Harvard Business School 9-391-155
Rev. 11/19/91

Ann Hopkins (A)

The general method of maintaining an informal executive organization is so to operate and to select and promote executives that a general condition of compatibility of personnel is maintained. Perhaps often and certainly occasionally men cannot be promoted or selected or even must be relieved, because they cannot function; because they 'do not fit' where there is no question of formal competence.

Chester I. Barnard
The Functions of the Executive, 1938, 1964.

Many of the best companies really do view themselves as an extended family.

Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman
In Search of Excellence, 1982

Ann Hopkins was nominated for partnership at Price-Waterhouse in August 1982. A senior manager in the firm's Office of Government Services (OGS) in Washington, D.C., Hopkins specialized in large-scale, computer-based systems de-signed for government agencies. Her 1982 partnership class included 87 other candidates; Hopkins was the only woman in the group. Price Waterhouse offered partnerships to 47 of them, rejected 21, and placed 20, including Hopkins, on hold.'

Soon afterwards, Hopkins met with the firm's chairman to discuss the decision and the admissions committee's recommendations. It had suggested that she be given more work with partners and undertake a quality control review in order to demonstrate her skills and allay concerns about her. In 1983, however, one of her original supporters at OGS said he opposed her renomination and a second OGS partner joined him. Shortly afterwards, Hopkins was told it was unlikely that she would ever become a partner at Price Waterhouse.

Hopkins then had four options. She could leave the firm. She could join the international area 'on the hope of slim chance" she would be proposed for partnership the next year. She could continue working with Price Waterhouse as a career manager, without any chance of partnership.! The fin--I option, which she ultimately pursued, was to leave the firm and initiate a law-suit charging Price Waterhouse with sex discrimination. She also asked the courts to order the Firm to make her a partner.

Ann Hopkins

Ann Hopkins was born December 18, 1943 She described herself as "third generation, small town Texas" and as an army "brat" who "learned from her childhood how to be an outsider."3 She said her mother taught her that "when you shake hands, you should always shake hands firmly, and -w hen you walk into a room. you should walk in as if you owned it." Her father, she said, was an "army career officer who disapproved of army, wives working." Hopkins's mother, however, worked as a nurse and believed her career was important. Press reports said Hopkins used phrases such as "hills to die on" and said setbacks were "opportunities to manager." "I think of myself," she said. "as tough-minded which is different than tough. To be tough-minded is to challenge whatever the assertions are."4

Hopkins graduated from high school in 1961 at the age of 17. She majored in at Hollins College in Roanoke, Virginia, where she earned a B.A- in 1965. Two years later, she received a master's degree in mathematics from Indiana University. Hopkins then returned to Hollins College to teach mathematics.

After a year, Hopkins left her teaching position to join IBM. In her early months there, she worked as a mathematical physicist and managed a seven-person project for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. In 1972, Hopkins joined Computer Sciences Corporation where she continued to work on NASA accounts. About two years later, she moved on to Computer Usage Corporation. Although she continued to develop business at NASA, she began work in marketing and split her time between working for NASA and developing and installing computer systems for banks in New York and Chicago.6

In 1976, Hopkins joined Touche Ross, a major public accounting firm, as a systems management consultant. Her projects included the development of a system for payroll, personnel. and budgeting for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. She also implemented a health claims processing system for the United Mine Workers. This project took more than two years and Hopkins headed a team of as many as 20 Touche Ross consultants and UMW consultants and programmers. During, this period. she married the man she called "the love of her life." Hopkins and her husband had three children.

In late 1977, when her husband came up for partnership at Touche Ross, she left the firm because it would not consider any one for partnership whose spouse worked there. Hopkins joined American Management Systems (AMS) in 1978 and soon recognized that the move was a mistake. "I realized I basically preferred a multi-project environment and a broader focus,"
Hopkins said. Touche Ross referred her to Pr-ice Waterhouse. 7 In August 1978, Hopkins left AMS and be an working at Price Waterhouse as a manager in the Management Advisory Services (MAS) department of OGS.8

Price Waterhouse was a professional partnership that specialized in auditing, tax, and management consulting services. Its principal clients were private corporations, including many Fotune 500 companies. It also worked for government agencies. In the early 1980s, in its 90 offices across the United States, Price Waterhouse had 662 partners.9 The partnership worldwide had approximately 2,600 partners.

The firm was divided into three departments. Accounting and auditing represented 46% of the business; tax services, 20%: and management advisory services, the remaining 34%. Unlike auditors and accountants, who usually came to Price Waterhouse directly from college or the military, consultants typically had five or more years experience and additional academic training.10

The Partnership Admission Process

The senior partner of Price Waterhouse and a policy board managed the firm and elected all new partners through a formal, annual nomination and review process that culminated in a partnership-wide vote. There was no formal limit on how many partners could be elected in a year.11

Partnership was, in essence, a lifetime appointment. "One of the great risks of admitting partners to our firm," said Timothy Coffey, the partner in charge of MAS, "is that, one, they're less supervised, and, secondly, they are more tenured and therefore people that have a likelihood or potential of abusing authority can cause serious long term problems for the firm."' In practice, if the management committee decided to drop a partner, they negotiated with the individual. If the person objected, a 75% vote of the entire partnership was required to force a partner out.13 In the history of the firm, there had been two mandatory withdrawals."

Partners had unlimited personal liability and were exposed to substantial legal and financial risks.15 Information about partners' incomes was closely guarded. Estimates suggested that partners at Price Waterhouse earned on average about $125,000 a year in the early 1980s. As a senior manager, Hopkins earned approximately $65,000. At the trial, one expert estimated that she would have earned approximately $107,000 had she become a partner in 1983.

The partnership candidates in a particular year were called a class, and the firm prepared a booklet for each class member. Its first page was the candidate's photograph. This was followed by an application for admission to partnership. Notes on counseling sessions, staff performance evaluations, partners' evaluations, statistical analyses of the quartile rankings for the candidate in each of the evaluation categories, and comparative rankings of the class candidates were typically included with the application.

