A pay system that DOESN'T discriminate!

I just discovered a GREAT pay system model that could do away with the gender pay gap if all companies decided to implement it. Joel Spolsky, of Fog Creek Software, wrote about his company's unique pay system and I must say, I couldn't have agreed more. Here is basically how it works:

Create pay levels - Everyone in the same level gets the same salary. If one person gets a raise, everyone gets the same raise. Your numerical level is determined objectively by years of experience, responsibility, and skills.

Make all salary levels transparent- Everyone knows what everyone makes, why they make it, and how to get to the next pay level. Clarity of the salary path is crystal clear. My favorite quote from the article, "The trouble with keeping salaries a secret is that it's usually used as a way to avoid paying people fairly." Yes, Lilly Ledbetter has kindly demonstrated that for all of us. Want better morale among your employees? Install transparent, objective, and fair compensation for all employees.

Don't let incoming employees negotiate their salary- Negotiation creates and enables unfairness, which pisses people off who've been around longer but may have been hired when the job market was tighter with more applicants than positions (hello salary inversion!).

Pros of this System
-Fair
-Extremely Objective
-Better morale for employees
-Great performers who are poor negotiators can still be compensated fairly
-Good negotiators with bad performance/low skill set do not get more compensation
-Clear path to salary increases incentivizes skill building
-Your company is likelier to be listed in "Best Companies to Work For" lists, which is a boon to recruiters in HR!

Cons of this System
-May not be able to attract quality applicants who are used to over-inflated salaries
-When margins are bad, may not be able to create monetary incentives to increase performance
-Performance is not compensated for individuals, so slackers may prevail
-Experience and skill set are on the same level for pay level criteria when having the experience for the position may not reflect the level of ability for the required skill set (think young people with tech skills v. their older counterparts with less tech but more experience)

Yet, this system is not the panacea for fair compensation for women. I can see one way that women would already start out behind in Spolsky's system. For example, he calculates experience based on the the number of years of full-time experience, which puts all historically part-time workers (the majority of jobs held by women are part-time) at an immediate disadvantage. They will immediately be calculated into a lower level. Also, doing "menial work" (which is described as secretarial work by Spolsky) despite years of experience can never equal more than a year's worth of experience when calculating a candidates pay level. Secretarial/admin support work is predominantly performed by women and in this system, Spolksy would only give one year of experience credit for an admin's experience even if she worked six years doing said "menial work." Depending on a candidate's work history, I could forsee this calculation setting back a lot of capable women who started out in a pink collar job. Typically, most men do not start their careers answering phones.

Overall, I think this pay system has the potential to create positive morale among workers and in particular, have a very positive impact for female employees in any company. But keeping wages secret is still a very strong enculturated characteristic of most work environments. Are you looking to create a fair and equitable work environment where people feel good about their compensation or at least, about others? Consider transparency.

It Ain't the End of Secretariain't - but bye for now!

So, this may be my last post for a little while. I have reached the end of the quarter for my Social Web class at the Bainbridge Graduate Institute and I need a break! I have definitely learned a LOT from this exercise and I recommend it to anyone.

My experience:

Writing about a topic that gives me great consternation wasn't all smiles and sunshine. Actually, writing about gender inequality made me so mad at times that the topic started to spill too much into my personal life at times. But hey, the personal IS political, so what exactly did I expect? I do not recommend blogging about a heated debate unless you feel rock solid with the ones who are close to you. This topic made for some difficult evenings at the dinner table. However, blogging was a great way to collect a lot of information about a topic that interests me. Now, from the simple practice of blogging on a regular basis, I feel I can talk authoritatively on the subject. Blogging seems to be a lot cheaper than a PHD.

Future plans:

I still want to keep learning about gender inequality in business. In fact, I've come to learn there is a real market for gender consultants in the tech sector. So, I figure it would be a good idea to keep writing this blog. There is so much information out there and not a lot of people putting together the pieces, it seems. I come across so much information in my daily surfing habits that it seems like this blog would be a good place to leave it and collect it. However, I definitely prefer micro-blogging and would much rather find a way to combine both Facebook and Twitter so that I could have a little more than 140 characters but also the ability to make zillions of little posts as it fancies me.

