Unsticking the status quo: The role of diversity in

Unsticking the status quo: The role of diversity in

The
buck stops
here: quo: The
Unsticking
the status
Vanguard
moneyinmarket
funds
role of diversity
investment
committee effectiveness
Vanguard research
Catherine D. Gordon
■■
This paper presents findings from a 2013 survey by Vanguard and Market Strategies
International on a largely unexplored topic: the ways in which investment committee
members define and value diversity, and the impact of diversity on committee effectiveness.
■■
Survey respondents reported a high degree of satisfaction with their current committee
diversity, a lack of formality in their approach, and the general view that diversity on
their committee is not very important.
■■
Although foundational research touts the potential benefits of introducing diversity to
a decision-making body (e.g., Knouse, 1999), the level of importance that committee
members give to diversity is quite different. In fact, the survey found that: (1) Less than
one-quarter of respondents rated diversity as “very/extremely important”; (2) More than
90% said their committee had no formal diversity policy; and (3) Only one-quarter of
respondents said their committee had become more diverse over the “past five years.”
■■
Vanguard believes that investment committees can benefit from a concerted effort
to improve committee diversity, which can enhance overall decision-making.
The author gratefully acknowledges Jim Nelson and Lisa A. Curran, of Vanguard’s Planning and Development Division, for their substantial contributions to this paper.
May 2014
Although the role of diversity in organizational behavior
and team performance has been examined extensively,
few studies have addressed diversity’s role from
the perspective of investment committee members
themselves. As part of Vanguard’s ongoing research
on investment committee behavior, a 2013 survey
conducted with Market Strategies International studied
how committee members—who are responsible for
making decisions regarding their institutions’ investable
assets—define and value diversity, as well as the potential
impact of diversity on committees’ productivity (see the
box below for more details of our survey approach).
Our survey revealed that—like most theorists—investment
committee members define diversity in a variety of ways—
ranging from functional or job-related diversity to biodemographic diversity. However, not all forms of diversity are
perceived to drive committee effectiveness, according
to committee members. Furthermore, few respondents
placed a high level of importance on diversity of any kind—
nearly two-thirds (65%) were “extremely satisfied” or
“very satisfied" with their committee’s level of diversity.
These findings beg the question: Why haven’t investment
committees embraced diversity? One reason may be their
high level of satisfaction with the status quo. Another
may be that the benefits of diversity on committee
effectiveness take time to be realized. Furthermore, it
can be difficult to separate out the role of diversity from
other factors affecting committee member behavior.
Understanding the role of diversity
To understand the impact of diversity on team
performance, it is necessary to first define diversity.
Published studies have proposed a number of definitions,
not all of which are consistent (Simons and Rowland,
2011). Based on our survey responses, the most
prevalent definition among investment committee
members revolved around their views of the committee’s
expertise or experience. Definitions taking into account
background or biodemographics (such as age, gender,
or ethnicity) tended to be secondary, although cited to
varying degrees (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Definition of diversity
Details on the data
Question: How do you define diversity in the context of an
investment committee?
.
36%
Expertise/experience
28%
Background
23%
Demographics
18%
Investment diversity
17%
Role within organization
15%
Variety of other perspectives
Racial/ethnic diversity
10%
0%
10
20
Unaided responses
30
40
Our survey data were collected from January 18
through February 7, 2013, based on responses
to a 15-minute online survey we administered
to institutional investment committee members
responsible for overseeing retirement plans or
endowment and foundation assets. We received
a total of 130 responses, 81 from retirement plan
sponsors (both defined-benefit and definedcontribution) and 49 from nonprofit investment
committee members. Assets under management
ranged from less than $50 million (37% of
committees surveyed) to more than $1 billion (15%
of committees). For more details on respondent
demographics, see Appendix I.
Source: Vanguard.
Notes on risk: All investing is subject to risk, including possible loss of principal. Past performance does not guarantee
future results.