Candidacy and review for partnership began when the partners in a local office proposed a candidate to the admissions committee. 16 The committee then invited every partner in the Firm to submit written comments on each candidate. 17 Partners who had significant and recent contact with a candidate submitted a long form evaluation; those with more limited contact used a short form.18 Occasionally, the committee interviewed partners who had submitted comments to learn more about the basis for their comments.19

T'he admissions committee met for three days in early December, 1982 for its initial consideration of candidates.20 The committee member who had visited each candidate's office summarized the results of the visit, the strength of the nominating office's support, and important material from the candidate's personnel file, and then described the candidate's strengths and weaknesses for the Admissions Committee.21 Questions followed. The absolute number of positive and negative evaluations was not decisive, and negative votes were given more weight. often leading to "no" or "hold" decisions. The committee ultimately made recommendations on each candidate and forwarded these to the policy board.

T'he policy board reviewed the admissions committee's recommendations and then voted on whether to include each candidate on a firm-wide partnership ballot, "hold" the candidate, or reject the candidate. 22 According to one partner, "the board could override the recommendations of the admissions committee and approve candidates on the basis of individual merit or the firm's business needs."

Some candidates had been held because of concerns about their interpersonal skills. According to testimony from Price Waterhouse partners, the firm had "consistently placed a high premium on a candidate's ability to deal with subordinates and peers on an interpersonal basis and to promote cordial relations within a firm which is necessarily dependent on team effort." Other testimony stated that "[t]he Policy Board takes evaluations or a negative reaction on this basis very seriously," even if the negative comments on short form evaluations were based upon less contact with the candidate than glowing reports on long forms evaluations based on more extensive contact. The policy board had, however, recommended and elected two candidates criticized for their interpersonal skills because they were perceived as being aggressive, overbearing, abrasive or crude." The reason was that the firm had a specific need for their skills and feared it would lose by putting them in the "hold" category.

Approved candidates' names appeared on a ballot for partnership-wide election. For admission to partnership, two-thirds of the entire partnership had to approve a candidates. Sixty percent of the female candidates and sixty-eight percent of the male candidates who reached the final balloting had been elected to partnership. Price Waterhouse had, however, only seven female partners. It gave two explanations for this. One was the relatively recent entry of large numbers of women into accounting and related fields. The other was the success of clients and rival accounting firms in hiring away female potential partners.

Hopkins's Candidacy

OGS nominated Hopkins for partnership in August 1982. According to Hopkins and the nominating proposal, OGS praised her "outstanding performance," said it was "virtually at partnership level," and underlined her "key role"28 in connection with a large State Department project. No other 1982 candidate's record for securing major contracts was comparable. 29 Hopkins had also billed more hours (2,442 hours in 1982 and 2,507 in 1988) than any other candidate and generated more business than any other candidate considered for partners in that year. The proposal strongly urged her admission to the partnership."31

OGS had written several drafts of Hopkins's nomination proposal. Thomas Beyer, the partner in charge of consulting services at OGS, testified:

T'he proposal is terribly important because it is the only document offered to the partners which demonstrates or shows what the individual has done and is the only place in time where we are allowed, [sic] the unstated rules of the firm to . . . politic . . ., to campaign for an individual. That's the only chance you have. In fact, it's well known and well understood in the firm that anybody trying any other method is clearly in violation of the unstated law and is terribly frowned upon. So we had to have this right. It had to be done just exactly right. Every word. Every nuance. 32

Four partners were involved in the drafting and redrafting of Hopkins's proposal. Beyer did the final review himself. 33

T'he admissions committee then circulated long and short forms to all Price Waterhouse partners. Thirty-two partners, all male, responded about Hopkins.34 Of the 32 initial evaluations, 13 supported her for partnership, 3 recommended that her candidacy be put on hold, 8 stated that they were uninformed as to her suitability for partnership, and 8 opposed making her a partner. (See Exhibit 1.)

During the fall, Donald Ziegler, the head of the admissions committee, followed up the evaluations by interviewing respondents at the two offices where Hopkins had worked, OGS and the St. Louis office. 35 Another member of the committee, Roger Marcellin, also visited OGS. He summarized the contents of Hopkins's encapsulating her performance reports, brief letters about her accomplishments, and other miscellaneous materials in her file. (See Exhibit 2.)

T'he admissions committee also tabulated the results of the evaluations for all the candidates and prepared quartile rankings of the class. 37 (See Exhibit 3.) Hopkins received very few "yes" votes and more "no' votes than all but two of the 88 candidates that year. These no votes and negative comments, mostly from partners outside OGS, placed Hopkins near the bottom of the class. 38

Hopkins's Record at Price Waterhouse

T'he day before Hopkins was to start work, the partner who hired her called and said that Firm policy prohibited hiring anyone who was married to a partner or had a close relationship with a partner in a national accounting firm. 39 Hopkins was told that, nevertheless, Price Waterhouse would stand behind its offer4o and she began work as planned. For the First few 41 months, she was not assigned to any client work.

Hopkins's initial project began in the fall of 1978. It was one of four major assignments during her Price Waterhouse career. The first was for the Department of Interior. It consisted of two contracts worth approximately $200,000 each, one of which she later managed. The second client was the Department of State. Hopkins was in charge of developing a proposal, in competition with 11 other contractors, that led ultimately to a State Department contract whose long term value to Price Waterhouse was $35 million. The third project was for the Department of Agriculture, a proposal valued at $2.5 million 42 for work for the Farmers Home Credit Administration." The fourth was also for the Department of State and involved implementing a worldwide real property management system, valued at $6 million.