Blogging is a great way to practice brevity, hone one's writing skills, and really think about the reader. It's also another great practice in backing up your work. I can't tell you how much writing I've read in the past few months that make outright claims without backing anything up. Thankfully, the internet really is the end of that sort of thing.

And with that, I say, watch for future updates but my posting frequency may go down. I really recommend checking out the links under "resources" in the right hand side bar.

Keep up the fight dear readers. Inequality is everywhere, and YOU have the power to make it right.

Thanks for reading,

Nina

Why 11% of CEOs of Indian Companies are Women

Interesting numbers from India to look at:

• 30% of women work
• 10% of women 18-23 are in higher education 
• 11% of CEOs (I assume of Indian companies) are women compared to 3% of Fortune 500 in the US

I got these stats from an interesting article about the ambitions of Indian women in the workplace. According to a study done by, The Center for Work Life Policy, Indian women are more ambitious than their American counterparts despite facing serious overt discrimination that American women do not have to deal with. For instance, 52% of respondents felt unsafe traveling to and from work for fear of being raped or kidnapped. I feel it's safe to say that kidnapping is not a threat that American women have to negotiate in their day to day commutes or rape for that matter (even though rape is a very serious threat to women everywhere). 73% of respondents experience societal disproval for traveling alone to work even though 80% felt that working internationally was vital to their careers.

All in all, it's clear that India women face overt discrimination that American women generally do not and yet 80% of Indian women surveyed want to rise to the top, compared to 52% of American women.

Here are my thoughts on some possible explanations:

• Are the Indian women who were surveyed and found working, members of a higher and therefore more privileged class within Indian society?

-I think yes, when I think of the continued impact of the caste system. While there is a class system in the United States, 55% of all American women go on to higher education and 59% of American women are in the labor force. The smaller percentage of Indian women who work could be a result of class privileges, where legacy and success could be more important family traditions/values that are handed down to each generation.

• If the working female population of India come from privileged classes, do privileged Indian women have access to inexpensive childcare and homecare? 

-41% of India's huge population live below the global poverty line and there is a vast gap between the rich and poor in India, which creates an economic environment for cheap labor. When I lived overseas in Bangladesh, we had live-in servants and nannies because my family could afford them and both of my parents worked. When we lived in the States, we could not afford the same and my mom did stay home for a portion of that time. Coincidently the report cited that elder care is more of a workplace barrier to Indian women than childcare. Still, if Indian women do not have to worry about childcare during their primary career building years, which also coincide with the years when their children would be younger and require more constant care, I think it's no far stretch to see this peace of mind translate into professional ambition. Many studies have shown that productivity goes way up when parents, especially women, know their children are safe and cared for while they are away at the office.

What does this mean for US women?
The U.S. could benefit from greater family-friendly policies. It's no coincidence that countries with greater gender parity face decreasing populations. Women are choosing to work on their careers before starting families or choose not to have careers in order to raise a family. In these systems, women are forced to make a choice. Examples of this are all over Northern Europe and the U.S. One exception to this rule is France, where families enjoy many state-run programs that care for children. French women, therefore, do not face the duality of choosing between family and career as U.S. women do. I won't even mention the differing cultural attitudes towards work/life balance between the U.S. and France.  Interestingly, the U.S. seems to be a place where women, more often will choose their families over their careers. I only say this because we have such a low percentage of women in high political and business positions as well as one of the highest birth rates of all developed Western nations.

But I also wonder if there is a way for private enterprises to take on this challenge as well? For instance, I could see that having more paternity leave could be a great way to create better gender parity by private institutions as well as business cultures that expect both their male and female workers to be family oriented. My mother, who lives in New Delhi, finds the culture there to be extremely family oriented and that family values pervade every aspect of Indian society. I want to caution that family shouldn't just be relegated to the realm of women, as it traditionally has in American society...but in my research, it seems that family often gets in the way for American women in the work place.

