimes we just ask one boy or two boys to come and start the reaction process, and this can be at odd times. Sometimes the boys stay overnight to observe the reactions and record parameters at different stages over a 10- to 12-hour time period. How do you expect the girls to be able to do this?

A single girl all by herself in the lab will not be comfortable. Asking a girl to work through the reaction cycle time will be awkward for us and strenuous for her. We will be responsible for her safety and security.

The girls will not be able to sustain this working environment. Anyways, within a year or so, they will get married and start families and move on. So, there is no point in hiring and training them and then losing them. Why "waste" money, efforts?

Boys will adjust and work in any shifts and take care of themselves. In the case of women employees, there are a lot of other factors that need to be catered to, and it's an unnecessary distraction from what we should actually be focusing on as regards our business responsibilities!

As Warrier processed the statements, she recognized familiar prejudices about women's preference for families over jobs, stereotypes about the roles suitable for women covered by the disguise of concern, and biases undermining the potential of women. She tried to reason with the panel members, assuring them of the provisions in place to ensure the safety of women in the workplace and the commitment of the bright female students regarding their passion to work, especially given the opportunity for a job in a reputed multinational company. However, no amount of assurances from HR seemed to work. The panel persisted in arguing that because the hiring was for their team, they would not accept the current list. Frustrated, Warrier called Kapoor and apprised him of the situation. Kapoor downplayed the issue and said the business leaders' buy-in was essential. HR could not push for a team that the hiring managers were not convinced about, as the new hires would, after all, be working for them. However, Kapoor promised to talk to and sensitize the business heads and senior managers in the near future. Exhausted after the prolonged debate, Warrier gave in. She watched dejectedly as a member of her HR team put up the list on the campus notice board?a list containing the names of 11 males and 4 females.

THE NEXT STEP

Returning from the campus placements, Warrier mulled over her experience. She had gone through a range of emotions in the last couple of days, including anger, frustration, and dejection. However, as she browsed through the overall hiring reports, she saw that all hope was not lost. Although the report did not meet her previous expectations, there was significant progress overall. The hiring rate of females from campuses had increased from 12 per cent in the previous year to 20 per cent. Warrier figured that the deeply entrenched beliefs and company culture could not be changed overnight. Transforming the organization to adapt to and accept the new world order of diversity and inclusion would take time. She believed it would be a long-drawn battle, but she was ready for it and would have to get Kapoor involved. It was time to take out her scribbling pad and jot down ideas for the road ahead.

EXHIBIT 1: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PIO Hold- Hold - Thud OUILy Hich (!)EXHIBIT 2 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Hand of HR CAPAC EMEA Had of CO IRO Two & Co Ton of 13 8 00 Ton of 108Co fond Compry Mama