gender pay gap dissertation uk

Merit Sticks to Men: Gender Pay Gaps and (In)equality at UK Russell Group Universities

• ORIGINAL ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 12 May 2022
• Volume 86 , pages 544–558, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Carol Woodhams   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9703-1107 1 ,
• Grzegorz Trojanowski 2 &
• Krystal Wilkinson 3  

6294 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Academic studies of gender pay gaps within higher education institutions have consistently found pay differences. However, theory on how organisation-level factors contribute to pay gaps is underdeveloped. Using a framework of relational inequalities and advanced quantitative analysis, this paper makes a case that gender pay gaps are based on organisation-level interpretations and associated management practices to reward ‘merit’ that perpetuate inequalities. Payroll data of academic staff within two UK Russell Group universities ( N  = 1,998 and 1,789) with seeming best-practice formal pay systems are analysed to determine causes of gender pay gaps. We find marked similarities between universities. Most of the variability is attributed to factors of job segregation and human capital, however we also delineate a set of demographic characteristics that, when combined, are highly rewarded without explanation. Based on our analysis of the recognition of ‘merit,’ we extend theoretical explanations of gender pay gap causes to incorporate organisation-level practices.

Similar content being viewed by others

Flexible Working, Work–Life Balance, and Gender Equality: Introduction

The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence

Educational hypogamy and female employment in rural India

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction 

The UK Higher Education (HE) sector has historically been male dominated, with evidence of horizontal and vertical segregation (Fagan & Teasdale, 2021 ). Job segregation by gender is also an international phenomenon (Macarie & Moldovan, 2015 ; Peng et al., 2017 ; Rabovsky & Lee, 2018 ). There is evidence for the closing of the HE gender gap internationally in recent decades (Baker, 2016 ) and an improvement in research outputs (Nielsen, 2016 ) and high-level jobs (Fritsch, 2015 ) for female academics. Inequalities persist, however. The causes of gender pay disparities are complex and multi-layered, but analysis of them in the higher education sector, and more generally, is theoretically and empirically incomplete. Smith ( 2009 ), for example, draws on self-report quantitative data to signal a significant gap between men and women academic staff in the UK between and within grades, and explores the implications, but not the causes, of these gaps. Traditionally, theoretical frameworks that explain gender pay differences take investment in one’s own skills and productivity as the starting point (Becker, 1975 ). However, this is a limited view that assumes that skill supply and demand will be fairly rewarded according to the logics of the market. The role of the employer in this link is overlooked.

In the current study we respond to calls to 'bring the firm back into the conceptualisation of inequalities' (Tomaskovic-Devey & Avent-Holt, 2019 , p. 7), drawing on how the relational and social construction of ‘merit’ may be connected to the power and status of workers to influence pay. Krefting ( 2003 ), for example, concludes that women faculty achievements have a lower salary pay-off, which refers to a slower time to tenure, slower time to promotion to full professor, and they earn less than men with comparable backgrounds and accomplishments. Additionally, a range of demographic (Hargens & Long, 2002 ), personal, and institutional factors (Howe-Walsh & Turnbull, 2016 ) have been linked to gender inequality, with the latter including an organisational perception of additional ‘merit’ attributed to men. Though informative, the reliance on qualitative data in these studies limits the generalisability of these findings. The current research rigorously examines ‘lower salary pay-offs’ within men’s and women’s faculty careers, and the potential for subjective and intangible ‘merit’ to be attached to certain bodies (Simpson & Kumra, 2016 ; Thornton, 2013 ).

Most publications on pay differences in HE draw conclusions from national or sectoral datasets meaning that they cannot illuminate patterns at the organisation level (i.e., Madrell et al., 2016 ). By and large, published pay data is usually aggregated, cloaking the role of organisation-level causes such as unequal promotion rates, unequal length of service, faculty specialisms, hours of engagement, types of contracts, the role of qualifications, and ultimately if and how organisational reward practices in relation to ‘merit’, sustain pay gaps. Using internal pay data at the individual employee level linked to personal employment history, we show that it is possible to account for the influence of these factors plus many others. Analysis can isolate the implications of each, building a picture of which characteristics and job patterns are most highly rewarded. These studies are rare due to the challenges of accessing comprehensive individual-level organisation data (for exceptions see Gonäs & Bergman, 2009 ; Travis et al., 2009 ). The current paper aims to enhance our understanding of causes of pay disparities in HE, criticising the effectiveness of organisation equality practice to challenge an institutionalised construction of ‘merit’ in two UK Russell Group universities.

The Russell Group is a catch-all term for 24 universities in the UK renowned for world-class research excellence and academic achievement (university league tables), including the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Russell Group, n.d. ). We negotiated access to employee level data; it is not normally available. The paper addresses the following research questions: (1) Is there a gender pay gap at our case- study universities and what factors explain it? (2) What does our analysis reveal about how higher education pay allocation is influenced by perceived ‘merit’?

Determinants of Pay Gaps in Higher Education

Underlying causes of the inequality gap in a whole range of industries, and specifically in higher education, are hotly disputed. Human capital theorists (e.g., Becker, 1975 ) seek to explain disparities in terms of differences in skills and experience between different groups of workers (Jacobsen, 2003 ). Women and men are seen as making different choices around the accumulation and deployment of education and skills linked to perceptions of what will bring the greatest returns, given their family commitments (Toutkoushian et al., 2007 ; Uhly et al., 2017 ). They have different ways of managing the work-life interface (Xiaoni & Caudle, 2016 ), different plans for engagement with paid work over the life-course (Metcalf, 2009 ) and have less work continuity and labour market experience due to part-time employment (Perna, 2005 ). Empirical evidence for the human capital approach specifically in relation to Higher Education comes from studies that account for human capital investment, performance measures, and type of university as explanators, and report gender pay gaps of 22% and 6.8% after controls inserted (Umbach, 2007 ).

Critics draw attention to the limitations of human capital theory, emphasising that preferences are underpinned by the gendered context of HE (Perna, 2005 ). Pay penalties in HE may emerge indirectly from the unequal effects of being segregated into types of institution, academic disciplines, contracts, and work roles that women are better able to manage alongside an uneven division of domestic work – but which have lower prestige and value. Cama et al. ( 2016 ) reported on a range of studies arguing that gender pay gaps cannot be explained by differences in individual, faculty, and institutional attributes, leaving open the possibility that there are organisational, cultural, and Human Resource (HR) effects. Gaps may also emerge because of discretionary pay practices which have the effect of disadvantaging groups in the way that 'merit' is constructed (Elvira & Graham, 2002 ). Typical of the UK HE sector, the two universities in our study formally abide by a framework of 'meritocratic' principles (Littler, 2018 ). Both deploy an objective reward system based on job evaluation plus a range of ‘best’ HR equality measures designed to overcome structural obstacles. We now discuss the potential of these measures to eliminate gender pay gaps, along with feminist critiques.