2
Perhaps not surprisingly, respondents considered
their investment committees to be most diverse in
terms of members’ professional experience—more
than 60% of members indicated their committee was
“very/extremely diverse” in this respect (see Figure 2
and the sidebar containing Figure 3, which compares
responses of nonprofit versus retirement committees).
In fact, investment committee structures to date have
often been oriented toward building a diverse
committee on the basis of members’ professional
background and experience. This is not to say that this
element of diversity is not important—it is. But we put
forth that other elements of diversity can further help to
enhance committee performance, and that these other
elements may be overshadowed by the emphasis placed
on professional background.
Figure 2. Current level of diversity
Question: Please rate your committee’s level of diversity in
relation to the following.
.
Professional experience
62%
Gender
42%
Committee experience
42%
Age
35%
Education
32%
Race/ethnicity
9%
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Very/extremely diverse
Source: Vanguard.
How diversity 'rates' on nonprofit versus retirement investment committees
Nonprofit committees reported a higher level of diversity than retirement committees in terms of professional experience and
investment committee experience. Overall, committee members reported the least diversity in terms of race/ethnicity.
Figure 3. Comparing reported diversity: Nonprofit versus retirement committees
Current level of diversity rated by respondents as “very/extremely” diverse
Professional experience
78%
53%
59%
Investment committee experience
31%
41%
Age
32%
39%
Gender
44%
29%
Education
33%
14%
Race/ethnicity
6%
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Nonprofit
Retirement
Source: Vanguard.
3
Based on findings of foundational research, no one
definition of diversity consistently results in a positive
impact on organizational performance, and diversity
in general does not always lead to positive outcomes
(Christian, Porter, and Moffitt, 2006). The study by
Simons and Rowland (2011) looked at two models
of diversity—the social diversity perspective and the
information-processing perspective (see Figure 4).
The social diversity perspective holds that, based on
the similarity-attraction paradigm, people who are more
similar based on demographic attributes such as age,
gender, and race/ethnicity will be more willing to work
together, thus increasing efficiency (Horwitz, 2005). On
the other hand, the information-processing perspective
holds that, according to the cognitive diversity theory,
a multiplicity of viewpoints will result in better decisionmaking skills and more creativity.
Figure 4. Comparing two models of diversity
Diversity model
Theory
Outcome
Social diversity
Similarity-attraction
paradigm
Those who are
more similar will be
more willing to work
together.
Information
processing
Cognitive diversity
A multiplicity of
viewpoints will result
in better decisionmaking skills and
creativity.
Sources: Vanguard, based on Horwitz (2005) and Simons and Rowland (2011).
Figure 5. Horwitz’s integrated model of diversity
Job-related diversity:
Team performance:
• Functional expertise
• Education
• Organizational tenure
Bio-demographic diversity:
• Age
• Gender
• Race/ethnicity
• Effectiveness
• Efficiency
Moderators:
•
•
•
•
•
Team type
Team size
Task complexity
Task interdependence
Frequency and duration of interaction
Source: Sujin K. Horwitz, 2005, The Compositional Impact of Team Diversity on Performance: Theoretical Considerations, Human Resource Development Review 4(2): 219–45.
©2005 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.
4
Figure 6. Diversity elements driving effectiveness
Question: Please rank the top-three diversity elements that positively contribute to the effectiveness of a committee.
64%
Professional experience
28%
22%
Committee experience
56%
5%
Education
67%
5%
Age
23%
2%
Gender
17%
1%
Race/ethnicity
7%
0%
20
40
60
80
100
#1 ranking
Top-three ranking
Source: Vanguard.
Clearly, these two perspectives have conflicting
viewpoints. However, Horwitz (2005) also identified
a separate framework that integrates the perspectives
(see Figure 5) and offers a number of moderating factors
that could facilitate effective team performance. These
moderating factors help explain why varying outcomes
are observed when measuring the impact of diversity
on team performance and also might help determine
ways in which diversity can drive effectiveness for
a particular investment committee.
Diversity factors fueling effectiveness
Based on this integrated model of diversity, it’s not
likely that simply injecting diversity—whether job-related
or biodemographic—into any investment committee
structure will result in improved committee performance.
