Breaking the Bias: A Kimberly‑Clark Executive’s Route Through Supply‑Chain, Mentorship, and the C‑Suite
At a time when corporate boardrooms and executive suites are finally being examined under brighter light, the supply‑chain discipline remains a stubborn outlier. Women show up in functions across firms, but when it comes to the senior ranks that steer procurement, manufacturing, logistics and network design, representation is thin. During a recent conversation, Kimberly‑Clark executive Tamera Fenske laid out how that gap forms, how it persists, and how career progression—when guided by intention—can reroute individual trajectories toward influence.
The rarity of women in senior supply‑chain roles
Supply chain has long been described as a field of complex operations and relentless problem solving. It is also a field where visibility and credit do not always track directly to contribution. Fenske points to the small but consequential ways that women get excluded from leadership pipelines: early assignments that are less visible, meetings where male peers are assumed to be the technical lead, and stretch roles allocated according to historic patterns rather than potential.
Those patterns create a compound effect. A woman may be excellent at optimizing processes or leading cross‑functional teams, but if the assignments that highlight strategic decision making—turnaround programs, large transformation projects, profit‑impact initiatives—are given to others, she will appear less ready for the C‑Suite. The result is not a single moment of exclusion but a succession of missed opportunities.
How bias shows up, often invisibly
Fenske describes bias as both blunt and hidden. The blunt examples are easier to spot: a leadership committee made up of only men; a promotion process whose criteria reward traits stereotypically associated with male leadership. The hidden examples are subtler: an offhand remark about being “too nice” or assumptions that a woman will prioritize work‑life balance in a way that affects long‑term availability.
These hidden cues matter because they shape behavior. Women learn to edit how they present accomplishments, avoid assertiveness that can be branded as abrasive, or rotate out of roles that would invite visibility but also scrutiny. Over time, even high performers can find their upward motion slowed by invisible wear and tear.
Mentoring, sponsorship and the difference they make
Mentoring, Fenske argues, is necessary but not sufficient. Mentors provide advice, help interpret corporate politics and offer a sounding board. Sponsors, by contrast, use their influence to open doors: they recommend a rising leader for that pivotal assignment, advocate for promotion in private conversations, or ensure a name is included on succession lists.
In her own journey, Fenske points to individuals who moved beyond listening to action. She recalls managers who put her on cross‑functional task forces, entrusted her with tough negotiations, and visibly backed her in leadership discussions. Those placements built a track record that allowed her to be judged on results, not impressions.
Intentional career progression: choices and trade‑offs
Career progression to the C‑Suite is rarely linear. Fenske outlines three forms of deliberate career moves that accelerated learning and visibility:
- Operational immersion: Living in the problem sets of manufacturing, procurement and logistics to build credibility with front‑line teams.
- Cross‑functional leadership: Volunteering for projects that intersect with marketing, finance and R&D so that supply‑chain decisions are seen in the light of enterprise strategy.
- High‑stakes ownership: Taking responsibility for initiatives with measurable P&L or customer impact, even if the path to success is uncertain.
Each choice carries trade‑offs. Operational immersion can be time‑intensive and geographically demanding. Cross‑functional work requires diplomatic influence across different priorities. High‑stakes ownership invites scrutiny if things go poorly. But Fenske notes that those trade‑offs are the same ones that determine whether leaders are seen as makers of outcomes or custodians of process.
Leadership behaviors that change trajectories
Beyond assignments, Fenske highlights behaviors that reshape perception and open rooms. She emphasizes clear communication about impact—explaining not just what a team did but how it moved the business metric. She underscores the discipline of documenting wins and creating concise narratives for key decision makers. And she insists on building networks horizontally as much as vertically, cultivating peers who will later be allies when leadership roles are carved out.
She also addresses authenticity. Trying to imitate a prevailing leadership style—typically male in tone—creates cognitive dissonance. Fenske says leaders should amplify strengths rather than suppress them. The goal is not to conform to a narrow ideal but to expand the idea of what authoritative leadership looks like.
Systemic shifts companies can make
While individual strategies are necessary, Fenske is clear that organizations must change structures that perpetuate imbalance. She recommends:
- Transparent rotation and assignment processes that give a range of leaders access to strategic, visible work.
- Formal sponsorship programs that ensure promising leaders have advocates in rooms where decisions about promotions and roles get made.
- Bias‑aware performance frameworks that focus on measurable outcomes and guardrails against subjective impressions dominating assessments.
- Leadership pipelines that measure success not by who looks familiar at the table today, but by who has delivered cross‑enterprise results over time.
Those changes are practical. They do not require a wholesale cultural overhaul overnight; they need a commitment to process redesign and a willingness to hold decision makers accountable.
How companies benefit when women lead supply chains
Fenske frames this as a business imperative, not simply a fairness issue. Having diverse leadership in supply chain yields broader perspectives on risk, improves resilience and promotes customer‑centric thinking. Women leaders often bring collaborative decision styles and attention to stakeholder impacts that strengthen partnerships with suppliers and communities. Put simply, leadership diversity correlates with more robust decisions in networks where complexity is the norm.
Practical steps for aspiring leaders
For individuals charting their own course, Fenske suggests a pragmatic checklist:
- Map the decision makers and the rooms where relevant tradeoffs are discussed; then prioritize getting into those spaces.
- Ask for stretch assignments explicitly and propose the success metrics you will use.
- Document accomplishments in concise, impact‑first formats so sponsors can tell your story when you are not in the room.
- Build a network of peers and supporters across functions who will be your sounding board and your advocates.
- Seek sponsors, not just mentors—people who are willing to use influence on your behalf.
Leadership as a shared responsibility
One of the most striking throughlines in Fenske’s account is that leadership is a shared responsibility. Individuals must be strategic about their careers, but organizations must remove structural barriers. Senior leaders must actively sponsor talent that looks different from themselves. And the culture must reward results over conformity.
When those elements align, the path to senior supply‑chain roles opens wider. That expansion does not dilute standards; it enlarges the pool of problem solvers and brings new perspectives to enterprise decisions.
Closing: a personal and collective journey
Fenske’s journey is not a simple success story of defying odds. It is an instructive narrative about how many small choices—by the individual and the organization—coalesce into a career that attains strategic influence. It shows how mentoring that moves into sponsorship, how visible assignments replace invisible labor, and how bias‑aware systems amplify merit.
For the Work community watching these dynamics, her message is both practical and hopeful: change happens when people choose to act differently—when leaders widen access to key work, when sponsors put their influence behind underrecognized talent, and when aspiring managers claim opportunities and make them visible. The C‑Suite, in other words, will change not only by wishing for it but by building the pathways that make ascent inevitable.