Recognising ‘Merit’ in Pay Structure Design in the UK’s HE Sector

Academic pay is determined within a market-based allocative system which seeks to reward individual effort, agency, and achievement. In theory, the design of the pay system is to produce standardised pay decisions, pegged to an objective scale, reducing flexibility and managerial discretion (Reskin, 2000 ). The establishment of a sector-wide joint negotiating committee in 2001 included the objective ‘to modernise pay arrangements with the specific aim of promoting equality, transparency and harmonisation to ensure equal pay is delivered for work of equal value’ (UCEA, 2008 : 3 as cited in Perkins & White, 2010 ). Almost all UK institutions, including our research sites, implemented the framework. The assumption is those who are not highly rewarded are not disadvantaged by unjust or discriminatory organisational practices, but rather because of their lack of personal merit (Simpson & Kumra, 2016 ); being abilities, achievements and ‘deservingness’ (Thornton, 2013 ). There are links to be made here with post-feminist governance regimes (Lewis, 2017 ) where the structural inequalities foregrounded in second-wave feminism are said to have been overcome, meaning women’s experience is dictated by their individual merit alone and feminist collective objection or action is redundant.

Critiques of Assumptions of ‘Merit’ in HE

There arelimits to assumptions of the equality of ‘merit’ between genders. Scholars argue that a socially acceptable postfeminist subjectivity requires the simultaneous performance of both ‘ideal worker’ (Acker, 1990 ) masculinity in terms of ambition, drive, and active planning, but also femininity in terms of emotional nurturing behaviour (Hochschild, 1983 ) and personal appearance (Lewis, 2017 ). As men are not required to demonstrate such dual behaviours, it can be argued that standards of ‘merit’ are unequal. Simpson and Kumra ( 2016 ) and Simpson et al. ( 2020 ) observe how narratives of ‘merit’ and ‘deservingness’ intertwine and become a gendered issue – with deservingness relying on subjective evaluations based, in part, on personal values and normative expectations – which stands in contrast to merit, which is typically presented in the HE context as an objective, gender-neutral measure, based upon qualifications and the capacity of the individual to apply them to job-related tasks (Castilla, 2008 , 2012 ; Castilla & Bernard, 2010 ; Simpson et al., 2020 ). Taken together, it is argued, merit fails to ‘stick’ to female bodies. Castilla and Bernard ( 2010 ) term this the ‘meritocracy paradox': that systems that appear to reward skills and effort may involve processes that entrench discrimination. Understandings of ‘merit’ have been and continue to be determined by those at the highest levels of the organisational hierarchy–dominated by men, although there is some interest in the rise of women in positions of power (see Huffman, 2013 ), meaning that the benchmark for success is often based upon masculine traits and the male life-course. Simpson and Kumra ( 2016 ) add that such bias is largely hidden by the desire to see merit in fixed, universal terms (Sen, 2000 ) where it can assuage concerns about unequal allocations of power and authority and provide a discursive mechanism by which inequality is justified.

It follows that merit will also fail to stick to the bodies of other individuals who differ from the white, male, able-bodied ‘ideal worker,’ which has been found in other studies, including those that study the intersectional effects of gender alongside demographic factors such as ethnicity, class, family education history and disability on employment outcomes (Bowleg, 2008 ; Crew, 2020 ; Rickett & Morris, 2021 ; Śliwa & Johansson, 2014 ; Woodhams et al., 2015 ). Whilst an espoused meritocracy, the UK HE sector is responding to significant labour market pressures, which challenge attempts to ensure standard and transparent reward allocation. Government funding has been withdrawn, so the sector is in a period of rapid global reform. To compete for global talent, pressure is brought to bear to ensure that salaries are flexible. For example, in both case study universities, following a selection panel, senior managers debate a salary point to offer based on perceived ‘deservingness’. The full grade range is available including ‘discretionary’ points in ‘exceptional’ circumstances. Pay offers are almost always negotiated (see Gamage et al., 2020 ), maybe with less motivation from female academics (Sarfaty et al., 2007 ). The agreed pay outcome is put to HR for approval and is rarely rejected. Enhanced pay increments can also be negotiated within-role as a retention payment. Subjective assessments of ‘merit’ have potential to undermine equitable outcomes.

Best Practice Equality and the ‘Merit’ Principle

It is recognised that women may be particularly constrained in demonstrating their ‘merit’ due to a range of factors such as additional responsibilities in the home domain, stereotyping and discrimination (Lewis & Simpson, 2010 ; Lips, 2013a , b ). To give them full opportunity to develop, a raft of university initiatives has been introduced (Saltmarsh & Randell-Moon, 2015 ). In our two chosen universities, initiatives cover flexible hours of work and location (Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013 ) plus a variety of academic contract types, including part-time working, fixed-term working, and term-time working. To assist with social capital development, several women’s leadership and mentoring initiatives have been introduced (see Gallant, 2014 ). Both universities hold Athena Swan awards (Advance HE, n.d. ), an external audit of good diversity practice. At least one department in each holds the highest gold level award. Compulsory training ensures equality and diversity compliance. The modern HE landscape is thus aligned with broader discussions of neoliberal feminism (Rottenberg, 2018 ) viewing the ideal neoliberal feminist subject as a ‘balanced woman’ (Rottenberg, 2014 ) who can manage a professional job role alongside intensive caring responsibilities. Neoliberal structures and cultures emphasise individual competition and merit and suggest the ‘ideal worker’ (Acker, 1990 ) is one unencumbered by responsibilities outside of work. Whilst our female academic subject might note the structures that disadvantage her as a woman (thus differentiating the neo-liberal subjectivity from the postfeminist one), she looks inwardly, guided by these workplace equality initiatives that focus on individual action and adaptation (around working hours and better ‘leaning in’ to organisational structures) to resolve the tension, rather than looking towards collective action to change underlying structures.

There is also criticism from gender scholars concerning interpretation of meritocratic principles within HE, arguing that activities that are seen to be meritorious are those on which men spend more time and have greater success. The highest valued activities when it comes to pay and progression in academia are entrepreneurial research activities (Priola, 2007 ; Thornton, 2013 ), including peer-reviewed publications in high-ranking academic journals and citation figures. There is some evidence that men outperform women in these metrics (Monroe et al., 2008 ), but this is by no means universal (Nakhaie, 2007 ; Nielsen, 2016 ; Shauman & Xie, 2003 ). Female academics tend to spend more time on pastoral work, as they are expected to be nurturing and accommodating to student requests (El-Alayli et al., 2018 ) and undertake the bulk of administration and citizenship activities (Perna, 2005 ). Male academics engage in greater institutional mobility than women academics (Leemann, 2010 ), enabling networking and increased opportunities to collaborate (Loacker & Sliwa, 2015 ). Universities tend to be sites where patriarchal relations and gendered hierarchies of power flourish to the disadvantage of women (Bagilhole & Goode, 2001 ).

