Disparity in Opportunity

Sometimes it goes up, and other times it falls down but it never seemingly finds a way to flat-line to a neutral base.  I speak of the ebbs and flows regarding the gender pay gap.  The battle to overcome the parity we observe among gender wage has been a longstanding issue.  An issue where we continue to fall short in paying each other equally for our time and effort on the job (for every dollar earned by a male colleague, female workers earn nearly 20 cents below this).

I acknowledge that organizations and industries are taking pragmatic and conscious efforts to address these concerns internally, due in part to having to meet pay equity-related legislation; however, there is another piece of this equation that requires equal attention. 

When conducting your pay equity analysis, and viewing the distribution of gap(s), you might find that the weighting of employees dispersed towards management, senior management, and executive-level positions reflects male dominance.  This equation, therefore, requires attention to equal opportunity.  An equal opportunity that presents, encourages, and integrates proactive measures to facilitate career progression and development for female workers.

I do not mean to imply that having an increased “number of female observations” in our analysis will mitigate the wage gap, for all we know it could potentially worsen.  And, if that were to be the case, then there is even more cause for concern.  In such cases, we should be questioning why the gap has increased.  What are we doing or not doing to encourage equal representation (especially at the senior level)?  What will we do to improve it, and foremost… do we care to?

I put forward the question of whether employers care because I think it is a foundational first step for any organization to truly make strides in battling disparity.  If you value attracting, retaining, and motivating the right talent, then it pays to take the deliberate and purposeful steps to assess your gaps and put in motion the steps to alleviate them.

From the perspective of equal opportunity for the female workforce, consider the following actions and undertakings:

1. Data analysis – what is the story of equal opportunity for your organization?

2. Inventory check – do you currently provide career and learning opportunities? What are the eligibility criteria for additional training? Do you offer job-sharing or have a mentorship program?

3. Work-life balance – ensure your total rewards package includes programs to support working moms.

4. Remove the bias – often we approach promotions or job hiring with pre-conceived notions. We must eliminate what we think we know and stay objective and fair.

5. Hear it from the source – whether it is a direct forum to solicit feedback or connecting with line managers, you must try to obtain the unfiltered thoughts of your female workforce and use this information to guide your decision making.

Equal opportunity is not exclusive to just the female workforce, this is one perspective from the greater conversation that encompasses Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ("DEI").  Take a step back and see where you stand as an organization, and whether you care to make a difference.

Reena Paul (CCP, GRP) is a Senior Consultant with LifeWorks Compensation Consulting Team.  She is passionate for all things “total rewards” and has experience in dealing with all stakeholders of an organization and strategizing optimum client focused solutions.  A lover of data and the story it tells, Reena enjoys the exploration of presenting and discussing compensation with a fresh perspective.  Connect with Reena on LinkedIn, or contact her directly at [email protected].  

Creative Commons Image courtesy of Brooke Lark on Unsplash

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Although the easily-remembered millenia-old (even enshrined in the Bible) 80-20% disparity remains a convenient ubiquitous meme, pay equity differentials tend to be a bit less than that. Think 14%.

Two 1981 studies supplied precise definitions of the extent of the still-lingering systemic discrimination. The National Academy of Sciences research team produced an extremely precise formula clearly establishing the statistical link between the percentage of protected class membership and the resulting income shortfall. Almost simultaneously, the American Compensation Association commissioned its own independent study of member pay. Howard Risher's 1981 stepwise regression report on all potentially relevant factors affecting pay showed that the indefensible gender pay gap was "only" 14.3%. That came after equalizing all variables. With identical personal and organizational characteristics (age, experience, time working, education, number of jobs, position level, organization type, employer size, etc., because I'm sure I forgot some) female gender required a subtraction from the total compensation otherwise received by males.

While the federally funded NAS "Women, Work and Wages" study rocked the country for a short period, Professor Risher's private analysis of (as I recall) over 20,000 American pay professionals went unnoticed by all but me. Even Howard didn't see the implications, at the time, because I asked him. That study, by the way, was never repeated. And the ACA's successor association is much smaller and more female than ever before.

For the patient reader, I supplied all the very germane but boringly granular detail about pay equity for a good reason. (Hey, we ARE comp people, so we can take it!) It was simply CYA to preface my initial reaction to this excellent article: identical distribution does not assure identical compensation. Even if and when women and other protected classes receive equal access to opportunities, that does not guarantee equal outcome results.

The USA's largest racial minority is Hispanic, but they certainly don't get the quasi-dominant attention focused on others with lower citizenship numbers. Some population clusters still remain more equal than others.

We here can and should be agents of change, because our profession deals with reinforcement consequences. Please think about it.