Committees need to understand not only the elements
of diversity and the roles these can play but also the
interplay of moderating aspects on efficiency and
effective decision-making.
In fact, when survey respondents were asked to rank the
top-three diversity elements that positively contributed to
the effectiveness of a committee, diversity in professional
experience and diversity in committee experience ranked
highest, as shown in Figure 6. Based on these findings,
committee members tended to point to job-related
diversity as the main driver of committee effectiveness,
whereas biodemographic diversity again played a more
secondary role.
These findings, together with our earlier finding that just
60% of committees rated themselves as highly diverse
in terms of professional experience, suggest that
committees may benefit from the elements of social
diversity (e.g., contributing to efficiency), and that they
may be lacking in intellectual processing (e.g., leading
to better decision-making and more creativity).
5
Overall factors leading to committee effectiveness
Figure 7 also indicates the importance of factors on a
derived basis. Contrary to the stated preferences of our
survey respondents, Vanguard’s statistical analysis has
determined that the stability of team members is the
strongest driver of committee effectiveness—more
so than the investment philosophy or the committee’s
due-diligence capabilities. This finding might explain
why investment committees have struggled to evolve
overall—given their strong focus on keeping the
investment team intact. In turn, this may also account
for committees’ seeming lack of emphasis on building
a diverse team.
A wide range of factors can influence an investment
committee’s ability to make effective decisions regarding
the direction an institution takes and the strategies it
employs. According to our survey respondents, the
diversity of the committee’s team members (by any
definition) tends to play a very minor role. When asked
to identify the most important drivers of committee
effectiveness, committee members pointed
to the committee’s:
• Overarching investment philosophy—the guiding
principles that help inform and shape the types of
investments selected.
For a committee to evolve positively, members must
be willing to embrace change, including changes in
membership and in the group’s makeup. Understanding
the dynamics of investment committees and the biases
of individual members are important steps in advancing
investment committee diversity.
• Due-diligence capabilities—the tools and resources
the committee uses to evaluate potential investments.
• Stability of team membership. (See Figure 7.)
Figure 7. Stated and derived importance of factors
Question for stated responses: How important are each of the following factors in the overall effectiveness of your
committee’s decisions?
42%
42%
Stability of team members
21%
Due-diligence capabilities
19%
Investment philosophy
Asset class expertise
5%
5%
Diversity of team members
5%
5%
4%
Asset allocation expertise
Tenure on investment
committee
21%
19%
55%
55%
26%
1%
32%
20
Note: Derived importance was determined using regression analysis.
44%
19%
19%
Derived importance
Stated “extremely/very important”
6
72%
4%
0%
Source: Vanguard.
70%
44%
3%
Tenure in industry
69%
40
60
80
Figure 8. Overall importance of diversity
Figure 9. Incidence of formal diversity policies
Question: Overall, how important do you believe diversity
is in an investment committee?
Question: For the purposes of this survey, please consider
diversity as it relates to age, race/ethnicity, gender, education,
and professional experience. Keeping this definition in mind,
does your committee have a formal, written diversity policy?
.
40%
37%
30
26%
20%
20
92%
5%
2%
14%
No
Yes
Not sure
10
3%
0
.
Not at all
important
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Very
important
Extremely
important
Note: Numbers do not add to 100% because of rounding.
Source: Vanguard.
Source: Vanguard.
A lack of diversity . . .
and a suggestion of complacency
It is interesting that as the demographics of the United
States continue to evolve and many corporations and
organizations actively seek to incorporate diversity into
their structures, the makeup of investment committees
has remained relatively unchanged. Few steps, if any,
appear to have been taken to address the level of
diversity represented within the committees. In fact,
four in ten respondents to our survey said that committee
diversity was either “not” or “not very” important, and
another 37% remained noncommittal in terms of diversity’s
role in driving committee effectiveness (see Figure 8).