Policy Implications

There are significant policy implications in this area. The UK’s Athena Swan, Gender Equality Charter Mark (Madrell et al., 2016 ) and Gender Pay Gap mandatory reporting initiatives are all shedding light on pay gaps at the employer level. These initiatives raise awareness of pay gaps and provide data that is useful in making sectoral comparisons. However, given that reported data is aggregated, there are limitations in their usefulness in illuminating comparative and potentially unfair reward practices at the employee level. Our analysis addresses that gap.

Ethical approval was sought and obtained from the University of Exeter prior to the analysis of this data. Data is secondary in nature. Data is confidential and storage arrangements complied with General Data Protection Regulations.

Sample Characteristics

Tables 1 and 2 provide descriptive statistics for two Russell Group universities that comprised the analysis. The two universities are matched in their gender spilt being 43% and 44% female. Ethnic origin data is categorised into sixteen categories. Nationality data is given in 76 categories in one university and 54 in the other. To ensure viable categories for analytical purposes they were recategorized into White/BME and British/non-British dummy variables. In University 1, 85% of men and 89% of women identify as white. Sixty-six percent of men and 61% of women identify as British. University 2 is matched with corresponding figures of 90%, 89%, 70% and 63%, respectively. Disabled status is self-nominated at the point of recruitment or by updating the self-service HR administration platform. Disabled workers comprise 4% of the workforce in both universities. Sex is given in binary format. Maternity leave taken in the past five years (yes/no) is a dummy variable for women only. The maternity leave variable cannot be added to a fully-fledged Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition as it is meaningfully defined for female academics only. It is not included in the main analyses reported. We add a note below explaining its effects entered in the regression equation.

Grade and seniority are denoted in five hierarchical bands (Associate Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor, in order of seniority). In both universities, men are significantly more likely to be more senior in higher grades. Men have significantly longer length of service (LOS; 6.18 and 9.25 years for men, compared with 5.41 and 6.84 for women) and significantly more years in the HE sector (8.83 years compared with 8.07 for women) in University 1, but less in University 2 (11.58 years compared with 15.29). Most staff (75% and 92%) hold a doctorate as their highest-level qualification.

The dependent variable is salary. Individual payroll data was obtained for all academics employed by University 1 ( N  = 1,998) and University 2 ( N  = 1,789). Payroll data has greater reliability than self-reported pay (see Leslie et al., 2017 ) and greater validity for investigating the connection of employment histories to pay than aggregated data (van Wanrooy et al., 2013 ). Salary data is taken for a single month (Feb 2018 for University 1 and July 2018 for University 2). To protect the anonymity of the universities we obscure certain features including the organisation’s location in the UK. Support staff are excluded.

The salary structure in both universities is a multi-grade single pay spine linked to tenure and grade and based on a Higher Education Role Analysis job evaluation exercise. Starting salary is based on qualifications, experience, perceived merit, and previous salary. Movement between grades is determined by promotion into a different role. Scheduled pay raises (so-called 'increments') are awarded annually (as of 1 August each year) until the job holder reaches the top of the normal grade range. Each grade, except Professor, then has four to five ‘discretionary’ points that can be used to recognise extra ‘merit’. Professorial salaries are personally negotiated, subject to university-specific banding of pay. Starters and leavers have been removed from the dataset. Full-time equivalent (FTE) pay has been created to remove the effects of part-time working. Both universities award increments during maternity leave.

Salaries are attached to a common UK HE intuitions 51–point pay scale (UCU, 2022 ). There is considerable variation between universities in attaching grades to pay scale points, for example in one university a Reader grade applicant might be appointed between scale point 45 (currently £52,559) and scale point 50 (currently £60,905) and in another, the Reader scale might sit between points 41 and 47. However, internally, a university will always (in theory) appoint staff in the same academic grade to the same range of scale points. University 2 has awarded their female professors a one-off salary uplift (mean of £3,435) following Essex University (BBC News, 2016 ). The uplift was applied in Sept 2016 with reference to the mean of male professorial salaries in the discipline and taking account of length of service.

Analytic Strategy

To examine the first research question on the reasons for gender pay differences, we calculate simple mean gender differences in base pay rates. We then make use of regression analysis, which isolates gender pay differences if all other variables are held constant. This is, of course, hypothetical as men and women are rarely matched, so we use the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition (OBD) technique (Blinder, 1973 ; Oaxaca, 1973 ). This technique identifies the extent to which pay gaps are due to the different 'endowments' of men and women. Endowments constitute differences between men and women that are meaningful within pay allocation; in other words, their simultaneous distribution across ranks of well-rewarded and less well-rewarded features. For ease of reporting, we have bundled these features into a) demographic (being age, gender, disability, ethnicity and nationality), b) human capital (education, length of service, and length of service in HE), and finally c) segregation and job (faculty of employment, grade & seniority, type of contract, duration of contract, and whether FT or PT). This analytic technique examines which differences and in what proportion men’s and women’s 'endowments' create the gender pay gap.

To address the second research question, we further explore the outcomes of the OBD highlighting the different rates of financial return to endowments, known as 'coefficients' and 'interaction' elements. These elements reveal whether having the same feature, for example a doctorate, results in a differential financial return for men, vis a vis women. Where, and if, this occurs, we consider this to be pay discrimination and indicative of an unbalanced institutionalised interpretation of salary-worthy ‘merit.’

Research Question 1

The mean salary for men academics is £50,050 and £42,192 for women ( t  = 9.21, p  < .001, see Table 1 ) in University 1 and £54,668 and £46,556 in University 2 ( t  = 9.48, p  <  .001, see Table 2 ). Despite differences between universities in pay levels, gender pay differences are consistent. University 1 has a gender disparity of £8,308, or 15.7% and University 2 has £8,112 or 14.8%, favoring men. Table A1 (University 1) and A2 (University 2) in the online appendix provide mean pay based on demographic and job-related characteristics. Based on this initial analysis, we can only draw limited conclusions on ways that job, work, and personal characteristics underlie gender pay differences. To explore further, we first conduct regression analysis and then undertake Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analyses (Jann, 2008 ).

