Tag Archives: gender pay gap

The Problem With Saying Women Are Better At…

I am pleased to share my latest post to Philadelphia Business Journal.

A recent study at Harvard T.H.Chan School of Public Health concluded that hospitalized patients treated by female physicians show lower mortality and readmission rates.

This study is getting a lot of media attention, and in many cases, the conclusions drawn go beyond the findings of the study.

Take, for example, the NPR headline: “Patients treated by Female Doctors Fare Better Than Those Treated By Men.” NPR is but one example. Here’s one more.

On a national TV program, the question was asked: who makes better doctors, women or men? Citing the report, the on-air talent said “women.”

But it is not just about doctors. The internet is replete with articles that report on studies that ask if or conclude that women are better leaders than men.

I understand why the Harvard study is vitally important. Women still face very real bias in medicine (actually, everywhere), and we need to increase our focus on the contributions of women that are often under-appreciated and profoundly unrecognized to combat that bias (including pay to which I will return).

But would we ever ask: who makes better doctors, white people or people of color? Hispanics or African Americans?

Of course not! But why is it okay with gender? Well, it’s not.

It’s no more okay than the surveys that ask would you rather work for a male or female boss? In some cases, the majority answer “men.”

Would we ever ask if you want to work for a person who is white or a person of color? The question indulges in bigotry and so does the question on gender. If someone want to choose the gender of their boss, let them start their own business and work for themselves.

We need to sell the benefits that go with diversity to increase support for smashing conscious bias and bringing to conscious awareness implicit bias. Stated otherwise, if we want to cream the crop, and who doesn’t, we need to harness the talent women bring to the table and not nearly enough is done to do just that.

But we need to be careful not to stereotype in our efforts to eradicate bias and increase inclusion. There is no such thing as “benign” stereotyping and here’s why.

First, the stereotyping creates higher expectations for its intended beneficiaries. It is not enough for women to be competent doctors, leaders, etc. No, they must reach our inflated expectations.

Let me give you an example. Let’s assume that the average male is a “5” on a scale of “1” to “9” in terms of core competencies. If we assume women are stronger, we may expect a “7.”

Now, we interview a woman who is a “6” and a man who is a “5.” She is the stronger candidate but he may appear better because he meets our expectations and she does not meet our inflated expectations.

Second, the stereotyping may result in discrimination against men of talent. This is both a talent and a legal issue. Under the law, gender bias knows no gender.

Finally, by focusing on gender, we don’t get at the root cause of what makes someone more effective. Our focus should be on competencies.

For example, in both leadership and medicine, strong communication skills are critical. That explains, in part, the results of the Harvard study.

So our focus should be on the communication and other skills that have resulted in women outperforming men. And, then we should make sure that, when we, hire, evaluate, promote and pay, we consider those key skills.

When we focus on competencies, as we should, it very well may mean that more women than men will thrive but we are recognizing a core skill and not unwittingly engaging in gender bias. In medicine, the failure to understand the difference literally can have life and death consequences.

Lost in the headlines beyond which many do not go is another key finding. The story within the story is that, while the women performed better than men in this study, they still made materially less money.

The gender pay gap is alive and well in medicine and virtually every aspect of corporate America. Of course, there are legal reasons to address it.

But the business imperative is just as great. Imagine if those gifted doctors who are women leave the profession out of frustration for being paid less, even where they not just meet but exceed the performance of their male peers? That, too, is a life and death issue, literally.

9 Tips for Closing the Gender Pay Gap

I am pleased to share my latest article to the SHRM HR Magazine regarding the gender pay gap.

Everyone knows there is a gender gap in how employees are paid, though estimates vary as to how large it is. But compensation inequity of any size does more than expose an organization to litigation; it can cause disengagement and lower productivity, which can translate into lower profits.

It can also push talented employees out the door in search of greener pastures (and higher paychecks). In fact, often the smartest and most marketable employees are the first to leave. Bottom line: The gender gap is everyone’s problem.

So let’s begin with the assumption that your organization is smart and wants to eliminate this business inhibitor and legal wrong. What do you do?

1. Lawyer Up on Data Collection
Sometimes HR professionals will collect data to demonstrate that a problem exists. I understand why, but this can be dangerous.

The information likely will be discoverable, and your good-faith efforts could be used against you. If you need data to break through denial at your company, you may want to work with your employment lawyer to collect it under attorney-client privilege. Then have it delivered in the form of legal advice.

Even then, the underlying data may not be privileged if, for example, it is gathered from existing nonprivileged documents and information. However, data compilation and analysis done by-or at the direction of-counsel might still be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.