Along the same lines, fewer than one-in-ten investment
committee member respondents said that they have
a formal, written policy in place to develop and foster
diversity within their committee (see Figure 9). This
may pose an opportunity for investment committees
going forward, as a next step in incorporating diversity.
Given a concerted effort, investment committees
can improve committee diversity and potentially,
therefore, the quality of their decision-making, creativity,
and overall effectiveness, much as large corporations
have done over the last several years.
7
Moreover, the importance placed on developing such
a policy moving forward is relatively low, as just 6% of
committee member respondents said this was “very/
extremely important” (see Figure 10). Although certain
types of committees may have made more progress in
fostering diversity, our survey results indicate that the
great majority of committees have not developed formal
diversity policies. Both retirement-plan committees (DB
or DC) and nonprofit committees reported a similar low
incidence of formal diversity policies and placed a
similar low level of importance on developing a policy.
Along with the absence of a formal policy is a high
level of satisfaction with the current level of committee
diversity. As mentioned early in this paper, nearly twothirds of survey respondents reported being “very/
extremely satisfied” with their committee’s level
of diversity (see Figure 11).
Figure 10. Importance of developing a diversity policy
Question: How important is it for your committee to have a
formal, written diversity policy?
50%
These high levels of satisfaction, along with low interest
in formal diversity policies, may indicate complacency
or a lack of desire to change—or perhaps a lack of
awareness of the positive impact that diversity can
have on a committee’s efficiency and on decisionmaking processes.
Commenting on their working paper, A Positive Approach
to Studying Diversity in Organizations, Ramarajan and
Thomas (2010) have argued that “a lot of policies in the
workplace about diversity are based on research that’s
focused on the negative. And as a result, the . . . policies
are defensive in nature, and they don’t tend to produce
the high quality of relationships that you need across
differences.” These comments underscore the importance
of establishing an effective policy that outlines the benefits
of diversity, rather than simply building a diverse headcount.
Figure 11. Satisfaction with current level of
committee diversity
Question: How satisfied are you with the degree of diversity
represented in your committee?
.
44%
40
30
28%
65%
35%
23%
20
10
4%
2%
0
Not at all
important
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Note: Numbers do not add to 100% because of rounding.
Source: Vanguard.
8
Very
important
Extremely
important
Source: Vanguard.
Very/extremely satisfied
Other
Figure 12. Change in diversity in the “past five years”
Question: How much more or less diverse has your
committee become over the past five years?
70%
25%
5%
No more or less diverse
More/much more diverse
Less/much less diverse
Source: Vanguard.
Building a diverse team does not stop with developing
a formal policy. Rather, it requires further integration
of the policy into the team structure—starting with the
member-selection process. Nonprofit committees have
the flexibility to select diverse members, because many
nonprofits are volunteer organizations. And because
they are not subject to the organizational head-count
constraints of the corporate world, they may be able
to draw from a larger pool of candidates. In addition,
they are afforded a more active role in discussing
diversity in the selection process. As a result, as
emphasized in Figure 3, nonprofits have seen greater
progress in building more diverse committees. However,
taken as a group, investment committees’ “diversity
score” has changed little over the past few years. In
fact, just one-quarter of our survey respondents said
their committee had become more diverse than five
years previous—with the majority indicating that their
committee had not changed one way or the other
(see Figure 12).
This trend is likely to continue—unless committees
recognize the value of taking a more active stance on
the issue. Currently, investment committee members
don’t see this lack of diversity as a limiting factor in their
ability to make sound judgments and decisions. In fact,
nearly seven-in-ten committee member respondents said
they were “very/extremely satisfied” with the current
level of diversity represented by their committee.
9
Other traits that can enhance effectiveness
Aside from professional experience and committee
experience, committee members identified several other
traits as defining highly effective committees. For many
committee members, reaching consensus is generally the
goal of the overall process, but it’s clear that effective
committees are defined less by their ability to reach
consensus and more by their ability to fully engage each
member and exhibit sound judgment. One-third of our
survey respondents ranked being “fully engaged in the
committee process” as the most valuable trait among
effective committee members—followed by having
“deep investment expertise” and “shows good
judgment” (see Figure 13).