Tables 3 and 4 give results of pooled and subsample regression analyses. Regression analysis is informative because it shows the effect on pay of a single characteristic isolated from others. The pooled (men and women) sample shows that a significant proportion of pay is explained by factors of horizontal and vertical segregation (i.e., faculty and grade), however segregation is not the only effect. Experience at the university (University 2) and in the HE sector (University 1) is positively correlated with salary, as is age and job family at both universities. Education level is not a strong predictor of wage in this sector, except that in University 2 having an ‘other’ qualification creates a significant disadvantage of £4,140 per year. After inserting all controls, detriments of £1,070 and £1,272 for women are attached to gender.

The origins of the alarming and unexplainable pay difference can be explored first via subsample regression analysis. Regression analysis measures the differences between men and women in their pay as if all other characteristics are equal. Tables 3 and 4 show that employment factors are not equally rewarded, and not always in the expected direction. For example, in both universities, men experience a penalty compared with women for being in a Humanities faculty (-£3,140 compared with -£1,932 in University 1 and -£3,012 compared with -£745 in University 2) with similar patterns in Social Science faculties. Similarly, men are paid less in every grade in University 2, when all other factors are accounted for, and in all except the Professorial grade in University 1. There is also a difference between how men and women are rewarded for length of service at both universities; men being rewarded for short service at both universities. Whilst this is an interesting analysis, it is hypothetical one because it assumes all characteristics other than gender are identical. But gender career differences are dynamic and interactional and regression analysis is imprecise as to whether and to what extent each difference contributes to the actual pay disparity between men and women. For this we turn to an OBD. What follows is an explanation of those findings.

Endowment Effects

Decomposing the pay gap shows consistency between universities. In total, as shown within Tables 5 and 6 , a total of over 81% (£6,335.60) of the gender gap at University 1 and 79% (£6,554.21) at University 2 is attributable to gender differences in bundles of endowments: being demographic, human capital, and segregation/ job characteristics. In other words, most of the pay gap is explained by differences in the way that men and women engage with the jobs, roles, and disciplines that are linked to higher [or lower] pay. A further 12% (£904.51) in University 1 and 11.9% (£978.70) in University 2 per year is due to gender differences in coefficients – i.e. differences in the way these endowments attract reward. The remaining 7% (£563.62) and 8.6% (£706.42) is due to the interaction of gender differences in coefficients and the strength of their effects.

More specifically, most of the pay gap in both universities pertains to job segregation. For example, although like-for-like women are paid more, for example, in a Reader role (as above), the fact that they are underrepresented in Reader and Professorial grades is key. If women academics were as likely to reach the Professor grade as men, the annual gender pay gap would shrink by £5,518.14 at University 1 and £6,825.93 in University 2. Additionally, women are over-represented in the low-paid research-only job family in University 1 and teaching-only job family in University 2, adding to the gender pay gap. Women are over-represented in the lowest-paying faculty (Faculty of Humanities) in University 1 and under-represented in the highest-paying faculty (Faculty of Social Sciences) in University 2. In University 2, women are over-represented in the lower-paying academic grades. Job segregation in seniority and faculty, then, explains over three-quarters of the gender discrepancy in pay in both universities (with Professoriate under-representation solely accounting for over 70%). Differences in demographic and human capital endowments also contribute to the gender disparity in pay. Since women academics are, on average, slightly younger and age has a strong positive association with pay, age constitutes another source of gender pay differences. Differences in LOS at University 1 (men have more service) also helps to explain their higher pay.

Research Question 2

We have seen that segregation (i.e., differences in ways that men and women engage in HE careers), accounts for the majority, but not all the pay difference. There are also uneven gender effects in the financial return to these features, which can be seen in the coefficient and interaction columns of Tables 5 and 6 . For example, whilst women academics being younger and less likely to hold senior academic positions contributed to the pay gap (as above), the coefficient component indicates that age and seniority have a higher return for equal endowments for men academics. Being older benefits men by £288.15 per year in University 1 and £370.33 in University 2, but women 'return' less than half (£142.17 and £170.90 per annum) of this for the exact same feature (i.e. being a year older). This unequal return to age accumulates year-on-year to contribute £5,939.98 / £8,577.29 in favour of men to the gender pay gap. Moreover, we know fewer women academics have reached the Professorial grade, however the coefficient column shows that women in University 1 reap a significantly smaller financial return after achieving it (explaining £243.33 of the gender pay gap) compared to their otherwise-equal male peers. In other words, there seems to be a 'double-whammy' discriminating effect for women: not only are they less likely to possess the characteristics associated with higher pay, even those who do so, are under-paid in comparison. University 2 appears to have staved off these effects, perhaps via their targeted salary uplift in 2016.

The effects of differences in coefficients pertaining to age and seniority are partly offset by gender differences in the effect of the length of service at both universities. Women benefit from longer tenure (reducing the pay gap by £1,889.52 / £1,278.25 pa). Whilst this might seem positive, it indicates that men, because they gain through age, but not length of service, benefit more from increased mobility. Men move more often, and this works to their financial benefit.

Differences in the financial return to demographic features are also important. At University 1, all else being equal, being British is lucrative for men academics but not women (explaining £842.15; more than 10% of the pay gap). At University 2, being white is a benefit for men only, returning an additional £1,792.81 per year into their pay packets. There is also a small, yet statistically significant, gender difference in the effects that disability has on pay in University 1, to the benefit of disabled women; and a larger advantage to women working in Humanities and the Arts in university 2 of £480.13 annually.

Interaction Effects

The aforementioned effects of age and length of service are further strengthened by the significant differences in the effects of interactions of coefficients and endowments in both datasets. For instance, the age interaction component is positive as the returns to age for men tend to be greater, while at the same time they have higher values attached to the age variable.

This paper has analysed payroll data from two UK Russell Group universities with formal payment schemes, based on incremental pay scales and job evaluation. By controlling for human capital, job segregation, and demographic variables, our findings suggest flaws with the way that gender pay differences are regarded and being addressed in academic institutions. The findings help us understand how ‘merit’ is represented within the ostensibly 'objectively determined' pay scales of both universities. As we might anticipate, most ‘merit’ is attributed to seniority and length of service. However, these features are not equally rewarded between men and matched women. The seniority effect is disproportionately advantageous (in pay terms) when attached to men. Men are rewarded for mobility while women are rewarded for loyalty. And a significant proportion of our gender pay gap is linked to features that are not of direct relevance. Men are rewarded in one university for Britishness and the other for whiteness. There are small advantages for women, but these are less numerate and not as financially advantageous.