The bottom line is that the scope of the attorney-client privilege is deceptively complex, so give careful and thoughtful consideration to how you work with your employer’s lawyer to maximize the likelihood that the privilege will apply.

One thing is clear: Simply copying your employer’s attorney on an e-mail does not make the information within the e-mail privileged; it simply makes the attorney a witness to it.

2. Analyze Positions Qualitatively
Once you’ve documented pay gaps, don’t automatically assume they are all attributable to gender.

There may be totally legitimate business reasons for wage differences. For example, someone who took four years off to have and raise a child might earn less than someone who did not spend time away from work and who has received regular raises over that time span.

So, while quantitative data provides a starting point, a qualitative assessment of the relevant factors at play—one that ideally is also done under attorney-client privilege—is needed to determine if changes are in order.

3. Allow Negotiation …
Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit, tried to ban salary negotiations at her company based on the theory that allowing such bargaining inherently benefited men. Let me count the reasons I disagree with this tactic. Actually, I’ll stop at three:

First, it reinforces the stereotype that women aren’t capable negotiators.

Second, it takes away a woman’s (or a man’s) power to play a role in determining her (or his) own pay.

Third, whether and how someone negotiates may be relevant to whether you hire them. It is better than a behavioral question-it is a behavioral simulation.

4 …. But Reconsider Asking About Salary History
When we ask about prior salary, we may be unwittingly perpetuating the gender gap created by prior employers. If someone was paid too little at her previous employer, the low part of your range may result in a material increase in compensation but still be less than the candidate deserves.

Consider eliminating the salary history question from your applications. After all, what does prior compensation really have to do with what someone should earn for a new opportunity? Ask only if it is truly relevant to the job and document why you believe it is.

5. Create Pay Ranges But Recognize Exceptions
Establish pay ranges for positions to maximize consistency, and develop criteria for how you will place a new hire or promotion in the range.

But also realize that there will be times when exceptions are necessary.

Develop a procedure to determine when and why you should depart from the norm, and conduct periodic audits to make sure that exceptions are not made only for men.

6. Consider Access Issues
Pay is often linked to performance. At certain levels, I think that works (at least to some degree). But I firmly believe that you cannot perform as well as your peers if you don’t have access to the same opportunities that they do. In my view, this is where many employers miss the mark, big time.

I hate unnecessary bureaucracy as much as anyone, but if there is no structure as to how work is distributed, the plum assignments too often may go to someone “just like” the manager. While slights like this are not intentional, they are often very real. Are the highly desired assignments typically meted out among the guys while playing golf or drinking at the neighborhood watering hole? If so, the boys’ club may be rearing its ugly head in a way that perpetuates the access gap and, with that, the gender gap.

Access to key assignments, customers, clients and information is essential to successful performance and the resulting link to higher pay. Of course, managers must have some discretion, but there should also be guardrails in place so that access issues don’t translate into unequal opportunity.

7. Appraise Performance Appraisals
Gender bias is often evident in performance appraisals, which are linked to pay. Two examples:

• A man is refreshingly assertive, while a woman engaging in the same behavior is labeled with the scarlet “B.”
• Or, a new twist on the double standard: A woman and a man are both involved in equally unacceptable behavior, but he is described as having engaged in “abrasive conduct,” while she is simply labeled “abrasive.” It’s a subtle but important difference—between a behavior that can be changed and a fixed character trait.

Train your leaders on these and other potential biases.

8. Be Aware of Persistent Biases and Their Effects
Yes, some of what an employee is paid is a result of his or her ability to negotiate. So workers have a major role to play, too: An employee should not complain with impunity about making less than others if he or she did not ask for more or apologizes for having done so.

Unfortunately, ambition is not always viewed as laudably in a woman as it is in a man. Sheryl Sandberg makes that point in Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (Knopf, 2013) multiple times. Here is the sad but persistent reality: A woman may have to decide between conforming to the societally accepted stereotype of being nice (and making less money) or being liked less because she asks for what she has earned.

9. Train Your Leaders
Of course, a woman who leans in should not have to choose between being well-liked or well-paid, so educate your leaders about the unconscious biases that can come into play in cases where women negotiate no differently from men. Once people are made aware of their own prejudice, they are less likely to unconsciously engage in it.

Inevitably, some folks on the leadership team will deny that the bias exists at all because they have not personally experienced it. Let me conclude by saying this: I have never experienced labor pains. But I would be foolish to deny their existence based just on my life experience. You can take the analogy from there.

Mad Men: Where Are Our Friends One Year Later?