Ok, this post is getting too long. In the end, I think we all need to understand how to keep the kind of focus that this chicken seems to be able to succeed at doing:





More stats on US women. 

Does this male-dominated society make me look fat?

I was inspired by my last post about women on women discrimination to do some more reasearch. Want to read more on the way beauty standards affect and impact women's lives?

Unbearable Weight by Susan Bordo

Sexism, hostility toward women, and endorsement of beauty ideals and practices: are beauty ideals associated with oppressive beliefs?
by Gordon B. Forbes, Linda L. Collinsworth, Rebecca L. Jobe, Kristen D. Braun and Leslie M. Wise

Ravishing or Ravaged: Women's Relationships with Women in the Context of Aging and Western Beauty Culture
by Carol A. Gosselink, Deborah L. Cox, Sarissa J. McClure, Mary L.G. De Jong

The Beauty Punishment

Imagine you're on the hiring committee for a job. Imagine you work in HR and do many of the pre-screenings for job applicants? How would you rate applicants who included a photo on their CV? Depends.

According to a recent Euro/Israeli study, you are more likely to be impressed by a male applicant who includes a photo, while you may regard a female applicant with a photo as "not serious" or attempting to "market herself via her appearance." Women who did not put their pictures on their CV got more call-backs about the job than women (both attractive and plain-looking) who included pictures. This has been attributed to "female jealousy" because the majority of applicant screeners are women working in HR.

This study recalled a conversation I once had with another woman who worked primarily in IT. She said she would always try to find out the gender of her main interviewer. If it was a woman, she would dress conservatively with her hair in a bun and slacks. If the interviewer was a man, she would wear her hair down and a skirt with heals. Maybe my friend was acutely aware of the "female jealousy" factor. However, if we take a systems gaze at this issue, we can actually better understand the causes of supposed "female jealousy."

Women live in a world where they are constantly and consistently objectified for their physical appearance. I remember a few years ago reading about how women who didn't wear make-up in a job interview were considered less competent (sorry, can't find the article now but I did find this).

Women grow up, as explained by the National Organization of Men Against Sexism:

• Where objectified images of women's bodies are everywhere - on TV, newsstands, in advertisements, movies, calendars.
• Where many women start to feel old and unattractive even in their 20's.
• Where women aren't taken seriously.
• Where even the youngest and most beautiful women often worry constantly, and cannot match in real life their photographed, objectified image.
• Where half-naked female bodies are displayed on walls, in public like objects, exposed female bodies used as markers of male territory, male turf... Immediate signals of discomfort, and of menace, for women.

Women constantly face having to compete with their looks. So, you might be thinking "well, they don't really have to, so they shouldn't buy into that mentality."  But that's not good either. Women who don't pay attention to their appearance can also face social marginalization. You always want to hit that sweet spot where you don't look too noticeable either way for being super attractive or super unattractive. In both situations, you could face negative consequences. Is it a far cry to see that this can easily translate into work politics, where insecurities come out?  I also wonder how work cultures contribute to this "female jealousy" factor. A good friend of mine recently contacted me in hysterics after enduring a long day of her male colleagues commenting on the attractiveness level of every woman on their floor and including the one above them. To put it nicely, the comments were extremely degrading and helped my friend feel isolated, demoralized, and disgusted.

Women dominate the HR field. In 1996, the U.S. department of labor found over 60% of human resources workers to be women and at that time, was projected to double. So to get to any job, it's safe to say you're likely going to have to get through a woman first.

So, what can employers and job applicants do?

1) Don't include a photo on your resume...unless you're in the acting/modeling profession.
2) If you're in HR or know someone who is, make sure they are aware of this tendency toward bias.
3) Promote women into non-HR positions of management while balancing the gender ratio in your HR department.
4) Stop talking about or commenting on the way your colleagues look at the office.
5) Incorporate sensitivity training with an emphasis on openness and non-judgment towards differences for all employees.

How far have women come? (The Stats)

Top full-time jobs for women in the US today are the same as they were in the 70s: 


-secretary
-waitress
-sales clerk


During their prime earning years U.S. women make 38% of what men make.