To elaborate, our findings pertaining to our first research question support previous observations around occupational segregation in explaining pay gaps, i.e., that through conformance to social role (Eagly, 1987 ), individual preference (Hakim, 2000 ) or discriminatory treatment (Lips, 2013a ), women are under-represented in highly-paid academic roles (Doucet et al., 2012 ), and higher-paying grades (Ornstein et al., 2007 ) and over-represented in wage-depressed women-dense disciplines (Reskin & Roos, 2009 ). We show that women and men have different ‘endowments’ (i.e., men are more likely to be older and to be a Professor) that pay out to men’s advantage. Good equality practices such as those within the Athena Swan accreditation, will, if effective, decrease pay differences in relation to these factors. However, our analysis also shows in line with neo-liberal critiques that the benefit of investing in remedies like these will be limited because of organisation-level management practices.

Analysis pertaining to the second research question demonstrated that even if women were to become equally endowed, a significant proportion of the pay gap will be left untouched. Equally endowed women at University 1 earn less like-for-like in the Professorial grade. In both, they earn less each year for equal age. It could be argued that these variations stem from cohort-level differences in human capital, with older women accumulating less quality experience, even if their qualifications and length of service match, however prior literature argues that cohort effects are less significant than life-cycle effects, i.e. ageism in academia (Maguire, 1995 ). It could also be the case that the gender-specific returns to age might result from career breaks stemming from maternity leave periods, however when the maternity leave dummy is included in the regression model the main effect is not significant and other results are upheld. Additionally, length of service is most strongly rewarded if it is short and if the academic is male. Our overall finding is that women have a significant pay penalty, for reasons of segregation (which might also contain discriminatory influences that are hidden from our view), but most importantly because they do not have features in common with older white or British professors who frequently move universities.

There are two inferences here. The first inference in our findings is that pay judgements in academia are made based on an organisational-level understanding of ‘merit’ that ‘sticks’ to certain types of men’s bodies, specifically, white and British older Professors with a record of mobility. This finding supports previous work that shows how these features are of benefit to men. Results of ‘wisdom’ studies show that older men are more likely than older women to be regarded as cognitively ‘wise’ (Ardelt, 2009 ; Baltes et al., 1995 ), and that men, rather than women, inhabit the role of ‘Professor’, not ‘Teacher’, with ease (Miller & Chamberlin, 2000 ). Job mobility is lucrative for academics; however, women feel the need to build and sustain a reputation with their employer to demonstrate competence (Blackaby et al., 2005 ; Booth et al., 2003 ) rather than moving jobs to demonstrate ambition. Women remain on the margins in academia trying to prove their skills whilst men strategize reputation (Krefting, 2003 ). Finally, intersectional ethnic academic women appear to be disproportionately disadvantaged by the combination of ethnicity and nationality and gender in comparison with ethnic men and white women (Eaton et al., 2020 ; McCall, 2005 ).

The second inference points to the failure of formalised payment systems in standardising starting and ongoing salary awards. It might be that women’s actual or perceived inability to negotiate better salary packages into the discretionary grade points is the cause (Dittrich et al., 2014 ). It is well known that negotiation is a complex skill that is deeply ingrained in societal gender roles (Bowles & Babcock, 2013 ); women are less likely to be well-evaluated when they initiate negotiations (Bowles et al., 2005 ) and more likely to receive backlash (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013 ; Dannals et al, 2021 ; Rudman, 1998 ; Williams & Tiedens, 2016 ) which may serve to discourage them.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are limitations to the generalisability of our work. The paper is based on two cases with reputations for best-practice equality. Both are in the elite research-intensive group. Given the similarities between the two cases, it is highly likely that similar findings would be realised elsewhere in UK universities with a similar best practice-approach and use of standardised national pay and reward structures. However, higher pay gaps and greater wage dispersion has been found in research-intensive universities, so findings may differ in institutions that differently emphasise research output (Bailey et al., 2016 ; Mumford & Sechel, 2020 ). There are also limitations to validity of the data given that we do not have a full set of covariates on productivity/performance and how this might inform promotion and extra-ordinary decisions around base pay. Analysis of social class data, which was not available in this dataset, would add a valuable dimension of understanding for scholars interested in intersectional studies. To further strengthen our understanding of ways that organisations produce and reproduce unequal personifications of a ‘meritorious’ academic in future research projects, we encourage researchers to replicate our methodology in different universities and country contexts, comparing our outcomes with those achieved in organisations with different, and maybe less flexible, reward arrangements. We encourage studies that delve more deeply into the effects of intersecting identities on the causes of gender pay gaps for academics.

Practice Implications

Our findings have specific implications for human resource management professionals and senior leaders in HE and beyond, as they suggest flaws in the ways that gender pay differences are reproduced at the organisational level. In order to tackle the systemic problems highlighted in this paper, we recommend that alongside the typical package of positive action recruitment and promotion measures, such as mentoring (Cullen & Luna, 1993 ), changes are needed around how pay is structured and determined, as both appear to unfairly disadvantage women that are otherwise equally endowed. For example, we recommend the removal of ‘discretionary’ pay points that are typically used in circumstances where staff persistently self-proclaim their ‘merit’ to their managers, creating shorter pay scales which leave less room for managerial subjectivity to choose between pay points. We also recommend stronger guidance on the way that pay is set on appointment. A specific recommendation for University 1 is an immediate salary uplift of the type implemented at University 2. We also recommend positive action measures are extended to recognise the intersectional effects of gender with other disadvantaging personal characteristics such as nationality, ethnicity, and age. Our findings also have implications for academic women working/seeking work in UK HE institutions who may be unaware of their disadvantaged intersectional positioning, due to the principles of ‘meritocratic ideology’ underpinning existing structures and postfeminist/neoliberal feminist discourse. They are encouraged to explore collective forms of agency more akin to second-wave feminist action, such as vocal protest against pay disparities and engagement in trade union action.

Explanations of gender pay gaps are complex and multi-layered. In part, as previously identified in higher education, they result from differences in occupational segregation (Blau & Kahn, 2017 ), which is being tackled in many universities via established equality practice. Our findings, however, indicate additional contributors to pay gaps linked to intersecting features, for example increased age is less advantageous for women, and disability potentially less advantageous for men, and how organisation-level recognition of ‘merit’ sticks to certain bodies, enabled by specific and widespread reward practices. In conclusion we argue that pay structures premised on ‘meritocracy’, and initiatives that aim to level the playing field for academic women under the banner of 'best practice' reinforce postfeminist or neoliberal feminist sensibilities. Women academics, unknowingly complicit, look inwardly for the resolution of disadvantage whilst structures continue to discriminate against them.