Department of the Interior

At the Interior Department, Hopkins worked on a computer conversion project for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). An OGS partner later called her performance on the project "outstanding". He added "She had to manage the project at a remote site (Albuquerque), using staff from Denver and Houston and work with a difficult client. Her project management skills are excellent."44

There were, however, criticisms of her work. Some came from Robert Kaplan, a consultant who worked with Hopkins in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the BIA project. He cited problems with Hopkins as the reason he left the firm a few years later. According to Thomas Beyer, Kaplan called Hopkins from Albuquerque to review the BIA job, and Hopkins got into a violent argument with him, screaming obscenities at him for about 45 minutes. Kaplan believed Hopkins prevented him from advancing in the firm.45

Another problem surfaced when Hopkins's BIA work was reviewed by a partner in 1980. His report said:

I was informed by Ann that the project had been completed on sked within budget. My subsequent review indicated a significant discrepancy of approximately $35,000 between the proposed fees, billed fees [and] actuals in the WIPS. I discussed this matter with Ann who attempted to try and explain away or play down the discrepancy. She insisted there had not been a discrepancy in the amount of the underrealization. Unsatisfied with her responses, I continued to question the matter until she admitted there was a problem but I should discuss it with Krulwich [A partner at OGS]. My subsequent discussion with Lew indicated that the discrepancy was a result of 500 additional hours being charged to the job (at the request of Bill Devaney . . . agreed to by Krulwich) after it was determined that Linda Pegues, a senior consultant from the Houston office working on the project had been instructed by Ann to work 12-14 hrs per day during the project but only to charge 8 hours per day. The entire incident left me questioning Ann's staff management methods and the honesty of her responses to my questions. 46

 

The State Department

At the end of the Interior Department project in late 1979, Hopkins volunteered to write a proposal for developing a financial management system for the State Department. The proposal was the first phase of a competition with other firms. The winners would be paid to write a second proposal describing how they would implement their plans. Many Price Waterhouse people worked on the first-round proposal. The multi-volumed document, which included a technical proposal with appendices and a cost proposal, was submitted on time in February 1980. In May, Price Waterhouse learned it was one of two finalists. 47 The State Department held an award signing ceremony in May 1980, and its chairman, Joseph Connor came down from New York to attend.

From May 1980 until February 1982, a Price Waterhouse team varying from four to 12 people and composed of consultants, managers, accountants and computer specialists worked on the second proposal. An OGS partner was the partner-in-charge for the proposal; Hopkins worked as project manager. The work required fieldwork at 20 to 30 overseas posts48 Partners from Price Waterhouse's international firm and personnel from embassy staff were also involved. Hopkins traveled to Asia for five weeks and then to Europe. Team members often worked from eight in the morning until late a night and on weekends.49 During, the project, Hopkins received a raise and was promoted from manager to senior manager.50

In early 1982, when the proposal was nearly due, Hopkins summoned the team to decide together whether to make the deadline or to request an extension. Hopkins said she played a game called "chicken," telling the team that they had two choices, to ask for the extension or to make the date. She warned them that the second alternative was "not going to be pleasant." According to Hopkins, the team decided to make the deadline.51

Hopkins believed the project group developed a sense of team spirit. She noted, for example, that Steve Higgins, one of the Price Waterhouse consultants, had a drink with her after work or dinner every other week.-57 Higgins sometimes brought his children from New York to the dinners at Hopkins's house. She was also with him when one of his children was born during the project. 53

Thomas Beyer later recalled personnel problems on the projected During one meeting of the project team, a consultant, Patricia Bowman, attempted to present some ideas in her area. "Ann struck out at her," Beyer said, "Inasmuch as to smother her commentary and say we don't need that now. . . ." Bowman "struck right back and said something to the effect you can’t treat me that way. Don't you dare treat me that way." Beyer said Hopkins accepted it and continued the meeting.-55

Beyer also said that Karen Nold, one of the senior managers, "was quite depressed about
things. Beyer said she "just felt that Ann's overbearing style was smothering her attempts to . . . bring forth her ideas, her conclusions, her recommendations and suggestions." Beyer recommended that Nold speak up because her contributions were important. 56 Nold, however, characterized her conversation with Beyer as him telling her to become assertive. Despite this incident, Nold praised Hopkins for some things.58 "Ann is very smart, very to the point, very directed at getting good results . . . she cares about the people who work with and for her. . . ." Nold said that Hopkins taught her about self-confidence, how to apply her knowledge and skills without self-doubt, and how to support her presentations with facts and numbers. She found working with Hopkins "very stimulating." "Did I enjoy it?," she said, "Yes and no."59

Other positive reports came from some State Department personnel. Robert Lamb, later the State Department's Assistant Secretary of Administration and Security, was the Counselor for Administration in the American Embassy in Bonn,, Germany when he first worked with Hopkins on the project. "I had a lot of respect for her," Lamb said, "I thought she was a very good project manager. In fact, I've subsequently tried to hire Ann for the State Department because I thought she was so good. I thought she provided a good sense of direction, a good sense of leadership for the team." Lamb referred to Hopkins as decisive but not dictatorial, ". . . quite interested in competing points of view ... somebody that would hear her staff out on a question. I never saw her cut anyone off . .."60

Beyer, however, recalled difficult moments during this period. In the summer of 1981, Hopkins, Beyer and Krulwich had lunch at the Mayflower Hotel. "They were eating and just kind of passing time ... and something happened to Ann," Beyer said. He continued:

I wasn't quite sure what. But she began to criticize a number of people in the office at different levels. In different fashions. At first I passed it off thinking well, this is, this is Ann. She's probably tired ... But Ann kept up with it. Lew was silent and-not saying anything and Ann kept on talking ... And it got more vitriolic. More striking. [A]fter awhile I be an to get quite angry...At that point, .Lew, kind of trying to settle the situation, said, look, let's quit and go back to work. They walked back to the office in silence.

