We think it is fitting to explore this issue during the 50thAnniversary of the March on Washington and the Equal Pay Act!
Last week in part 1 we introduced this topic by citing a recent study by Bloomberg that essentially said that even women at the very top of the house make 18% less than their male counterparts. The study suggested, which others have as well, it is because men are better at negotiating salaries; that in essence women do not ask for more. Other plausible explanations that have been offered include: (1) women are newer to these senior roles and therefore have not been in the jobs long enough to make as much as men; (2) women choose jobs that do not pay as much as men; and/or (3) women do not perform as well as men. However, when we dig deeper on all four of these potential reasons, they do not explain the gaps.
Women are certainly plenty smart and have the skills to negotiate with the best of them. Women have been climbing corporate ladders for over 40 year now, so the excuse that women have not been around long enough no longer holds merit. Studies show that women do receive, in general, lower performance evaluations. However the research points to “social factors” and unconscious bias as the primary reason for this gap. Lastly, even when we adjust for job function, the gap persists.
In this post, I will examine the contention that women do not negotiate for higher salaries. Studies show that this is essentially true. However I would argue that women have different styles for negotiating that are not valued. In other words, if you don’t negotiate like a man, then you are not an effective negotiator. For example, women are more likely to give credit to the team for the accomplishment and less likely to applaud her own efforts. Research shows that it is just the opposite for men. But let’s dig a little deeper. When women do negotiate like a man, they are penalized for it. The landmark Catalyst study, The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t, explores the challenges for women when they “act like a man”. By definition, double-bind means that either path one chooses will not lead to a satisfactory outcome.
When women are perceived as overly aggressive, as might be the case in a salary negotiation situation, it is more likely to be received negatively because it does not fit the “stereotype or unconscious bias” that many hold of how a woman should behave. On the other hand, when men are aggressive it is more often seen as a strength. “He is a go-getter.”
According to the Catalyst research, women leaders who act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes are considered too soft and those who behave outside the stereotype are considered too tough (“the bitch phenomena”).
So is the answer that women have to “learn” how to act more like a man to get equal pay? This is risky and can backfire, and besides we are asking women to change who they are. Isn’t inclusion about being able to bring your whole self to work?
The inclusion Solution that I would advocate:
- Recognize that women might have a different negotiating style and let’s value it rather than try to change it. Leaders need to understand how a woman might negotiate and not penalize her for her different style, but reward her for her excellent work. Leaders should be held accountable for ensuring pay equity on their team. Just because a woman doesn’t ask for more pay, doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve to get it. The leader should make sure that it happens!
- Male leaders need to examine their own unconscious biases. Are men more favored? Do they get the higher raises? Are they rewarded for aggressiveness?
- Diversity and inclusion practitioners need to be ever vigilant in working with compensation to ensure that women are getting equal pay. One of my clients recounted a story of an executive woman at her company that did not know that she was being paid much less than her male peers until my client just casually mentioned what she thought was her salary range. The woman leader was shocked to learn that her salary was so much lower. It took 24 hours to investigate the situation and fix it! My question is, who had oversight to ensure that these kinds of inequities were not happening?
- Women need to know their market value and make sure they are getting what they are worth.
- Women need to be self-aware. What is my negotiation style? Is it valued in this organizational culture? What adjustments would be comfortable for me to make without losing who I am?
It is too easy and a cop out to blame women for the systemic sexism that persists. Much of what I read today about the solution is for women to change…“lean in”, “learn to be assertive but not aggressive”, “don’t speak first in a meeting”…and the list goes on of the things that women need to do. What is it that men need to do differently?