However, our primary point here is that salary negotiation involves two parties and responsibility lies with those that carry institutional authority to recognise and reward to ensure that perceived ‘merit’ does not cloud judgement. We contend that our research raises awareness that the organisational space in which resource allocation takes place is influenced by socially defined relational power inequalities (Tomaskovic-Devey & Avent-Holt, 2019 ) that shape perceptions of ‘meritorious’ and ‘deserving’ features.

Data Availability

Data is held by each institution. We have a contract to publish with express agreement, but not to share data.

Code Availability

STATA code available on request.

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4 (2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002

Article   Google Scholar  

Advance HE. (n.d.). Athena Swan Charter . https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan-charter

Amanatullah, E., & Tinsley, C. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120 (1), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006

Ardelt, M. (2009). How similar are wise men and women? A comparison across two age cohorts. Research in Human Development, 6 (1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600902779354

Bailey, J., Peetz, D., Strachan, G., Whitehouse, G., & Broadbent, K. (2016). Academic pay loadings and gender in Australian universities. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58 (5), 647–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185616639308

Bagilhole, B., & Goode, J. (2001). The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers: A feminist investigation. European Journal of Women's Studies, 8 (2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050680100800203

Baker, M. (2016). Women graduates and the workplace: Continuing challenges for academic women. Studies in Higher Education, 41 (5), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1147718

Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., Maercker, A., & Smith, J. (1995). People nominated as wise: A comparative study of wisdom-related knowledge. Psychology and Aging, 10 (2), 155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.10.2.155

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

BBC News. (2016). University wipes out gender pay gap with salary hike . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36444063

Becker, G. (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education . University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Blackaby, D., Booth, A., & Frank, J. (2005). Outside offers and the gender pay gap: Empirical evidence from the UK academic labour market. The Economic Journal, 115 (501), F81–F107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00973.x

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55 (3), 789–865. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20160995

Blinder, A. S. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. The Journal of Human Resources, 8 (4): 436–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/144855

Booth, A. L., Francesconi, M., & Frank, J. (2003). A sticky floors model of promotion, pay, and gender. European Economic Review, 47 (2), 295–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00197-0

Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59 , 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z

Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2013). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37 (1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312455524

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.951

Cama, G. M., Jorge, L. M., & Peña, A. F. J. (2016). Gender differences between faculty members in higher education: A literature review of selected higher educational journals. Educational Research Review, 18 , 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.03.001

Castilla, E. J. (2008). Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. The American Journal of Sociology, 113 (6), 1479–1526. https://doi.org/10.1086/588738

Castilla, E. J. (2012). Gender, race, and the new (merit-based) employment relationship. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 51 (s1), 528–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2012.00689.x

Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (4), 543–676. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543

Crew, T. (2020).  Higher education and working-class academics . Springer International Publishing.

Cullen, D. L., & Luna, G. (1993). Women mentoring in academe: Addressing the gender gap in higher education. Gender and Education, 5 (2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025930050201

Dannals, J. E., Zlatev, J. J., Halevy, N., & Neale, M. A. (2021). The dynamics of gender and alternatives in negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 (11), 1655–1672. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000867

Dittrich, M., Knabe, A., & Leipold, K. (2014). Gender differences in experimental wage negotiations. Economic Inquiry, 52 (2), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12060

Doucet, C., Smith, M., & Durand, C. (2012). Pay structure, female representation and the gender pay gap among university professors. Relations Industrielles/ Industrial Relations, 67 (1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.7202/1008195ar

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Eaton, A. A., Saunders, J. F., Jacobson, R. K., & West, K. (2020). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82 (3), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w

El-Alayli, A., Hansen-Brown, A. A., & Ceynar, M. (2018). Dancing backwards in high heels: Female professors experience more work demands and special favor requests, particularly from academically entitled students. Sex Roles, 79 , 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0872-6

Elvira, M. M., & Graham, M. (2002). Not just a formality: Pay system formalisation and sex- related earnings effects. Organisation Science, 13 (6), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.601.499

Fagan, C., & Teasdale, N. (2021). Women professors across STEMM and non-STEMM disciplines: Navigating gendered spaces and playing the academic game. Work, Employment and Society, 35 (4), 774–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020916182

Fritsch, N. (2015). At the leading edge – does gender still matter? A qualitative study of prevailing obstacles and successful coping strategies in academia. Current Sociology, 63 (4), 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115576527

Gallant, A. (2014). Symbolic interactions and the development of women leaders in Higher Education. Gender, Work and Organization, 21 (3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12030

Gamage, D. D. K., Kavetsos, G., Mallick, S., & Sevilla, A. (2020). Pay transparency initiative and gender pay gap: Evidence from research-intensive universities in the UK. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13635 https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13635/pay-transparency-initiative-and-gender-pay-gap-evidence-from-research-intensive-universities-in-the-uk

Gonäs, L., & Bergman, A. (2009). Equal opportunities, segregation and gender-based wage differences: The case of a Swedish university. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 51 (5), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185609346198

Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory . Oxford University Press

Hargens, L. L., & Long, J. S. (2002). Demographic inertia and women’s representation among faculty in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (4), 494–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777161

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart . University of California Press.

Howe-Walsh, L., & Turnbull, S. (2016). Barriers to women leaders in academia: Tales from science and technology. Studies in Higher Education, 41 (3), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.929102

Huffman, M. L. (2013). Organizations, managers, and wage inequality. Sex Roles, 68 , 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0240-5

Jacobsen, J. (2003). The human capital explanation for the gender gap in earnings. In K. Moe (Ed.), Women, family, and work: Writings on the economics of gender . Blackwell.

Jann, B. (2008). The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. The Stata Journal, 8 (4), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0800800401

Krefting, L. (2003). Intertwined discourses of merit and gender: Evidence from academic employment in the USA. Gender, Work and Organisation, 10 (2), 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.t01-1-00014

Leemann, R. (2010). Gender inequalities in transnational academic mobility and the ideal type of academic entrepreneur. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31 (5), 605–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2010.516942

Leslie, L., Flaherty Manchester, C., & Dahm, P. (2017). Why and when does the gender gap reverse? Diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women. Academy of Management Journal, 60 (2), 402–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0195

Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (2010). Meritocracy, difference and choice: Women’s experiences of advantage and disadvantage at work. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25 (3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011036374

Lips, H. M. (2013a). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations, perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles, 68 , 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z

Lips, H. M. (2013b). Acknowledging discrimination as a key to the gender pay gap. Sex Roles, 68 , 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0245-0

Littler, J. (2018). Against meritocracy: Culture, power and myths of mobility (1st ed.). Routledge.