Beyer was angry and Krulwich upset. When they spoke about the incident back at the office, Beyer reminded Krulwich that despite her problems with people, Hopkins was an integral part of the office and they needed her skills.61

T'hat summer, Hopkins had her first session with Fred Laughlin, the partner assigned to counsel Anne Hopkins. (One such partner was assigned to each staff member.) This was part of a mandatory annual counseling policy instituted in 1981. Laughlin, Hopkins recalled, counseled her "to be more careful with my language ... I think he probably meant tone of voice, profanity, to some extent what I said, also in other instance[s], how I said it." During the last stages of the State Department work, Hopkins said she "renewed [her] efforts to be sensitive to the cares, concerns, and well-being of the people that she worked with." "I still use a measure of profanity . . . " she said, "I made an attempt to not intimidate, if you will, or be overbearing with little people, people who are innocent bystanders or people with whom we had no contact and I took that to heart.62

Near the end of the work, Beyer told Hopkins that he expected Price Waterhouse to win the proposal competition. He told her to write the proposal for implementing the firm's recommendations. Although she would not be the project manager, he said, she should write herself in "in an administrative, transitional kind of position."63 Price Waterhouse won the contract, and Connor attended another award ceremony.

Despite their work on the proposal, neither Hopkins nor the partner-in-charge was involved in the rest of the project. The State Department's director of financial systems, who was principally in charge of conducting the work, had asked Price Waterhouse to remove the partner. T'he reason, according to Roger Feldman, then Comptroller of the State Department, "had to do with his performance, attitude, his presentation, and the lack of constructive contribution on his part to that point. . . ."64 In contrast, Feldman said Hopkins's replacement had nothing to do with her performance or her personal skills. "The committee and team that determined the selection," he said, "were very favorably impressed with her performance during the orals and were also very favorably disposed to the written proposals that came from Price Waterhouse."" Feldman described her as "extremely competent, intelligent, a very capable person. Strong and forthright, very productive, energetic, and creative" with a sense of humor.66 He and his staff worked extensively with Hopkins and Feldman stated he had not seen Hopkins behave in any abusive, dictatorial, or unfair ways with her staff.67

Nevertheless, the Department thought the project manager should be a partner because this would lend greater prestige to the project. According to Feldman, the Department's director of financial systems also thought "the project was going to reach a dimension that was very large in anybody's terms of organization and structure . . . there would be a need to require top fliCFht talent to be brought forth on throughout the firm and that a partner would be presumably well positioned to be able to tap on the different resources of the firm. ,68

In mid-1982, Beyer told Hopkins over lunch at the International Club that he would propose her as a partner in the admissions cycle about to begin.69 Beyer then had the first of a series of conversations with Hopkins about how she could improve her chances for partnership, and gave her advice about her hair, makeup, clothing, and jewelry. Hopkins said she found these conversations offensive. When Beyer suggested that she style her hair, Hopkins explained to him that she already got up at five or six in the morning, had a lot to do, and didn't have the time. Beyer answered that Sandy Kinsey, another woman in OGS, managed to find the time.

By the summer of 1982, Hopkins was focusing her time on projects other than the State Department work. She participated, along with several partners, in an MAS Quality Control Review in the Houston offices Hopkins later complained to one of them about his writing obscene anatomical references, such as "This is where our balls are on the line," in the margins of his work papers. 71 According to Hopkins, another confrontation with this partner occurred during a meeting in his office. The partner sat at his desk. repeatedly raising a stilletto letter opener and stabbing his desk with it. When Hopkins asked him to stop, he said, "Why, is it making you nervous?" Hopkins said, "Yes." "Well, if you think that makes you nervous, the partner responded, turning to pull a gun from a credenza behind his desk and turning back around to face her, "What do you think about this?" He pointed the gun into the air. When she later described this incident, Hopkins insisted that she had not been threatened with the gun. 72

Farmers Home Credit Association
Beyer next assigned Hopkins to manage the St. Louis office's proposal for the design of an automated accounting system for recording and tracking loans to farmers. The client was Farmers Home Credit Association, a U.S. Department of Agriculture agency with major data processing operations in St. Louis. Arthur Anderson had done extensive work for the agency, and Beyer believed it was getting ready to work on the loan accounting project.73

From July through August 1982, Hopkins helped the St. Louis MAS department prepare a 2000-page proposal for the work .74 At stake were $3.1 million in fees and expenses75 in a contract for 65,000 hours of work. Price Waterhouse partners and staff worked over 2,000 hours during the four weeks it took to complete the proposal.76 ' Hopkins spent 260 hours on the project.77

Along the way, she experienced two major problems. The first was getting the St. Louis office to prepare the proposal in the way she preferred. The local staff was accustomed to working on fixed price contracts, while this was a cost-plus contract.78 Hopkins had to convince the staff that they should abandon their familiar way of preparing a proposal and that her way was correct, then show them how to do it and get the work completed on time. The problem had deeper roots, mainly the office's inexperience with this type of client. As Beyer later explained, "In OGS we had developed a streamlined fashion for efficiently dealing with proposal developments for generating deliverable on jobs. It became a way of life. It had to. It was the only way we could survive. The St. Louis office was not used to this. They had dealt more in the private sector and in state government work"79

Several members of the St. Louis office staff later complained about Hopkins. One consultant she said was "direct, abrupt, sometimes insensitive. And demeaning at times." He recalled an exchange between Hopkins and the office's graphics contractor. "Ann wasn't pleased at all and expressed herself fairly directly . . . " the consultant said. Afterwards, feeling that he had done the work badly and that he was going to lose the Price Waterhouse account, the man called back. The consultant said that he assured him this was not the case.81 The consultant also complained that "[T]he development of a fairly detailed work plan and assignment of responsibilities really didn't occur." Hopkins prepared an outline "as to what she envisioned the document to look like," which he thought inadequate. He also said she was unable to direct staff members on improving their work. This lack of direction resulted in chaos, 82 and he said his co-workers expressed similar feelings to him. 83

Hopkins and the staff ultimately produced a four-volume proposal and then helped two St. Louis partners prepare for oral reviews. 84 One of those partners, Timothy Coffey, said that the "[f]inal project was massive but not quality." He added that Hopkins "alienated almost everyone who worked on the project. She seemed to be unorganized and worked as if it were a Chinese fire drill. No one wants to work with her on the project if we get it.,,85 He also said, "Ann needs a chance to demonstrate people skills. She has a going for her but she's just plain rough on people. Our staff did not enjoy working for her. There is a risk that she may abuse authority."86 Coffey also suggested that Hopkins "[m]ay have overcompensated for being a woman." But he also said that "St. Louis would not have had a chance on [the] proposal without her help" and that she was "one of the brightest people he and met."87