When conflict does arise, simply having a diverse team
may trigger certain expectations—which can result in
better conflict resolution. According to Neale (2006),
“the mere presence of diversity you can see, such as
a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team in that
there are likely to be differences of opinion. That cuing
turns out to enhance the team’s ability to handle conflict,
because members expect it and are not surprised when
it surfaces . . . . The assumption is that people who look
like us think like us, but that’s usually just not the case,”
Neale said. She suggested that more homogeneous groups
may be less prepared to handle conflict, because they are
not expecting it.
Figure 13. Most valuable committee member traits
Question: When thinking of highly effective committee members, please rank the top-three most valuable traits.
Percentage ranked #1
Is fully engaged in the committee process
33%
Has deep investment expertise
28%
Shows good judgment
18%
Has cross-functional expertise
5%
Has leadership experience
5%
Brings their own perspective
5%
Has investment committee experience
2%
Seeks consensus
2%
Interacts well with others
2%
0%
Source: Vanguard.
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure 14. Frequency of sharing majority view
Figure 15. Committee conflict resolution
Question: How often do you share the majority view when
it comes to making decisions on the committee?
Question: How does your committee handle conflict most
of the time?
100%
5%
2%
6%
80
100%
80
57%
62%
60
80%
79%
40
40
20
20
0
15%
15%
14%
Total
Retirement
Nonprofit
71%
60
82%
2%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Source: Vanguard.
31%
26%
9%
0
Total
18%
2%
9%
4%
Retirement
10%
Nonprofit
Reaches a consensus
Takes a vote, majority rules
Postpones the decision until later
Other
Note: Some numbers do not add to 100% because of rounding.
Source: Vanguard.
A similar hypothesis can emerge when examining
conflict resolution by type of investment committee.
In earlier Vanguard research (Stockton, 2009), eight
in ten investment committee members reported
that they shared the majority view when it came
to making decisions, a response similar to our
survey finding among retirement and nonprofit
committee members—85% and 84%, respectively
(see Figure 14).
However, in the event of conflict, the outcome for each
committee is somewhat different. Nonprofit committees,
which have tended to more strongly emphasize diversity,
and have become more diverse over the past five years,
are more likely than retirement committees to reach
consensus without having to take a majority vote. In
fact, nearly one-third (31%) of retirement committee
members said they resort to a majority vote in times
of conflict—a much higher proportion than nonprofit
committees (see Figure 15).
11
reductions due to loss of group coordination. In other
words, at some point, the difficulty of organizing and
coordinating a large group offsets the value of added
insights and experiences. However, loss of coordination
may not begin until groups reach a certain size, perhaps
more than ten members (Littlepage, 1991). In addition,
as group size increases, members can become less
motivated because of the perceived diminishing
importance of their input.
Figure 16. Group size and performance
Performance
High
Member tenure: A mixed review
Low
Small
Large
Group size
Potential
Actual
Source: Adapted from Forsyth (2006).
The roles of team size and tenure
Team size can be key in performance
As illustrated in Horwitz’s (2005) integrated model of
diversity (see Figure 5, on page 4), team size is one of
the moderating factors that can determine the outcome
of committee performance. On average, investment
committees in our survey consisted of about seven
members, with the majority of committees (62%)
containing between five and eight individuals, depending
on the type of committee.
Vanguard's review of research in Group Decision-Making:
Implications for Investment Committees (Mattola and
Utkus, 2009), also reported that the size of a group
or committee can measurably affect its performance.
Although the relationship between group size and
performance varies with the nature of the task,
performance tends to improve with group size—but
only to a point (Forsyth, 2006; and see Figure 16).
