Member Article

Deeds not Words: reducing your gender pay gap

Even before the gender pay gap (GPG) reports were published in April this year, we all knew that gender pay disparity existed. The first round of the GPG reporting confirms this beyond doubt in respect of most organisations with over 250 employees in the UK. And we all know (it having been repeated by the media as something of a mantra) that the existence of a GPG does not mean that there is an equal pay issue. Perhaps employers are taking some comfort from this. Perhaps the backlash against tackling the GPG has already begun, on the basis that there is no legal sanction for those with a GPG and, as the GPG is so prevalent, reputational issues are not such significant a concern.

But, this is only year one of the GPG reporting requirements. The obligation to report will come around again next April, and the April after that, and so on. It may even be extended to smaller employers. What employers should be thinking about now is what the GPG statistics are going to look like next year, and into the future. Because it is not just the raw data itself on which employers will be judged, but rather whether the gap has been reduced or improved and what steps and what plans have been put in place to reduce that gap? A year is not a long time for there to be any meaningful change in the numbers, so next year the focus is likely to be on the steps employers have taken to reduce the gap. Employers will be judged on their actions and what they have set out to achieve – this is the time for deeds not words.

Identifying a GPG provides employers with an opportunity to address the issue (rather than a crisis to be managed). The purpose of this article is not to provide an off-the-shelf action plan that employers can use to help reduce any GPG - as with unhappy families, the GPG of each employer arises as a result of its own (potentially unique) combination of factors. There is no one solution that will fit the bill across the board – this is not a tick-box exercise. Any action plan needs to be considered and targeted, taking into account the identified causes of the GPG within that particular organisation.

In saying that, of course, there are some common issues that run through the disclosed statistics. For example, it has become apparent that women are under-represented in senior management and leadership roles. So, what might an action plan to tackle this involve?

Simply stating that the GPG exists because men tend to hold those senior, better paid roles is no justification for that pay gap and does not pave the way towards an appropriate action plan. What needs to be considered in detail is why this is the case – why, in this particular organisation, are women not progressing their careers as men appear to be?

Each organisation will have its own reasons for this, although there may be some common themes that have led to the under-representation of women, such as the sector might be one that is male-dominated; there might be some inherent unconscious bias against women; the organisation might place an over-emphasis on full-time working and over-value presentee-ism as a sign of commitment; women might not routinely return after maternity leave; or, perhaps where women reach the senior levels, they might not be supported properly and so leave the organisation.

The next step is to formulate an action plan to address those identified issues. Here are some ideas:

• Unconscious bias training: train employees/decision makers to identify their unconscious biases and challenge gender stereotype.
• Commit to flexible working: the requirement to work full time during ‘regular’ office hours is likely to exclude those with caring responsibilities, the majority of whom are, as things currently stand, women. Working long hours can be seen as a sign of commitment and leadership potential, but there is no real reason why this should be the case, and it is time that this were challenged. If a role can be performed on a flexible basis, then why not advertise this and in doing so, potentially encourage more women to apply? Thinking creatively about how and when jobs can be done will help to remove some of the potential barriers all employees face when juggling work and home life.
• Consider quotas / targets: potentially controversial, but could be a useful way to kick-start the action plan. Remember, this is not about denying the ability to recruit or promote the best candidate for the job, but rather directing the mind of the decision maker to consider actively any women candidates.
• Career Break Returners: consider implementing a program aimed at facilitating the return to work for employees who have had a career break. Whilst this would be open to all returning employees, it is likely to be of particular benefit to women who are returning from maternity leave (or a career break to raise children) and would help to address the so-called ‘motherhood penalty’.
• Review and challenge your recruitment processes: Consider ‘gender blind’ recruitment - there is no need to know the gender of an applicant when considering whether he or she is suitable for the role. Check your advertisements: are they using role descriptions that might be considered to be gender specific? Consider, for example, the following: caring, empathy, dynamic, strong. Can jobs be described in a more gender neutral way?
• Mentoring: consider mentoring not only for junior employees to help show them the way to the top, but also for those women who have made it to the senior levels of the organisation, so as to reduce the possible impact of women experiencing ‘impostor syndrome’.

Finally, do not neglect to put the action plan into practice. It will be deeds not words that will be taken into account when the next round of GPG statistics are published.

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Caron Gosling .