In December 1982, the Association awarded the contract to Price Waterhouse. Beyer sent Connor a letter telling him about how successful Hopkins had been." Later, without OGS assistance, the St. Louis office wrote a successful federal government proposal worth several million dollars. 89

Department of State

In October 1982, Hopkins got two new assignments." One was managing the OGS word processing center. The other was developing a proposal for managing the real estate administered by the State Department abroad. When the State Department's Comptroller contacted Beyer seeking Price Waterhouse's help in developing a system to manage its overseas service post properties, Beyer assigned the work to Hopkins. As for the word processing assignment, Beyer reported in Hopkins partnership admissions file that "Ann is delighted to be able to assume this responsibility particularly as this will demonstrate her ability to manage subordinates effectively."91

The 10-person word processing staff that Hopkins took over had been very troubled under its prior manager, with staff members complaining about inadequate compensation adjustments and a lack of consideration in relating staff skills to workloads and priorities. 92 Hopkins "went right to the core of those problems," Beyer said. "She cleaned up the backlog in the unit. Nobody quit. She addressed the personnel problems of people on the staff." "I give Ann a lot of credit for keeping the department on a fairly even keel," Beyer said. "[I]t was one of the first times you had seen someone at that level of partner or manager get involved with the people themselves."93

The Partnership Decision

In March 1983, the admissions committee recommended that Hopkins be held "at least a year to afford time to demonstrate that she has the personal and leadership qualities required of a partner."94 The policy board adopted the admissions committee's recommendation and suggested that Hopkins participate in a quality control review.

Hopkins learned from Lew Krulwich that she had not been promoted. The reason, he said, reporting what Connor had told Beyer, was that she had irritated some senior partners. 95 Hopkins said neither she nor Krulwich knew what that meant. Another partner suggested that she should probably not come to the office on the day the partnership list was posted. Hopkins believed he was concerned that she might lose control emotionally. According to her, the partner added that some of the names posted were "not competent to lick her boots." The other two candidates OGS had nominated became partners. One had worked for Price Waterhouse for less time than Hopkins.

Hopkins went to New York to meet with Joseph Connor, the firm's chairman, and discuss the decision. She asked him how to overcome the "hold" and make it an "admit." Connor told her that she had to undergo a quality control review and come out of it with no negative comments. He also told her that OGS had to continue to be profitable. When Hopkins asked what her prospects were, Connor replied, "Fifty-flfty",97 Connor also advised her to relax and "to take charge" less often. 98

Beyer also advised Hopkins.99 According to Hopkins, he suggested she "soften her image in the manner in which she walked, talked, dressed. He later said that "when she comes into the office or starts walking down the hall, it is with a lot of authority and forcefulness. I admire that quality. I respond to it. It does not always appear in the same view or in the same manner to other people." She also said he advised her to use less profanity and to alter her voice tone, to "look more toward appearing more feminine," to wear more jewelry and make-up, to style her hair, and to dress less in "power blues."100 He also suggested that she stop smoking, not drink beer at lunch, not carry a briefcase."101 Hopkins said she explained that carrying a briefcase was easier for her than managing a handbag, a suitcase, and a briefcase simultaneously. She later said she did not wear make-up because she was allergic to it. Even if she weren't she said, "applying make-up would be difficult because she can't see without her trifocals."102

Soon after this, two of the OGS partners who had nominated Hopkins withdrew their support for her. T'he reason one of them gave was the difficulty he had with her as a senior manager and his concern that problems would grow worse if she acquired the power and authority of a partner. He complained that she routinely barged into his office, got her business done, and barged out again. The incident that changed his mind, he said, occurred at a time when he was understaffed and Hopkins offered him one of her staff members, only to withdraw the offer the next day. According to the partner, she had insisted on making the offer without qualification, refused his suggestion that she think it over for a day, then told him the next day that he could not use the staff member she had offered. 103

During the next few months, according to Hopkins, the firm failed to give her opportunities to demonstrate her abilities and gain more exposure. Four months after the policy board's recommendations, with two OGS's strong support, it was felt that her candidacy could not possibly be successful. Hopkins was advised that it was very unlikely that she would be admitted to partnership.

Reviews of her work on the State Department Real Estate management project were, on balance, favorable. An initial review by the partner who had been removed from the large State Department project was negative, but the subsequent Quality Control Review conducted on the State Department work, including REMS, was a "strong positive."104 It also suggested some changes which Hopkins and the rest of the REMS team later made.

Hopkins later wrote that she was "the only candidate who was not admitted to Price Waterhouse-initially or after being put on hold-who was criticized solely for deficiencies in interpersonal skills."105 Similarly situated men, she says, were admitted. 106 Hopkins was at the bottom of overall quartile rankings and only 13 of 32 partners favored her admission, but the firm had admitted one candidate who had support from 14 of 30 partners and another who ranked 39th of 42 in overall quartile rankings. 107

In December 1983, she learned she would not be reproposed for partnership. Hopkins tendered her resignation and left Price Waterhouse in January.108 In 1984, she started her own management consulting firm. She also filed suit against Price Waterhouse claiming that she had been denied a partnership because of sex discrimination. She sought an award of backpay for lost wages and reinstatement at Price Waterhouse as a partner.