I am pleased to share my latest SHRM blog post regarding what “Mad Men” can teach us about life and career: http://blog.shrm.org/blog/a-year-later-what-can-mad-men-teach-us-about-life-and-career

With all of the focus on the new overtime rules, a major event could be forgotten. One year ago last night we said good bye to Mad Men. For some, it was just a television show. Allow them their blissful naivety. A lot has happened to our friends in the last year with career and life lessons for all of us. So let’s leave the real world for just a moment:

Joan. Because Joan would not sleep with a knuckle dragger named Ferg, Joan was forced out of McCann Erickson. That was far from the first time she was sexually harassed. Joan had enough of the boys’ clubs of the corporate world. So she started her own business. I am delighted to report that Joan made 17% more over the last year than she ever made at McCann Erickson or Sterling Cooper. That gender pay gap? No issue when you are your own boss. Bravo Joan!

Roger. Although a lothario, Roger was loved by most of us. I think of Roger when I think of someone I like but “should not” or don’t like someone I “should.” Unfortunately, senior executives have begun to ask Roger in various ways whether he has given thought to when he will retire. Under the law, employees generally cannot be forced to retire. So picking up on the not so subtle hints, Roger called Joan, who had threatened to contact the EEOC when she was forced out of McCann Erickson. The predator is now prey but has taken control by making clear to the powers that be that he does not want to hear about age again, only about his performance. And, it remains stellar. On a personal note, Roger married Marie Calvet, the mother of Don’s ex-wife, Megan Draper, He is very happy with Marie—spending long holidays in Paris.

Pete. For so many years, it was hard to find anything nice to say about Pete. He was, after all, the character we loved to hate but not quite all the way. I confess that I feared his jaw dropping job in Wichita, Kansas City with a private jet to boot would bring out the worst of him. In reality, he initially struggled at his new job. So, he sought out a coach and listened to the advice he received. He has become more humble as hard as that may be to believe. And, now more of a team player, too, he is getting more support from his co-workers. And, part of success is people wanting you to be successful. Pete is on right track, back in the groove. On the personal side, Pete and Trudy are genuinely happy. Sometimes reconciliations work.

Betty. As we all knew was inevitable, we lost Berdie (Don’s term of endearment for Betty). Thankfully, she did not suffer too much. It happened too quickly for too much pain. But before she died, she and Don spent a weekend together (concluding one of Don’s 3 calls from the final episode). Betty’s death caused Don to think more about his own mortality and what he wanted to achieve and who he wanted to be. Back to my pal Don shortly.

Peggy. Let’s return to the Boys’ Club at McCann Erickson. It would be next to impossible for any woman to survive, let alone thrive. But thriving is what Peggy is doing. In her own voice, she has succeeded beyond expectations. She did not ask for a seat at the table; she took it. She is now a full-fledged copywriter with a waiting list of clients. She started a mentoring program for girls in junior high school. One of her mentees is a young girl named Sheryl Sandberg. As is often the case, the mentee teaches the mentor. Whenever Peggy is told that she is bossy, she hears Sheryl’s words and responds that she is simply leading. I am also delighted to report that Peggy and Stan got married. On a personal note, it was an honor to dance with the bride at the wedding.

Don. And, that leaves us with my friend Don. The last season was beyond painful as we watched Don’s life fall apart. Many of us wondered whether he would survive—we feared the opening of the show was a metaphor for his ending. Instead, he found himself at an Ashram in California where he thought of the genius marketing campaign for Coke and then returned to McCann Erickson to implement it. But his drinking continued unabated. Eventually, he hit bottom and went into treatment. At times, we all need help. No stigma. Get the help you need. I am pleased to report that Don has not had a drink for 7 months, one day at a time. No longer an active alcoholic, Don has focused on repairing his personal life. He and Megan had a short reconciliation but Megan is now on prime time so the bi-costal relationship ended. More importantly, the mad man is now a good man. Don is a good dad without a role model for the parenting skills he now employs.

Conclusion: Okay, I am a sucker for happy endings. So, I wanted to see all the seeds of professional and personal happiness planted by Matt Weiner in the last episode grow to their full potential. Yes, the Mad Men world is singing in perfect harmony, except for the tragic death of Betty. But, after watching the last season 3 times (to which I will admit), Matt left me no room to save her, as much as I tried. And, if nothing else, as you can plainly see, I am a realist, says the mad man who remains mad about the mad men and women of Mad Men.

Neither this blog nor SHRM, Duane Morris or Jonathan A Segal is affiliated, sponsored, endorsed, licensed or in any way associated with AMC. AMC neither endorses nor approves of the content of this piece of fiction or the services provided by SHRM, Duane Morris or Jonathan A Segal.