There are no women on the (ISC)2 slate -- here's why that happened...

I'm posting this here in its entirety so I can share via Twitter to (ISC)2 and industry members who are (understandably) upset there are no women on the official (ISC)2 Board of Directors slate this year. As a woman, as a member, as the current Chairperson of the (ISC)2 Board, and as someone who has chaired the Nominations committee for several prior years (not this year) here are thoughts I shared during a previous cycle, and they're still relevant today.

The fact that people (all people, everywhere) are asking for more diversity tells me we (the industry we) are getting it right! Now, we just have to keep pushing to do better.

A lot of people don't know what the board does. FWIW, "fixing" several aspects of the board's processes has been a soapbox of mine, and "fixing" nominations was probably my first major under-taking, thanks to Wim Remes who as Chair for years allowed me the opportunity to do this. We started fixing this process years ago and YES it's still completely imperfect and there is still room for MUCH improvement. If you want to discuss further, I'm happy to... Here are my notes from a prior inquiry, in their entirety with some updates for you for this year.

----

Dear <member who asked why there are no women on the slate>,

   The Board of Directors and the Nominations Committee share this frustration [re: lack of diversity on the slate], and are constantly taking steps to help bring greater diversity. The nominations process is documented on the (ISC)2 website, and that process is followed and being incrementally improved.

- Historically, the nominees were collected from current and prior Board Members – the Board realized this was limiting and in the last couple of years [last several years as of 2019] we’ve been taking steps to alleviate the limitations.

- The first step was to find a scalable method for collecting, vetting, and reviewing nominees so we could expand the nomination reach. [Prior to my joining the board, this was all managed in emails and did not scale; it was one of my first pet projects to fix and we procured a platform to assist.]

- In addition to the automation for salability it was also an opportunity to add more transparency to the process, and we think everyone enjoyed that. We encouraged all invited parties (which extended this year WELL beyond the Board of Directors) to nominate any professional they deemed fit and trustworthy for consideration. The bylaws require the (ISC)2 Board of Directors to be current members in good standing, so we (Nominations Committee) tasked legal counsel with reviewing and vetting each nominee.

[NOTE these next numbers are from the year this was written and are not 2019 numbers] 

Sharing a quick look at the nominees, eligibility, and gender metrics: This year we had more than 50 nominees, of which just less than half were eligible. We had ~5 nominees decline the invitation due to other commitments. Only 10 of the original 50+ nominees were women, and only 1 of the women were eligible (members in good standing). We have 4 open seats coming for this election cycle. I’m rounding, but that left us about 20 eligible and willing nominees, of which only 1 was female. We had a similar situation with other diversity challenges based on geographic and cultural metrics, so gender diversity was not our only struggle this year. All eligible nominees were scored by members of a Nominations Committee (comprised of a mix of members from various regions and backgrounds), against the criteria set prior to the nominations processes. It’s worth mentioning that “diversity” is a scoring criteria, and those who bring diversity (in any sense of the word) have an advantage in this area.

[Note in 2019, the Nominations Committee added the additional process of screening candidates/nominees with a virtual meeting]

[TL:RD? HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART]

When the scoring was complete, the resulting diversity (or lack of) was an issue for our entire team. The nominees that would add diversity did not have the experience of many counterparts in this particular scenario. We deliberated on this for quite a while, and trust me when I say that the Nominations Committee has some serious discussions with the Board as a whole during this process.

Ultimately it came down to this question and decision: Do we sacrifice the quality of nominees in favor of the perception of diversity? I think the decision was unanimous that we would be doing the organization and its member a huge dis-service by assuaging the diversity perception by removing the most qualified nominees. It was not an easy decision, but it’s one I (even speaking as a female) feel was the right one.

This [at time of writing] was our first year expanding the nominations process and we were able to multiply the nominees by a handsome figure from prior years. Given that our system is still lacking in producing the level of diversity we all seek, I believe we will continue expanding the nominations program year after year. They will be incremental steps, but they are not baby steps – they have been great strides moving forward.

I’d be happy to answer any additional questions.

-jj

------

MORE INFO: I may take some heat for sharing this, but here-goes...

We are actively (but carefully and thoughtfully) exploring several avenues to help solve this and other problems, including" the following. Note that many of these impact our bylaws which is a major undertaking, hence the measured and methodical exploration of options.

• considering options that include changing required composition of the board for more diversity including geographic diversity
• considering using a 3rd party to recruit and vet from our member pool to remove any bias or inconsistency the board may be subject to
• considering options that open board seats to non-members to fill specific gaps/needs in board composition
• continuing to find ways to expand nominations including considering models that allow ALL members to nominate, either through chapters or directly - we just have to figure out how to handle this scale but if we have (for example) a 3rd party, they could help handle that load, we are doing research now