Jump to content
  • Luuk Jacobs
    Luuk Jacobs

    Sign in to follow this  

    Gender Pay Gap - looking beyond the figures

      Time to read: 5min

    The latest Gender Pay Gap figures are not showing a nice picture with minimal shrinking of the overall figure from 9.7% to 9.6%. More than a quarter of companies pay women over 20% less than men based on median hourly pay. Just 1.5% pay male employees 20% less than their female staff.

     

    Only a few companies have made progress and the majority continue to struggle or report even worse data. Especially the Asset Management industry shows a bleak picture.

     

    This data however I believe paints a very black and white picture. We need further analysis and understanding of the underlying trends to be able to design GPG plans. We also need to learn from those companies which have managed to improve the gap and find out what the secret of their success if.

     

    For example, analysis of April 2018 by the Office National Statistics (ONS, below graph base Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings) shows that the GPG for full-time employees between the ages of 18 and 39 years was close to zero, but began to widen for people over the age of 40; would this possibly be due to the fact that women take maternity leave in their thirties and feel the impact of this when returning? We are not sure.

     

    image.thumb.png.fe1657a6ca88500f6f81dc88995f08cc.png

     

    This is where the true challenge lies.  Current legislation does not oblige an explanation for the change in GPG or even a summary of how the GPG will be reduced. Neither is there a penalty for certain GPG levels or when the gap is worsening instead of improving. The hope was and is that this reporting will create certain self-regulation but now we are in this second year of reporting and it seems to be just a box-ticking exercise.

     

    Nevertheless, various reasons for the existence of the pay gap are well understood, with some directly related with work

     

    • Many jobs traditionally done by women are lower paid
    • A lack of genuine flexibility for employees at work  
    • Too few good quality part-time jobs

     

    There are many other reasons which are not direct related to work and are more about caring responsibilities, with women still undertaking the majority of child or elderly care, reducing the participation of women in the workplace (either permanent or for a certain time). Some argue this to be a choice, however the Equalities and Human Rights Commission found that one in nine pregnant women had been let go from their jobs or treated so poorly they felt they had to leave. Equally lower participation of women (in general or in specific industries) itself is no reason for a GPG; the GPG would be zero if this lower participation would still result in an equivalent percentage of women then men in all positions and with equal pay for seniority.

     

    Equally there is an increasing number of women who are self-employed (for reasons possibly related to the GPG or the reasons of its existence) and although not part of the GPG reporting statistics, also face the pay gap in this area.

    More specific reasons for the GPG are the fact that the top jobs in most companies are still held by men (less than 30% of Board members are female and only 5% of the FTSE100 has a female CEO). Not only have these positions in general the highest pay but remuneration of these positions is accompanied by significant incentives and bonuses.

     

    For Asset Management this is even further exuberated by Fund Managers having sometimes equal or higher pay than board members, whereas the number of women in these positions are few.

     

    On the positive side in some cases a widening GPG might mean progress, as women are hired or promoted in entry level more senior jobs; this will initially widen the GPG before they move up the ranks and start reducing the GPG. Unfortunately, the GPG reporting does not show this.

     

    So, what is the solution to reduce the GPG and ensure women will more equally participate in all level jobs and receive equal pay?

     

    The direct improvements that can be made are well known

    • Reducing unconscious bias in recruitment
    • Improve retention
    • Offering more flexible working opportunities
    • Encouraging shared parental leave
    • Increasing support for women returning to work

     

    Iceland even goes as far as implementing a rating of job positions on among others, “physical strain” and “responsibility”. If two employees doing a job with the same score and are not being paid the same, the company has to fix it.

     

    I believe however that we should be looking beyond this and start influencing for example the role of men and women in family life, household and society; as long as women continue to take the caring responsibilities, their participation and likely career progression will for some time stall (as for any longer leave taken by men or women). In the current environment of technological change and innovation certain skillsets become fast redundant or less important and “catching up” will even be more challenging.

     

    If we accept the choice of women (and their spouses!) to (temporarily) take the responsibility for caring roles we should equally encourage:

    • To stay connected with the work environment, while fulfilling these caring roles, by ongoing training and part-time participation ie make it an integral part of parental leave;
    • To oblige companies to provide training during (parental/caring) leave ensuring that upon return the skillset remains suitable for the position in which the woman returns (and leave can’t be an excuse for career stalling or even worse redundancy);
    • To make parental leave by definition shared, yes controversial but by ruling that parental leave is only so long as it is taken by each parent equally, would change the dynamic (and choice).