Exhibit 1 Summary of Short Form and Long Form Comments

A.B. HOPKINS M012
SHORT FORM
# 1

No comments. (Yes) Kelly

My only contact with Ann was on the FMHA pro- Green
posal this past July/Aug.
She tended to alienate the staff in that she
was extremely overbearing. Ann needs improve-
ment in her interpersonal skills. She also
demonstrated an apparent lack of tech skills.
(Insuf'f)

Ann's performance at the State Dept can only be Laughlin
described as "fantastic." She knows how to deliver
superior, distinctive client services. (Yes)

Ann has the "will" to get things done. There is Lohneis
no question as to who leads the projects she is
responsible for. Ann has very high strength of
conviction. (Yes)

I am bothered by the arrogance & self-centered Haller
attitude that Ann projects.
Also while she may be admired by some
she appears to be simply tolerated by others.
She may not be of value outside current (OGS)
enviornment. (Insuff)

Observation through office association. (Yes) S:Lmonetti

Ann is hardworking, determined & relentless. Hartz
She can also be abrasive in dealing with staff
members.
I have no question about her tech competence.
I believe the key question regarding her admis-
sion is "Will her personality limit her ability
to successfully market work, retain staff &
maintain satisfactory relations with her ptrs?"
(Insuff)

I have known Ann for the last 2 yrs. Her office is next to mine. MacVeagh
I have not worked with her, but have been an interested observer of her
mgmt of the lst State Dept project & her rapid growth as a professional &
as a person. She unquestionably has the scope, stamina, skills & experience
to run successfully the very large projects that contributed so much to our
present & potential growth. As a person she has matured from a tough-talking
somewhat masculine hard-nosed mgr to an authoritative, formidable, but much
more appealing lady ptr candidate. She should now become a lady ptr. (Yes

I was second on a large project for Bureau of JB Adams
Indian Affairs. Ann was project mgr. (Yes)

I believe Ann does not possess the leader- Wheaton
ship qualities we desire in our ptrs. Also,
in my exposure to her, albeit about 3 yrs ago,
I seriously questioned her tech knowledge of
data processing. (No)

Known through frequent in-office interaction & Jones
review of proposals prepared by her. (Yes)

During the QCR Ann demonstrated a high degree PR Powell
of independence & impartiality of mind & courage of
her convictions in evaluating the jobs she was assigned.
She is however somewhat lacking in the congeniality dept. (Yes)

I have observed Ann on a casual in-office basis for the period 8/79-12/81. Gross
I have been impressed & would be pleased to have her as a ptr. (Yes)

Strength - ability to "pull together" the details into the QCR report, take Kercher
charge attitude.
Weaknesses - not good communicator, seemed "rough". (Insuff)

I have no first hand working relationship with Ann. All my input comes through Docter
3-5 MkS sr mgrs who have worked with her extensively - it is uniformily negative.
She is not tech respected & her interpersonal relationships are extremely poor. (Insuff)

Relationship - Has offered to teach numerous times & has taught Markestein
some MAS seminars, which is my only relationship to Ann.
She appears to be articulate, tough minded. supportive of PW
as opposed to being self-serving. (Insuff)

While I have only limited exposure to Ann as a result of work in the Everett
OGS office,
I do not want her as my ptr.
I cannot comment cm her technical skills,
hcpwever she is universally disliked by the staff and, in
my judgment, does not possess the interpersonal skills or
personal attributes that are critical. (No)

Basis of evaluation - exposure to candidate at firm mtgs. (No) Carroll

I know Ann through: attending a CE course she instructed; attending a MMGS Brugos
seminar with her; having several discussions with her relating to governmental pricing. (No)

Ann is a "tough cookie." She is a no nonsense, take charge type of person Hart

In 1980 I conducted an ASR (QCR) in OGS; which included reviewing a Fridley
project for the Bureau of Indian Affairs which Ann served as project mgr.
During my review of the BIA engagement, I was informed by Ann that the
project had been completed on sked & within budget. My subsequent review
indicated a significant discrepancy of approx $35,000 between the proposed
fees, billed fees & actuals in the WIPS. I discussed this matter with Ann,
who attempted to try & explain away or play down the discrepancy. She insisted
there had not been a discrepancy in the amount of underrealization. Unsatisfied
with her responses, I continue to question the matter until she admitted there
was a problem but I should discuss it with Krulwich. My subsequent discussion
with Lew indicated that the discrepancy was a result of 500 additional hrs being
charged to the job (at the request of Bill Devaney . . agreed to by Krulwich) after
it was determined that Linda Pegues, a sr consultant from the Houston off working
on the project, had been instructed by Ann to work 12-14 hrs per day during the
project but to only charge 8 hrs per day. The entire incident left me questioning
Ann's staff mgmt methods & the honesty of her responses to my questions.

In July/Aug 82 Ann assisted the St. Louis MAS practice in preparing an extensive
proposal to the Farmers Home Admin (the proposal inc 2800 pgs for $3.1 mil in
fees/expenses & 65,000 hrs of work). The proposal was completed over a 4 wk
period with approx 2000 plus staff/ptr hrs required based on my participation in
the proposal effort & sub discussions with St. L MAS staff involved. Ann's
mgmt style of using to trial & error techniques" (ie, sending staff assigned
off to prepare portions of the proposal with little or -no guidance from her
& then her subsequent rejection of the products developed) caused a complete
alienation of the staff towards Ann & a fear that they would have to work
with Ann if we won the project. In addition, Ann's manner of dealing with
our staff & with the Houston sr consultant on the BIA project, raises questions
in my mind about her ability to develop & motivate our staff as a ptr. (No)

My contact is limited to a few conversations. She FR Johnson
is very intelligent but appears to
be weak in interpersonal skills. (Insuff)

Ann participated in Houston QCR in 82. Prior to that Devaney
she managed a job that I provided a staff consultant
to work for her (the 79-80 Bureau of Indian Affairs)
- where the staff worked 10 or more hrs/day & reported
8 hrs.
This classic OGS technique blew up in my face when
upon return, the staff said what do I do to get paid
for the 500+ hrs worked & not reported? (No)

I worked with Ann in the early stages of the lst State Whelan
Dept proposal. I found her to be
a) singularly dedicated.
b) rather unpleasant. I wonder whether her 4
yrs with us have really demonstrated ptr qualities
or whether we have simply taken advantage of
"workaholic" tendencies. Note that she has
held 6 jobs in the last 15 yrs, all with out-
standing comp . anies. I'm also troubled about her
being (having been7) married to a ptr of a
serious competitor. (Insuff--but favor hold. at
a minimum)