Men occupy 80-95% of decision-making positions in politics,business, military, religion, media, culture, entertainment.


20% of American women report having been sexually assaulted or raped.


25% of American women are physically/sexually attack by their current or former domestic partners.


85% of U.S. counties do not have abortion services. 


Pulled these from a Harper's article.

Babies Belong in Politics

Motherhood is constantly cited as one of the myriad of ways that women are hindering their own professional progress. I'm really pleased that European Parliament member Licia Ronzulli is debunking that myth. She was not politically motivated to bring her daughter to work, but it became clear, with all of the attention she attracted that doing so was a tremendous act of rebellion. Women, specifically mothers, must often hide their motherhood at work to either be taken seriously, fit into a male-centric culture, and/or to retain pre-baby levels of responsibility and authority.

Looks like Ronzulli has absolutely no scruples about reminding the European Parliament about why they are convening together. Her baby is a powerful reminder of the future. I wonder what kinds of social policies would be more likely passed with the added presence of babies in the room?

and: 

Source

While it is important to recognize that men too care about their families and children, traditional gender roles preclude men from having to be the constant care-takers of their children. Men less often have to face the guilt and social stigma that women face for going to work when they have small children. After all, mommy wars are real. Women often face social criticism, stigma, and even crippling internal guilt when they choose to work. More importantly, many women do not have the economic choice to stay home with the baby. Creating baby-friendly work environments and encouraging both men and women to cultivate family-open cultures in the work place will help facilitate more inviting workplaces for women. Frankly, I think it has the potential of helping us all connect to the deeper reasons of why we do work in the world.

How to Attract Women: A Systems Approach

Generalizing the Forrest While Looking at the Trees

Lately, I've been reading a lot of articles that go something like this:

"But we asked women to join the club and women still didn't join the club. Our conclusion? Women don't want to be in the club."

I'm using metaphor here. The "club" can stand for anything in this case but at Secretariain't, the club is business. The problem with this conclusion is that it is too narrow. It does not get to the root cause of gender imbalance in business. It does not ask "why?" Companies want more women and believe that women in their executive ranks is a good thing. They make promises and goals to increase these numbers and yet, continuously fall short of them. If companies want to further a constructive dialogue about achieving gender balance in the business world they will have to utilize a systems approach to understanding the lack of balance. When you do, it becomes clear that women "not wanting to join the club" is actually a symptom of a larger issue and not the root reason for the imbalance.

Systems thinking is challenging because it is complex. Humans tend to oversimplify, which causes us to lose site of the root causes for the huge systemic problems we want to solve (the complexity of climate change is a good example of this). The result is poorly designed ineffective solutions or no solution at all. The same thing happens when it comes to solving women's issues. Even calling them "women's issues" is oversimplifying, since limitations on women also create limitations for their families, which include men and sons. When you expand your gaze from families, you see that limitations for families create limitations in society. "Women's issues" further oversimplifies because it does not adequately express or capture the wide spectrum of impact that gender discrimination has when accounting for experiential differences due to race, class, sexual orientation, age...the list goes on.

What's the real problem? 

One story I heard recently was about a tech start-up that tried to hire two women who declined because they didn't want to take on the risk. In that individual instance, the women very well could have been risk averse for various personal reasons, yet "risk aversion," in this context, was offered as an explanation for why there are few women in the tech-sector. But this conclusion oversimplifies and plays into an age-old stereotype that women are too soft for business or too risk averse. In reality there really are no differences between male and female entrepreneurs. Plenty of men turn down start-up job offers every day because they don't see the venture being profitable and consider it too risky. Yet in this example, all women were generalized when two turned down the offer. I wonder why the founder of this start-up chose to generalize all women instead of considering the declined offer as a reflection on the strength of his business model?