     

    An alternative route could be to make GPG part of the ESG score of a company. As long as the weighting would be significant, this would definitely be focussing the minds of the Board and Executives, as their investment attractiveness would worsen with the height of the GPG. Even better it would open the dialogue and the need for creating GPG plans (if it is not written down it does not exist). ESG has taken a long time to get the right attention but equally has brought the focus that was needed to make improvements. Something that GPG would fare well by. LGIM has taken a brave step in voting at AGM’s against Board appointments for failing to boost the number of women in their boardrooms.

     

    I strongly believe we need to move away from just looking at the numbers if we want to create lasting change and just creating new policy is not doing it. We must challenge the traditional role of men and women in society, not just with regards to caring roles but also for example education. Just beating the drum will not move the dial but longer lasting (forced) dialogue through routes such as ESG, could push the boundaries.

     

    We need to look beyond the parameters of the report and move outside of the box as a matter of urgency otherwise we will still talk about the gaps in ten or fifteen years and just say ‘nothing has changed much’.



    Sign in to follow this  

    • Share this    
    Share this  

    Member Feedback



    Recommended Comments

    Eva Keogan

    Posted

    This is a great analysis of what needs to be done and I totally agree, looking beyond the figures, or indeed, what lies beneath them is the way forward. It strikes me as highly ironic that everyone talks about big data being used to solve big issues but we are at a standstill here

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    • Share this    
    Share this  

    Become a member to read more and join the discussion

    Members can read and contribute to discussions

    Apply

    Register now for free access.

    Create your account

    Sign in

    Already a member? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

  • Related Content

    • Andy Milner
      By Andy Milner
      An interesting takeaway from a recent report suggests that instead of a "glass ceiling" it could be a "broken rung" at the first step of the management ladder that is more responsible for holding back gender diversity.
       
       

       
      Well worth a read:
       
      Women in the Workplace 2019: The State of Women in Corporate America
      LEANIN.ORG More women are rising to senior leadership. But to get to gender, companies need to focus their efforts at the first step up to manager—the "broken rung."  
    • AlgoMe
      By AlgoMe
      International Women's Day (March 8th) is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women.
       
      The day also marks a call to action for accelerating gender parity.
       
      Theme for International Women's Day 2020 is #EachforEqual
      WWW.INTERNATIONALWOMENSDAY.COM Let's create a gender equal world, because an equal world is an enabled world. International Women's Day 2020 theme is #EachforEqual #IWD2020  
    • AlgoMe
      By AlgoMe
      Investment Week has collaborated with Professional Adviser, Professional Pensions, Retirement Planner and Investment Europe to launch the Women in Investment Festival in partnership with HSBC Global Asset Management. 
       
      Women in Investment Festival 2020 - Line-up
      WOMENININVESTMENTFESTIVAL.COM Women in Investment Festival 2020 - Line-up  
    • Eva Keogan
      By Eva Keogan
      We all want to love our jobs but what if the environment you are working in doesn't love you back? That's something many women are facing daily. Sexism is such an old fashioned concept and it’s really time for it to go, but it still exists.  How can firms stamp it out when it seems to be ubiquitous?
       
      You may have spotted the headlines recently about the Lean In survey which found 60% of male managers are ‘uncomfortable participating in a common work activity with a woman, such as mentoring, working alone, or socialising together’. 
       
      The choice of wording used is a bad start as it immediately puts the man in the role of the victim, with him being the one made to feel ‘uncomfortable’. And the study finds even worse thinking. 
       
      Apparently, senior male professionals are less likely to fraternise with junior females than they are with junior males. This is underpinned by these startling statistics: 
       
      Men are 12x more likely to hesitate to have 1-on-1 meetings with women Men are 9x more likely to hesitate to travel together for work with women Men are 6x more likely to hesitate to have work dinners with women  
      And to top it off, 36% of men say they’ve avoided mentoring or socialising with a woman because they were nervous about how it would look.
       
      If we look at these figures from the other side it becomes even more alarming – women are 12x less likely to get a meeting with a senior manager. Women are 9x less likely to get go on business trips. Women are 6x less like to be invited to work dinners.
       
      Yet this doesn't seem to be a case of fixing one problem and causing another, as 57% of women still report that they’ve experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. 
       
      So what exactly is going on here? It's surely enough to put many women off working in a corporate environment altogether. 

      Data and Facts

      While it’s always difficult to apply generic survey data to a particular industry – especially when it’s a sample size of 2000 and generated in the US – there’s no denying that these issues are global, and that sexism and sexual harassment are still rife in the City of London.
       
      In 2017, the FTfm Women in Asset Management Survey found 70% of women have been the subject of sexism. That’s pretty depressing.
       