Ann's exposure to me was on the Farmers Home Admin Blythe
proposal. Despite many negative comments from other
people involved I think she did a great job and
turned out a first class proposal. Great intellectual
capacity but very abrasive in her dealings with staff.
A suggest we hold, counsel her and if she
makes progress with her interpersonal skills,
then admit next year. (Hold)

She can write, sell, perform & collect Systems Beyer
assignments like I've ever known. This gal will bring in for more than
she could ever hope to take out of the firm. (Yes)

Ann has many superior qualities. She is innovative, highly Epelbaum
intelligent, articulate,
self-confident & assertive. She has worked long & hard in a difficult environment
& has gained the respect of the client. She has played the key role in our PD
activities at the state Dept.
At time, however, she can be abrasive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with &,
as a result, causes significant turmoil. Nonetheless. she has made an almost
unprecedented contribution to the firm & deserves to receive our serious consideration
for admission. (Yes)

Outstanding MAS professional in fastest growing area Krulwich
of MAS (+OGS) practice -- systems design & implementation. First rate in
handling the most difficult client assignments (Dept of State) & is very creative
& analytical in developing & conducting work. Excellent in training & assisting
staff. I trust Ann's judgment on both tech & business matters & believe she can
become the "big job" client service partner we need. With her husband & family,
she is a fine person with a high sense of integrity. (Yes)

Hopkins is aggressive, bold & mesmerizing of Statland
clients and ptrs. Staff does not like working for her. Her judgment is
not always good, i.e. . she will be-bend to client demands too easily.
Writes & speaks well.commands authority -little substance-
potentially dangerous. (No)

Ann needs a chance to demonstrate people Coffey
skills.
She has a lot going for her but she's just plain rough on people.
Our staffr did not enjoy working for her. There is a risk that she
may abuse authority. (Hold)

While Hopkins has made a major contribution to the firm, Warder
she still has a few rough spots which need to be corrected. (Hold)

Long Form
VIII

Hopkins is probably too bright; she probably Beyer
drives too hard.
On occasion, she’ll forget herself & lose sensitivity for staff.
But ... not one staff member ever suggested, throughout State project over 2 yrs in
duration. thar Ann was not an outstanding leader & should be replaced.
Ann should be a ptr. (Yes)

A. B. HOPKINS
SHORT FORM
#3

Contacts with Ann are only casual-several mtgs at CG Hoffman
OGS and MMGS sessions.
However, she is consistently annoying and irritating - believes
she knows more than anyone about anything, is not afraid to let
the world know it. Suggest a course at charm school before she
is considered for admission. I would be embarrassed to introduce her as a ptnr. (No)

Endnotes

1 825 F.2d 458 at 462.

Plaintiff's Testimony, Tr. 112.

3 Tamar Lewin, 'Winner of Sex Bias Suit Set to Enter Next Arena,' New York Times, May 19,
1990 (National edition, p. 7).

4 William Galberson, "Determined to be Heard: Four Americans and their journeys to the Supreme Court, "The New York Times Magazine, October 2, 198.8 (Sunday), 33-40 at p. 38.

5 Plaintiffs Testimony, Tr. 7.

6 Plaintiffs Testimony, Tr. p. 7-9.
7 Plaintiff's Testimony, Tr. 12-13; See also, Plaintiffs Deposition, Vol. I, p. 25.
8 Plaintiff's Testimony. Tr. 13-14.
9 825 F.2d 458, citing 618 F. Supp. 1109, 1111 (D.D.C. 1985); See also, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 1781 (1989).

10 Connor's Deposition of March 12, 1985 for Trial, p. 3, 8, 10.
11 825 F.2d 458, 461 (D.C. Cir., 1987); See also, 618 F.Supp. 1109, 1111 (D.D.C. 1985).
12 Coffey's Testimony in 1990 Trial, Tr. 346.
13C Coffey's Testimony, Tr. 346.

14Connor's Testimony for 1990 Trial, Tr. 255.

15 See, 1990 Trial, Tr. 346-48.

16 log S.Ct. 1775, 1781 (1989); Pet. App. 41a.

17 log S.Ct. 1775, 1781 (1989).

18 825 F.2d 458 at 462; See also Defendant's Exhibits 21, 22, and 23.
19 825 F.2d 458 at 462; See also Ziegler Testimony and Defendant's Brief, p.5.
20 Ziegler Testimony, Tr. 257.
21 Ziegler Testimony, Tr. 258.

22 Price Waterhouse Brief, p.5.

23 Testimony.

24 Testimony of Ziegler or Coffey.
25 618 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1985).

26 See Endnote 12 above.
27 Ibid; Testimony of Partner.
28 109 S.Ct. 1775, at 1782.
29 109 S.Ct. at 1782, citincy Plaintiffs Exhibit 15.

3o 825 F.2d 458 at 462; See also, 618 F.Supp. at 1112.

31 825 F.2d at 462; Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 cited therein.
32 Beyer's Testimony, Tr. 207.
33 Beyer's Testimony, Tr. 208.
34 Trial Testimony (Ziecler).
35 Trial Testimony (Ziecler).
36 Defendant's Exhibit 30; See Testimony or Deposition (Ziegler).

37 See Trial Record, p. 002012ff, Exhibits 17ff which were not necessarily ready for the December
meeting

38 618 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1985).

39 Plaintiff's Deposition, Vol. I, p. 24.

40 Plaintiff's Testimony, Trial or First Deposition, Tr. 84-85; See also, Plaintiff's Deposition, Vol.
I, p. 24-26.

41 Plaintiff's Testimony, Tr. 13-14; See also, Plaintiff's Deposition, Vol. 1, p. 27.

42 Plaintiff's Brief on Remand, p.3.

43 Plaintiff's Complaint; See Coffey evaluation in Supreme Cour-t lodging.
44 Defendant's Exhibit 7, Kr-ulwich's Annual Manager Personnel Report, April 4, 1980.