Subsequent increases in group size result in performance
12
Committee member tenure can also serve as a moderating
factor in driving overall committee effectiveness. However,
views can differ on the impact of organizational tenure
on performance. For instance, Schwenk (1993) pointed
out that management teams of executives with longer
tenures can potentially create more effective strategies
for improving company performance because their
experience gives them a deeper understanding of their
companies and competitive environments. Similar to
the benefits of team tenure, it has also been claimed that
longer organizational tenure may indicate social cohesion,
which can expedite effective performance (Hambrick and
D’Aveni, 1992).
On the other hand, Schwenk (1993) also cautioned
that longer organizational tenure can lead to rigidity
and complacency, if executives become committed
to outdated assumptions and strategies and develop
a biased view of past performance, thus leading to
poor future performance.
The average tenure among investment committee
members we surveyed was approximately 6.2 years—
with the majority (52%) of members falling into the fourto six-year category. This level of tenure seems to guard
against the threat of complacency, yet capitalizes on
the knowledge and expertise of investment committee
members who have gained a more in-depth understanding
of the organization and its ultimate investment objectives.
Implications for investment committees
References
Ultimately, enough evidence exists to support the role
that diversity plays in driving committee effectiveness,
though, as the Vanguard/Market Strategies International
survey has demonstrated, the ways in which committees
leverage diversity will certainly vary from group to group
and organization to organization. Despite investment
committee members’ satisfaction with their current
committees’ diversity, our survey findings, together with
other related research, suggest there is considerable
room for improvement. A first step will be a willingness
among committee members to unstick the status quo.
Christian, Julie, Lyman W. Porter, and Graham Moffitt, 2006.
Workplace Diversity and Group Relations: An Overview. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(4): 459–66.
To fully realize the benefits of a diverse group of individuals
and, in the process, improve their effectiveness and
efficiency, committees must continually evaluate their
team’s structure and incorporate mechanisms to avoid
some of the pitfalls outlined here. Committees must also
recognize that introducing any type of change—including
diversity efforts—will require time for members to adjust
and find their equilibrium. Studies have shown that more
diverse committees bring with them fresh perspectives
and often a greater level of deliberation before reaching
decisions. Although this can be a healthy change, it may be
uncomfortable early on, especially among long-tenured and
homogeneous groups that have functioned in a more
efficient and cohesive manner.
Developing a formal, written diversity policy is crucial
in determining the potential benefits of a more diverse
committee structure, but it is just the beginning. Active
steps should then be taken in the team-selection process
to seek out diverse committee members who bring with
them the skills and attitudes for effective decision-making
in support of the organization’s key objectives. Like any
solid effort, fostering diversity requires ongoing oversight
and a considerable dose of reflection and insight.
Forsyth, Donelson R., 2006. Group Dynamics, 4th ed. Belmont,
Calif.: Thomson Higher Education.
Hambrick, Donald C., and Richard A. D’Aveni, 1992. Top Team
Deterioration as Part of the Downward Spiral of Large Corporate
Bankruptcies. Management Science 38: 1445–66.
Horwitz, Sujin K., 2005. The Compositional Impact of Team
Diversity on Performance: Theoretical Considerations. Human
Resource Development Review 4(2): 219–45.
Knouse, Stephen B., and Mickey R. Dansby, 1999. Percentage of
Work-Group Diversity and Work-Group Effectiveness,” Journal of
Psychology 133(5): 486–94.
Littlepage, Glenn E., 1991. Effects of Group Size and Task
Characteristics on Group Performance: A Test of Steiner’s Model.
Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin 17(4, August):
449–56.
Mattola, Gary R., and Stephen P. Utkus, 2009. Group DecisionMaking: Implications for Investment Committees. Valley Forge,
Pa.: The Vanguard Group.
Neale, Margaret A., 2006. Diverse Backgrounds and Personalities
Can Strengthen Groups. Working Paper. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
Graduate School of Business.
Ramarajan, Lakshmi, and David A.Thomas, 2010. A Positive
Approach to Studying Diversity in Organizations. HBS Working
Paper No. 11-024. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
Schwenk, Charles. 1993. Management Tenure and Explanations
for Success and Failure. Omega, The International Journal of
Management Science 21: 449–56.