      It’s really important for everyone to enjoy work – we work longer hours in the UK than our European counterparts and the City is no exception. But while on the one hand we have diversity drives, returnships and Gender Pay Gap reporting designed to give women and other groups support and reassurance through legislation and behaviour change campaigns, recent stories coming out of the City at large show types of misconduct such as sexism, exploitation and at the very least crass jokes, are by no means going away any time soon. 
       
      The Toxic City?

      News stories around sexism in the City aren't positive at the moment - here are just some which have made the news:
       
      James Conmy and his ‘glazed ring’ comment ended up with him being fired. The Bloomberg exposé The Old Daytime-Drinking, Sexual-Harassing Ways Are Thriving at Lloyd’s  which contributed to the banning of alcohol. Coutts is facing a significant pay out to a female employee of its ‘unspoken culture of sexism’.  In February 2019, the FCA met Nathalie Abildgaard, a former employee of IFM Investors, an Australian investment manager with an office on Gresham Street, to discuss her claim that a senior manager sexually harassed her on a work trip – she has settled out of court this April for a six figure sum.  
      With all of this on the table it’s quite easy to lose faith in change at all but we just can’t give up and go home if we want to see change. 

      Who is responsible?
       
      Organisations themselves are responsible for their own culture but they need more than a gentle nudge. Campaigns such as Women in Finance are pushing for the numbers of women in the industry to increase. 
       
      The Investment Association also has a role to play. It currently campaigns around Diversity & Inclusion as well and while it has written to FTSE 350 companies about diversity it has not been so vocal about sexism in the industry itself – but is this something it should champion or should it tackle broader issues?  The Diversity Project, the campaign set up to promote Diversity & Inclusion in the industry has a broad remit across the diversity spectrum and is a force for good overall but holds no power to enforce rules or regulation.
       
      All the above are working towards change but it is only when there is jeopardy, or high stakes, we will see any kind of radical reform or progress.
       
      Calling out to the FCA
       
      When it comes to any kind of enforcement, the FCA is the only organisation with real teeth and it has stated over the last few months sexual harassment falls within its remit, so perhaps we will start to see some tangible movement on the issue.
       
      Speaking at City and Financial's Women in Finance Summit 2019 this month, Nausicaa Delfas, executive director of international at the FCA, pointed to an increase in non-financial misconduct as a threat to the sector's diversity.
       
      "This type of serious misbehaviour is toxic to a working environment and can lead to bad outcomes for customers, staff, stakeholders and the firm. In our view, tolerance of this sort of misconduct would be a clear example of a driver of unhealthy culture. This area clearly requires management attention and a broader change in the firms’ mindset."
       
      Will this effect change?
       
      First and foremost, we’ve seen little change in the Gender Pay Gap reporting figures so should women expect much else to change? Yes of course women should. 
       
      According to Wealth Manager ‘The FCA has said firms need to demonstrate good practice in purpose, leadership, rewarding and managing people, and governance arrangements.'
       
      With SMCR coming into play in December 2019, company culture is being given increasing importance in the Investment Management sector, and the risk of high profile fines for senior management and directors from the regulator may encourage organisations to stamp out any form of misconduct – sexual or otherwise – more quickly than before.

      Let’s hope 2020 sees a step change in stamping out sexism and misconduct for once and for all and we can all enjoy our jobs, regardless of gender or identity.
    • Eva Keogan
      By Eva Keogan
      Direct quote from Investment Week: The number of firms in the UK reporting their Gender Pay Gap (GPG) figures by the deadline has fallen by more than a thousand, amid claims firms have restructured businesses or transferred staff to avoid being obliged to report, or have ditched reporting altogether under the perception they will not face repercussions.
       
      Is anyone working for a company which has done this? Is it time to name and shame as has been threatened before? Your thoughts are welcome.
       
      This is quite worrying to read and it's not just Investment Week which has reported on this but to down size companies so they are below the 250-person threshold for reporting is incredibly cynical. Has anyone found evidence of this? Also, using Brexit as a smokescreen is not going to wash next year.
       
       
      Gender pay gap reporting falls as asset managers unveil mixed results
      WWW.INVESTMENTWEEK.CO.UK More than 1,000 fewer firms reveal figures  
Debug
Debug info:
You may be asked to provide the below information to an AlgoMe administrator if you are facing any problems with the app:
appcms
modulepages
controllerpage
topics/forum ID79
page ID
PHP user agentCCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/)
ThemeAlgoMe v2.1.4
Mobile appNO
Member ID
×

We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. If you continue, we’ll assume you are happy with this. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.