45 Beyer's Testimony in 1985 Trial, Tr.. 193.

46 Fridley, in Short Form Partner Evaluation, Comments #3, p.2, Trial Record, p. 002004. This is from one of the documents in the Supreme Court Lodging.

47 Plaintiffs Deposition, Vol. I, p. 43.

48 Tr. 34-'@5; Deposition, p. 48; The number of sites aiven in Plaintiffs Deposition is 23, but at
trial the number of sites was reported as 20 to 30.

49 Deposition, Vol. I, p. 50. Hopkins estimated her billable time that year at appro)dmately 20,000 to 24,000 hours, Tr. p. 34-35.

50See Partner Admission File, Summary, November 28, 1982.
51 Trial Testimony, Tr. 46-47.
52 Trial Testimony, March 15, 1985, p. 56-57.
53 Testimony at Trial, p. 53, 56.
54 Beyer's Testimony, Tr. 192.
55 Beyer's Testimony, Tr. 196.
56 Beyer's Testimony, Tr. 194-196.
57 Nold's Testimony, Tr. 421.
58 Tr. 417-419.
59 Tr. 420.

6o Testimony of Robert Lamb, Trial or Deposition.
61 Tr. 197-197A.

62 'Tr. 52-53.

63Tr. 136-137.

64Tr. 149.

65 Tr.146-152.
66 Tr.149-152.
67 Tr.146-149.
68 Tr.149

69 plaintiff's Deposition, Vol. I, pp. 53, 57.
7OSee, Short Form Evaluation Notes in the Partnership Admission File.
71 Plaintiffs Deposition, Vol. 11, p. 24.
71plaintiffs Deposition and Trial Testimony.
73 Letter of December 2, 1982, from Beyer to Connor, Plaintiffs Exhibit 14.

74 Fridley's Short Form Evaluation, repeated in Lodging, Short Form 3, p. 2. The project was also
known as the Home Farm Mutual proposal and the FMH Association proposal; Fridley in Ziegler's Notes in Partnership Admission File.

75See, Ziegler's Notes 1982.

76Fridlev Ibid.

77COffey's Evaluation, Performance of MAS Contract Staff.
78 Coffey's Testimony at Trial, Tr. 342-343.
79Beyer's Testimony at Trial, Tr. 171.
80 Tr. 363.
81Boehm's Testimony, Tr. 367-368.
82 Tr. 363.
83Boehm's Testimony, Tr. 364-365.
84Letter, Beyer to Connor, December 2, 1982; Plaintiffs Exhibit 14.
85Ziegler's summary of discussion with St. Louis Partners, Defendant's Exhibit 31, p. 003845.
86Ziec,ler, Long Form Summary, 20006- Coffey later qualified himsell he said, "I would be hichly surprised if I said she abuse[s] authority. I probably said'she had the potential of abusing authority which is a concern that I [have]." Tr. 346.

87Ziegler's summary discussion with St. Louis Partner, Defendant's Exhibit 31. See Zlegler's Notes on Discussions with St. Louis partners in Review of File, Long Form Summaries, p. 002206, November 17,1982.

88 Beyer to Connor, December 2, 1982, Plaintiffs Exhibit 14.
89Tr. 371.
90 Plaintiff's Remand Brief, p. 4.

91Ziegler in 1983 partnership admissions file, citing memorandum of October 26, 1982 signed by
Beyer, Ziegler, p. 003841, Private and Protected.

92Beyer's Testimony at Trial, Tr. 210.

93Trial Testimony.
94Pet. App. 43a quoting Plaintiffs Exhibit 10; Tr. 267-268.
95PIaintiffs Deposition, Vol. 1, p. 59.
96PIaintiff's Deposition, Vol. I, p. 70.
97plaintiffs Deposition, Vol. I, p. 64-65.
98Plaintiff's Deposition, Vol. I, p. 65.
99PIaintiff's Trial Brief, p. 12; See also, Plaintiffs Deposition, Vol. I, p. 67.

100plaintiffs Trial Brief, pp. 12-13; For a definition of the term "power blues,' and Hopkins's attorneys' conunent, "Sometimes you just can't win,' See, Plaintiffs Trial Brief, p. 1-3, n.5.

101'Plaintiff's Deposition, Vol. I, p. 68.

102Jaclyn Fierman, "NVhy Women Still Don't Hit the Top," Fortune, July '10, 1990, p. 40-62, at p. 50.

103Epelbaum's Deposition or Trial Testimony in 1985.

104PIaintiff s Answer to Interrocatories, Interrocatory 10; See also, Protected Document, Exhibit 12 in Beyer Deposition, March 7, 1985, pp. 2-'@.

105PIaintiff's Remand Brief, p. 20, n. 2 citing Defendant's Exhibit 64.
106PIaintifFs Remand Brief, p. 20, no. 2.
107plaintiffs Remand Brief, p. 20, n. 3 citing Defendant's Exhibit 73 at 1102 and Defendant's Exhibit 36 at 3859, No. A 228 is Puschaver.

108618 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1985).

Research Associate Ilyse Barknan, J.D., prepared this case under the supervion of Professor Joseph L- Badaracco, Jr., as the basis for class discussion rathe rthan to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of adminstrative situation. This case is based upon approximately 6500 pages of legal documents relating to the case of Ann B. Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 618 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C 1985), 263 U.S. App. D.C 321, 82-5 F.2d 458 (1987), reversed and remanded in 490 U.S. 228 (1989), on remand,Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 737F. Supp. 1202 (D.D.C P-990),.affirmed, Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, (U.S. App. D. C) 920 F. 2,d 967 (1990). The quotations in the case are taken from courtroom testimony and pre-trail depositions in the public record.

Copyrigbt c 1991 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies, call (617) 495-6117 or write the Publishing Division, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163. No part of this publication may be reprcduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise wthout the permission of Harvard Business School.