These kinds of generalizations about women happen all the time in the business world. But, they don't really explain what the problem is and so they don't help male leaders to attract female business partners. In this instance, risk aversion could have been fueled by many things that are not related to what has been ascribed as innate qualities of gender, but the systemic impact of gender discrimination:

• women on average make less than men in their careers and cannot afford to take the same kinds of financial risks
• women take time out of the workforce to care for children and parents, which impacts their retirement savings, so a failed venture could have worse financial consequences for a woman 
• tech start-ups tend to be all-male and those all-male environments can feel unwelcoming and non-inclusive to women

So, if male business leaders want to attract women to their ranks, they'll be more successful by taking a wider gaze and looking critically at some of these systemic issues. Remember to talk to women. Listen to women. Keep asking, where is the root of the concern and then find the leverage points to resolve it and improve the offer.

Source

Happy Halloween!

photo credit: Dreamy Soul

It's Halloween Time. Do something that scares you!

At the start of this past summer, I was given a book as a gift for participating on a women's panel organized by the Women's Network for a Sustainable Future here in Seattle.

I didn't think much of it from first glance except, "excellent, I'm glad *someone* has written this book." But as I started reading it, I began to feel uncomfortable, even worried about being seen reading it in public. I noticed myself hiding the cover while in a busy airport terminal. I didn't want anyone to see what I was reading.

That struck a chord with me. What was I afraid of?

To me, that fear revealed the existence of something much deeper at work. Reading this book in public meant that I was unapologetically supporting and standing for a somewhat rebellious idea;  that women are hands-down valuable and extraordinary, especially at work. (seems like a duh, but normally I would qualify a statement like this if I were speaking in conversation)

It has been well-documented that retaining and promoting female talent into top-level executive management has been a real challenge for American companies and corporations. Women comprise about 50% of the American workforce and yet, of all the chief executives in the top 500 us companies (in 2009), only 3% were women.

This gender imbalance has been explained primarily by "blaming the victim." Explanations for the disparity include things like:

• women leave the workforce to raise children (this myth has been debunked) 
• women work shorter hours (usually forced into neo-traditional work roles)
• women don't want to be in positions of leadership (maybe true if we lived in a vacum) 
• there aren't any qualified women (this was true in the 80s because women had not been in the workforce for very long)

The common message threading through this list is, "women, it's your fault there isn't gender parity." Companies openly recognize the importance of retaining female talent and express a commitment to do so, yet shockingly, 70% of businesses don't have a plan or strategy to follow through with their intentions! And when companies do implement a strategy, they usually focus on narrow solutions like flexible work schedules without addressing the broader system at play within their organizations.  

"The Female Vision," persuasively illustrates how a system that repeatedly underutilizes the unique talents of women is alienating more and more women as they reach the top. Helgesen & Johnson have written a well-researched book that offers a new perspective on why women leave when they break through the glass ceiling and reach the glass cliff. One phrase that came up over and over in their independent research was, "It just wasn't worth it." This sentence alone speaks to a much larger systemic culture issue that is not adequately captured by the current understanding of the lack of female executive leadership. In a brief summary, they discovered women often find it difficult to act on their unique skills and talents because companies are not structured in a way that values or allows for the expression of these traits. With frustration and personal defeat, women quietly exit the pathway to corporate leadership.  

Personally, I found this book to be affirming and energizing. Many of the stories are eerily recognizable and the research is clear. Yet, The Female Vision constructively offers compelling systemic solutions for organizations and businesses that want a refreshing approach to capitalizing on and developing their female talent.

Check it out, if you want to make waves in public! The first chapter is free for the Kindle!

A few things you need to know about the paygap

What is it about the gender pay gap that get's everyone all riled up? The U.S. is the barrer of freedom and equality...or so we've been taught in school. But as I look around me, I see so many of us in all different groups struggling to obtain and retain that freedom and equality we've been supposedly granted on paper.

All you ever wanted to know about the U.S. gender pay gap.

The impact of the pay gap on families. 

What you can DO about the pay gap. 

How to get better talent for cheap!

In a recent Economist article, it was reported that educated South Korean women are the most underemployed women in OECD countries. Working S. Korean women make 63% of what working S. Korean men do. Luckily, the article reported, wise employers can take advantage of this situation and poach/hire the slew of female talent that is coming out of the heavily meritocratic Korean school system.

