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.