Simons, S., and K. Rowland, 2011. Diversity and Its Impact
on Organizational Performance: The Influence of Diversity
Constructions on Expectations and Outcomes. Journal of
Technology Management & Innovation 6(3): 71–77.
Stockton, Kimberly, 2009. Investment Committee DecisionMaker Study. Valley Forge, Pa.: The Vanguard Group.
Vanguard investment committee resources
Does Leadership Style Matter? Investment Committee DecisionMaking Study, by Jill Marshall and Liqian Ren (2011).
Group Decision-Making: Implications for Investment
Committees, by Gary R. Mattola and Stephen P. Utkus (2009).
Six Investment Committee Essentials: A Guide for New
Members (2012).
13
Appendix. Respondent demographics for 2013
Vanguard/Market Strategies International survey
Our survey sample included a total of 130 investment
committee members (81 representing retirement plans
and 49 representing nonprofit organizations).
Figure A-1. Assets under committee management
Total
n = 130
Retirement
n = 81
Less than $50 million
37%
$50 million to less than $250 million
Source: Vanguard.
14
14%
15%
$468
27%
11%
9%
$1 billion or more
49%
28%
11%
$500 million to less than $1 billion
Mean (in $millions):
30%
28%
$250 million to less than $500 million
Nonprofit
n = 49
10%
2%
17%
$539
12%
$351
Figure A-2. Profile and demographics of survey respondents
Gender
Total
Retirement
Nonprofit
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
Male
65%
62%
71%
Female
35%
38%
29%
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
Age
31–40
12%
15%
8%
41–50
23%
23%
22%
51–60
46%
48%
43%
61–70
17%
13%
24%
Over 70
Mean:
2%
1%
2%
53.3
52.3
55.1
Total
Retirement
Nonprofit
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
First-time
committee
member
22%
26%
16%
Some investment
committee
experience
38%
36%
41%
Deep investment
committee
experience
40%
38%
43%
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
2%
4%
0%
1–3 years
19%
20%
18%
4–6 years
25%
22%
31%
7–10 years
18%
22%
10%
More than 10 years
35%
32%
41%
Committee
experience
Committee tenure
Less than 1 year
Race/ethnicity
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
White
91%
91%
91%
Asian
4%
4%
4%
Hispanic or Latino
3%
4%
2%
Black or African
American
1%
1%
0%
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
Native Hawaiian
or Pacific Islander
1%
0%
2%
Investments/
investing
65%
56%
82%
American Indian
or Alaska Native
0%
0%
0%
Corporate finance
51%
49%
53%
Two or more
races/ethnicities
0%
0%
0%
Accounting
51%
43%
63%
Human resources
46%
60%
22%
Prefer not to say
0%
0%
0%
Financial planning
32%
30%
35%
Legal
12%
11%
14%
Other
8%
6%
12%
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
Employee, selected
based on my role in
the organization
70%
74%
63%
Employee, selected
based on expertise
19%
26%
8%
I am a volunteer for
the organization
10%
0%
27%
1%
0%
2%
Education
Area of expertise
n = 130
n = 81
n = 49
Bachelor’s degree
64%
62%
67%
Master’s degree
50%
41%
65%
CPA
25%
22%
31%
CFA®, CFP ®, or
similar certification
15%
14%
18%
J.D./law degree
5%
6%
4%
Ph.D.
1%
0%
2%
Other
13%
14%
12%
Role in the
organization/
committee
I am not an
employee
Notes: For the “Race/ethnicity" category, respondents were asked to select all that applied. For the “Education” (and accreditation) and “Area of expertise” categories, respondents were
asked to select all that applied.
Source: Vanguard.
15
Vanguard Research
Connect with Vanguard® > vanguard.com
For more information about Vanguard funds, visit vanguard.com, or call 800-662-2739, to obtain
a prospectus. Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information
about a fund are contained in the prospectus; read and consider it carefully before investing.
P.O. Box 2600
Valley Forge, PA 19482-2600
© 2014 The Vanguard Group, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
ISGUTSQ 052014