"The workplace may be sexist, but the education system is extremely meritocratic. Lots of brainy female graduates enter the job market each year. In time their careers are eclipsed by those of men of no greater ability. This makes them poachable. Goldman Sachs, an American investment bank, has more women than men in its office in Seoul."

But what does this really mean for women in business? Employers who take advantage of systemic oppression, like wide-spread gender discrimination, are not considering the "social" side of the triple bottom line. Just because you can pay someone less doesn't mean you should. 


I've heard the argument (argued to my face by one student at BGI who shall remain nameless) that the gender pay-gap is a "good" thing for women because it makes women "more hirable" if employers can get away with paying them less. Great, so I've got a job but I'm locked into a lower salary history, I can barely feed my family, and my retirement fund will be lower (which really sucks because I'm likely going to outlive all the men in my life). See, the pay gap is actually a bad bad baaaad thing when you look at the whole system (aside from focusing on the self-esteem issues that come out of being made to feel as if you don't count, are a second class citizen and exploited labor).


Stepping back and looking at the entire system, when women are paid less than men, so too are their families which becomes critical if their families are single-mother single-income households. This of course, impacts the children who will grow up and inherit our society (and businesses).

The Economist frames gender discrimination in S. Korea as a good thing for non-discriminatory competitors who know good talent when they see it and don't care if the candidate is a woman. There was no mention that these women were getting paid more at these foreign companies. I took the assumption that they weren't.  But in earnest, the whole practice reminded me a lot of outsourcing to cheaper sweatshop labor because you can get a better margin!

"If female talent is undervalued, it should be plentiful and relatively cheap. Firms that hire more women should reap a competitive advantage."

Now how is this point of view bettering our world? Just because you're hiring women, doesn't mean you're not discriminating against them.

On Blog Action Day 2010: I'm thinking of Water

Today is Blog Action Day 2010 and participating bloggers across the world are thinking, discussing, and pontificating about global water issues:

Blog Action Day 2010: Water from Blog Action Day on Vimeo.

As the topic is a little far from this blog's main focus, barriers to women in business, I'm going to set that focus aside for a moment to talk about the relationship between global water conflicts and the impact of these "water wars" (and all wars) on women.

If you've been paying attention to the ongoing conflict in Sudan then you may be aware of the scores of women and children that have been brutally violated and raped. I think it's pretty accepted common knowledge that these are the atrocities that happen in war. But what many people may not realize is the connection between water and conflicts like the war in Sudan. Much news that covers the war in Sudan, often neglects to dig into the history of resource scarcity that surrounds the conflict. As water becomes increasingly scarce, the world will see (and is witnessing this right now) increasing conflicts over water. These conflicts will be ugly horrific battles against women and children that will deeply impact the psyche of our world.

Check out this amazing talk about women and war by Zainab Salbi, founder and CEO of Women for Women International:

Secretariain't: What This Is and Why It Is

Today is the first day of my 9 week journey into the depths of the deep questions I've been asking myself for the past few years:

• If women have achieved equality, why hasn't the Equal Rights Amendment passed? 
• If women have rights, why do I get emailed every (what seems like) week telling me the rights to make decisions about my body are being threatened?
• If women outnumber and outperform men in higher education, then why is the pay gap still being blamed on the victim?
• If women are respected for their intelligence and learning, why are there so few in the sciences and techworld?
• If women are capable and creative leaders, then why are so few CEOs of major companies?
• If liberal-minded men care about women's issues or believe women should be treated as equals, why do my posts about gender inequality on Facebook get so much derailment and dismissal from men that I love and truly respect in my personal network? 

This blog is intended as an exploration into these burning questions I have. As a youthful gen-y woman, I was promised by teachers and curriculum that I could do anything, be anything, and achieve anything. In fact, I used to believe that if I wanted something bad enough or if I were competitive enough, I could achieve it all. But over time, I began to realize that many of the games in life are fixed, that injustice is real and that it is all around us. 

As a woman in business (pursuing her green MBA), I want to engage and learn more about the systemic barriers that exist for women starting their own companies or striving to do well within existing companies. 

As the title of this blog suggests, not all of us dream of our names in lights with "admin. assistant" just below it.