|
|
As described in the first two parts of our series, Increasing Sponsorship and Sponsorship, we have challenged ourselves to use design thinking as a way to bring fresh ideas to the goal of advancing women in the legal profession. In this final post, we share some of the solutions and ideas generated at the Women's Leadership Forum as well as insights from our experience. Sponsorship - New Solutions for Different Stakeholders In design thinking, you look at the problem through the eyes of different “personas”, particularly the individuals most affected by the problem. You develop an appreciation of how they are impacted by the problem so you can hone in on their specific needs to develop practical and creative solutions. As described in previous posts, our problem was how to increase sponsorship for women lawyers. We used the definition of a sponsor as someone who: believes in the protégé and goes out on a limb on their behalf, advocates for the protégé’s next promotion, and provides ‘air cover’ so they can take risks, while a protégé was defined as someone who: outperforms, is loyal to the sponsor and organization, and contributes a distinct personal brand. We generated solutions for three different scenarios; women seeking to advance, men learning how to sponsor and advance women, and leaders looking for ways to accelerate sponsorship in their organizations. We developed the personas in the infographic below before the workshop to accommodate our tight timeframe. You will likely recognize some of these personas – you may be one of them. Click the image below to download a PDF copy.
|
|
|
Ðpercent€annualized€interest€rate€to€be€paid€on€the€full€principal€amount.€€McKinlay€J.A.Ð Ô)D"+ Ðfor€the€court€held,€at€pp.€59-60€that:Ý ƒ % Ñý Ë +Ë ÝŒÐ l+Ü#- ÐŒÝ ÝÌÓ Óà0 « àà ø àIn€this€case,€the€appellant€takes€the€position€that€the€only€offensive€partÐ œ. '1 Ðof€the€loan€was€the€$3,000€charge€for€ð ðfeesð ð,€and€that€if€the€agreement€wereÐ h/Ø'2 Ðleft€intact€apart€from€that€provision,€the€result€would€be€a€fair€one€in€theÐ 40¤(3 Ðcircumstances.€€I€am€inclined€to€agree€with€that€position€.€.€..Ð « Ð « Ð ÐÌÓ Ó...Ð ( ˜ ÐÓ ÐÏ ÓÌà0 « àà ø àI€consider€this€case€to€be€one€strongly€favouring€the€position€of€theÐ À 0 Ðappellant.€€She€is€clearly€not€entitled€to€the€$3,000€fee,€but€I€would€strikeÐ Œ ü Ðonly€that€provision,€and€leave€the€loan€otherwise€intact€as€a€$32,000€loanÐ X È Ðwith€interest€at€18%€per€annum€for€a€thirty€day€term.Ó Î ÓÐ $ ” « Ð « Ð ÐÌThe€approach€taken€by€McKinlay€J.A.€in€ò òMilani€ó óis€reflected€in€the€path€taken€byÐ T Ä ÐRosenberg€J.A.€at€the€Court€of€Appeal€for€Ontario€in€the€case€at€bar.€€McKinlay€J.A.Ð ì \ Ðsevered€one€of€the€ð ðinterestð ð€terms€(actually€attributable€to€ð ðcostsð ð)€from€the€loan€so€thatÐ „ ô Ðthe€interest€rate€would€be€legal,€just€as€Rosenberg€J.A.€in€this€case€severed€the€promiseÐ Œ Ðto€pay€interest€at€four€percent€per€month,€calculated€daily,€payable€monthly€in€arrears,Ð ´ $ Ðthereby€leaving€the€other€charges€to€amount,€cumulatively,€to€a€permissible€rate€ofÐ L ¼ Ðinterest€under€s.€347.Ð ä T ÐÌÓ Ü , ‚X 2 ø Ü 8 ô Ü , ‚X « ø Ü 8 ¼ ÓC.à0 2 àò òThe€Problematic€Nature€of€the€Blue„Pencil€TestÐ „ 2 Ð 2 Ð Ðó óÓ @ Ü , ‚X « ø Ü 8 ¼ Ü , ‚X 2 ø Ü 8 ¼ dÔ @ ÓÌÝ ‚ % Ñýÿ ÝÝ ÝÝ ‚ % ÑýBÕ Ýà „ àÚ ƒ z Ú27Ú ÚÛ € z Ûà Ü àÝ Ýà « àThe€blue„pencil€approach€is€understood€bothò ò€ó óas€a€test€of€the€availability€ofÐ D ´ Ðseverance€to€remedy€contractual€illegality€and€also€as€a€technique€for€effecting€severance.€Ð Ü!L ! ÐThe€blue„pencil€approach€as€a€ò òtestó ó€of€the€appropriateness€of€severance€requires€aÐ t#ä # Ðconsideration€of€whether€an€illegal€contract€can€be€rendered€legal€by€striking€out€(i.e.,€byÐ %| % Ðdrawing€a€line€through)€the€illegal€promises€in€the€agreement.€€The€resulting€set€of€legalÐ ¤& ' Ðterms€should€retain€the€core€of€the€agreement.€€If€the€nature€or€core€of€the€agreement€isÐ
|
|