This Hispanic Heritage Month, our stallout in the Fortune 500 gives me pause

For the past two decades, the same phone call has resounded: a chief executive calls to discuss a Latina first in her organization. Often, she is the first Latina hired. The company's leaders supported her initially, but as time progressed, something changed. By month nine, she noticed the assignment was not aligned with the organization's strengths.

She usually attributes this to her competence, but this is not the reason. It's a gap in the support system built around her. When someone is hired to transform an organization, they are often given the role meant for the predecessor. They inherit the same budget, meeting cadence, and agenda. They are expected to execute tasks the previous structure was never designed to handle.

When the transformation faces obstacles, the leader is held accountable. This month, Hispanic Heritage Month, has brought forth numerous firsts across the country. However, despite the record 55 women now leading Fortune 500 companies - 11% of the list, the highest share in its 72-year history - none of them are Latina. The loss of Latina executives is a concern.

Out of the 186 CEO departures in August, 62 were from government and nonprofit organizations. Latinas face barriers at the beginning of their careers. Only 39% of Latinas say their manager shows interest in their career advancement, compared to 46% of white women. Similarly, only 47% of Latinas report their manager ensures they receive credit for their work, compared to 53% of white women.

The impact is visible even when starting at the entry level. For every 100 men promoted from entry level to manager, only 74 Latinas are promoted. By the C-suite, Latinas constitute just 1% of executives - a significant drop from 5% at entry level, a decline of 78%. In the past three decades, John Kotter identified eight reasons why most organizational changes fail.

Some factors are within the leader's control, while others are external conditions. One critical aspect is the involvement of senior leaders genuinely committed to change, along with compensation systems that reward new ways of working and a board close enough to the transformation to understand what it requires. Currently, there is a lack of measurement for the goals we set.

In Lean In and McKinsey's 2024 Women in the Workplace study, 78% of managers feel more is expected of them now, particularly regarding employee well-being, career development, and inclusion. However, only 37% of companies evaluate their managers on whether they develop anyone. Expectations have risen, but accountability has not followed.

Each event leaves 20 business cards with women seeking mentors. While this is not considered infrastructure, it is crucial for filling the gaps left by the institution. Boards rarely set out to undermine their leaders. They are often volunteers dedicating their time to an organization they believe in. Their governance training typically covers executive hiring and evaluation but stops there.

As a CEO, I recognize the importance of a strong board structure. The most successful transitions begin with a formal transition committee assembled by the chair, meeting regularly throughout the first six months. This committee introduces the new CEO to key stakeholders and ensures a seamless handover of relationships and responsibilities.

The board must treat the top of the organization as a partnership, not a solo effort. They should make the mandate for change clear to all stakeholders, ensuring the organization's success comes before personal egos. By viewing the first year as a design problem rather than a probation period, boards can create the necessary infrastructure to support transformative leadership.