Loacker, B., & Sliwa, M. (2015). Moving to stay in the same place?’ Academics and theatrical artists as exemplars of the ‘mobile middle. Organization, 23 (5), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415598247

Macarie, F. C., & Moldovan, O. (2015). Horizontal and vertical gender segregation in higher education: EU 28 under scrutiny.  Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society. Proceedings, 8 (1): 162.

Madrell, A., Strauss, K., Thomas, N., & Wyse, S. (2016). Mind the gap: Gender disparities still to be addressed in UK Higher Education geography. Area, 48 (1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12223

McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30 (3), 1771–1801. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800

Metcalf, H. (2009). Pay gaps across the equality strands: A review. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report 14 . https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-14-pay-gaps-across-equality-strands.pdf

Miller, J., Chamberlin, M. (2000). Women are teachers, men are professors: A study of student perceptions. Teaching Sociology , 28 (4) 283–298. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318580

Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T., & Alexander, A. (2008). Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on Politics, 6 (2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592708080572

Mumford, K., & Sechel, C. (2020). Pay and Job Rank among Academic Economists in the UK: Is Gender Relevant? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 58 (1), 82–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12468

Nakhaie, M. R. (2007). Universalism, ascription and academic rank: Canadian professors, 1987–2000. Canadian Review of Sociology/revue Canadienne De Sociologie, 44 (3), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2007.tb01190.x

Nielsen, M. (2016). Gender inequality and research performance: Moving beyond individual-meritocratic explanations of academic advancement. Studies in Higher Education, 41 (11), 2044–2060. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007945

Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14 (3), 693–709. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2525981

Ornstein, M., Stewart, P., & Drakich, J. (2007). Promotion at canadian universities: The intersection of gender, discipline, and institution. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37 (3), 1–25.

Peng, Y. W., Kawano, G., Lee, E., Tsai, L. L., Takarabe, K., Yokoyama, M., Ohtsubo, H., & Ogawa, M. (2017). Gender segregation on campuses: A cross-time comparison of the academic pipeline in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.  International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology ,  9 (1), 3–24. http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/409

Perkins, S. J., & White, G. (2010). Modernising pay in the UK public services: Trends and implications. Human Resource Management Journal, 20 (3), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00125.x

Perna, L. (2005). Sex difference in faculty tenure and promotion: The contribution of family ties. Research in Higher Education, 46 , 277–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1641-2

Priola, V. (2007). Being female doing gender. Narratives of women in education management. Gender and Education , 19 (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250601087728

Rabovsky, T., & Lee, H. (2018). Exploring the antecedents of the gender pay gap in US higher education. Public Administration Review, 78 (3), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12827

Rafnsdóttir, G., & Heijstra, T. (2013). Balancing work-family life in academia: The power of time. Gender, Work and Organization, 20 (3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00571.x

Reskin, B. F. (2000). The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemporary Sociology, 29 (2), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654387

Reskin, B. F., Roos, P. A. (2009). Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women's inroads into male occupations. Temple University Press.

Rottenberg, C. A. (2014). Happiness and the liberal imagination: How superwoman became balanced. Feminist Studies, 40(1) , 144–168. https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.40.1.144

Rottenberg, C. A. (2018). The rise of neoliberal feminism . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (3), 629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629

Saltmarsh, S., & Randell-Moon, H. (2015). Managing the risky humanity of academic workers: Risk and reciprocity in university work-life balance policies. Policy Futures in Education, 13 (5), 662–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315579552

Sarfaty, S., Kolb, D., Barnett, R., Szalacha, L., Caswell, C., Inui, T., & Carr, P. L. (2007). Negotiation in academic medicine: A necessary career skill. Journal of Women’s Health, 16 (2), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2006.0037

Sen, A. (2000). Merit and justice in meritocracy and economic inequality, in K. Arrow, S. Bowles, & S. N. Durlauf, (Eds.),  Meritocracy and inequality . Princeton University Press.

Shauman, K. A., Xie, Y. (2003). Explaining sex differences in publication productivity among postsecondary faculty. In L.S Hornig (Ed.), Equal rites, unequal outcomes (pp. 175–208). Springer.

Simpson, R., & Kumra, S. (2016). The Teflon effect: When the glass slipper meets merit. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31 (8), 562–576. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-12-2014-0111

Simpson, R., Kumra, S., Lewis, P., & Rumens, N. (2020). Towards a performative understanding of deservingness: Merit, gender and the BBC pay dispute. Gender, Work and Organisation, 27 (2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12397

Śliwa, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). The discourse of meritocracy contested/reproduced: Foreign women academics in UK business schools. Organization, 21 (6), 821–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413486850

Smith, M. (2009). Gender, pay and work satisfaction in a UK university. Work, Employment and Society, 16 (5), 621–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00403.x

Thornton, M. (2013). The mirage of merit: Reconstituting the ’ideal academic’. Australian Feminist Studies, 28 (76), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2013.789584

Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Avent-Holt, D. (2019).  Relational inequalities: An organizational approach . Oxford University Press.

Toutkoushian, R., Bellas, M., & Moore, J. (2007). The interaction effects of gender, race, and marital status on faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education, 78 (5), 572–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2007.11772330

Travis, C., Gross, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Tracking the gender pay gap: A case study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33 (4), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01518.x

Uhly, K., Visser, L., & Zippel, K. (2017). Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (4), 760–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1072151

Umbach, P. (2007). Gender equity in the academic labour market: An analysis of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 48 , 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9043-2

van Wanrooy, B., Bewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J., Freeth, S., Stokes, L., & Wood, S. (2013). Employment relations in the shadow of recession: Findings from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study . Palgrave MacMillan.

Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142 (2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039

Woodhams, C., Lupton, B., & Cowling, M. (2015). The presence of ethnic minority and disabled men in feminised work: Intersectionality, vertical segregation and the glass escalator. Sex Roles, 72 , 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0427-z

Xiaoni, R., & Caudle, D. (2016). Walking the tightrope between work and non-work life: Strategies employed by British and Chinese academics and their implications. Studies in Higher Education, 41 (4), 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.942277

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the provision of data from the two anonymised university institutions and to the anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Research was not directly funded.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK

Carol Woodhams

University of Exeter Business School, Exeter, UK

Grzegorz Trojanowski

Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK

Krystal Wilkinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Carol Woodhams and Grzegorz Trojanowski. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Krystal Wilkinson and Carol Woodhams and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol Woodhams .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

We do not have conflicts of interest or competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 18 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Woodhams, C., Trojanowski, G. & Wilkinson, K. Merit Sticks to Men: Gender Pay Gaps and (In)equality at UK Russell Group Universities. Sex Roles 86 , 544–558 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01277-2

Download citation

Accepted : 28 February 2022

Published : 12 May 2022

Issue Date : May 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01277-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gender pay gap
• UK Russell Group
• Discrimination
• Relational inequalities
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Bring photo ID to vote Check what photo ID you'll need to vote in person in the General Election on 4 July.

The gender pay gap in the UK: evidence from the UKHLS

Research into the main predictors of the gender pay gap.

Ref: ISBN 978-1-78105-875-6, DFE-RR804

PDF , 644 KB , 36 pages

This is a report on research undertaken by Professor Wendy Olsen, Dr Vanessa Gash, Sook Kim, and Dr Min Zhang on behalf of the Government Equalities Office.

The primary aim of this research is to identify the factors that influence the gender pay gap in the UK.

The work uses decomposition techniques to analyse the main predictors of the gender pay gap using waves of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) and the United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Survey (UKHLS) relating to 2014 to 2015.

The gender pay gap is the difference between men’s and women’s average hourly earnings.

Related content

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

• Leeds University Business School
• Departments

"Can Human Capital Theory Alone Explain the Variation in the Gender Pay Gap throughout the United Kingdom? A Comparative Case Study of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" by Courtney Owens

Can Human Capital Theory Alone Explain the Variation in the Gender Pay Gap throughout the United Kingdom? A Comparative Case Study of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

• Courtney Owens - Dissertation edit 2019 (PDF 1.06 MB) Download

Investigating the driving forces behind low pay and the gender pay gap

• Justice and Equality
• Risk, Evidence and Decision Making

Our research conducted with the Low Pay Commission has made a new contribution to the understanding of wage inequality in the UK.

Karen Mumford

Professor Mumford's expertise is labour economics. Her research topics include: wage bargaining, industrial disputation, employment dynamics, the relative labour market position of women and job satisfaction. She was appointed CBE for services to Economics and Labour Market Diversity in the 2016 New Year’s Honours List.

View profile

Peter Smith

Professor Smith is Professor of Economics and Finance. He is engaged in research in areas of financial economics, macro economics and labour economics.

Case studies

Read more examples of York research making a difference.

Explore more research from the Department of Economics and Related Studies.

Business and society

Explore more research from the School for Business and Society.

Rachel Reeves wants to end the UK’s gender pay gap for good – here’s how she could do it

Research Fellow, University of Sussex

Disclosure statement

Rachel Verdin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Sussex provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has declared she wants to end the gender pay gap once and for all. If Labour is elected, she said , firms would be required to publish action plans, increase the number of female executives and improve flexibility in the workplace.

These initiatives would be both necessary and welcome. Reeves may become the UK’s first female chancellor and finally closing the gender pay gap would be a historic achievement – boosting women’s earnings by as much as £55 billion a year . But is her plan bold enough to deliver on its promise? My research on the huge gender pay gap in the finance sector and exploring measures being taken in other countries suggests she may need to go further.

UK employers have been required to publish information about their gender pay gaps since 2017. The gender pay reporting regulations oblige firms with 250 employees or more to make public six calculations of their gender pay gaps on an annual basis.

The intention was to sharpen an organisation’s focus on equality, diversity and inclusion, and bring some much-needed transparency to the problem. In that sense, there has been some success. Observers can now monitor developments over time, by firm and sector.

However, in seven years the overall pay gap has reduced by only 1.2 percentage points from 12.8% (2017) to 11.6% (2024) . In some sectors, such as finance, gaps are significantly larger.

In 2024, the UK’s big four banks (Lloyds, HSBC, Barclays and NatWest) reported pay gaps as high as 48% and bonus gaps up to 74%. Goldman Sachs’ current gap is bigger than at any point in the last six years. The lack of movement in areas like corporate and investment banking has been described in evidence to parliament as “appalling” .

After the initial shock and media frenzy surrounding pay reports died down, it seems companies have become inured to the embarrassment of a bad report. It’s clear that naming and shaming organisations into action has failed.

Want more election coverage from The Conversation’s academic experts? Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you informed analysis of developments in the campaign and we’ll fact check the claims being made. Sign up for our new, weekly election newsletter , delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.

So how can we stop diversity-fatigue setting in and reinvigorate this agenda?

Reeves is right – simply publishing data about pay gaps is insufficient. She proposes, therefore, to demand that firms publish action plans that set out how they will close the gap. The idea is that compelling firms to have strategies in place will lead to reductions. However, many firms already voluntarily publish action plans alongside the mandatory pay gap information. So why hasn’t this led to more progress?

In my new book, Architectures of Inequality , I examine both progress and resistance in tackling the UK’s gender pay gap. My analysis of the plans published by firms in the finance sector shows that best practice initiatives, such as women’s networking groups and flexible working, have increased.

However, my research also shows that while firms are keen to trumpet flexible working policies, they often don’t “walk the talk”. Firms including JPMorgan and Nationwide are even rolling back on hybrid working policies. At the same time, much less is being done to improve internal transparency over pay, bonus and negotiation systems, which, despite good evidence that they are effective at reducing pay gaps, are routinely disregarded.

Let’s talk about pay

We know that no one likes to talk about pay. But practices such as salary secrecy, performance-related pay systems and individual pay negotiation only serve to reinforce and protect inequities.

The government made some attempt to address this with a voluntary pay transparency pilot scheme launched in March 2022. Participating employers committed to publishing salaries on job adverts. However, in line with previous failed voluntary policy efforts , salary transparency remained at an all-time low and, two years on, the scheme seems all but forgotten.

The UK is no longer a leader on this agenda and government and employers could learn from developments abroad. Australia , Canada and parts of the US have implemented more extensive transparency requirements, such as banning employers from requesting salary information from job applicants and enhancing the right of women to know what male colleagues earn.

Since Brexit, the EU has also adopted new rules on pay transparency , going far beyond the UK requirement . There are also mandatory quotas for the representation of women at board level .

To go further and faster in fixing the gap, the UK first needs to catch up , as two successive parliamentary inquiries have pointed out.

Given the UK’s lack of progress, Reeves’ renewed ambition to close the gender pay gap for good is very welcome. But to really shift the dial on gender pay inequity she may need to go further. Updating the outdated gender pay reporting regulations and legislating for greater pay transparency would be a good start.

• Labour Party
• Gender pay gap
• Rachel Reeves
• Give me perspective

Centre Director, Transformative Media Technologies

Stephen Knight Lecturer in Medieval Literature

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Social Media Producer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Library Dissertation Showcase

An exploration of gender pay gap reporting in twenty ftse 100 companies.

• Kelson Mears
• International Business
• International Business Management
• Year of Publication:
• BA (Hons) International Business Management

This document uses existing literature to identify and critically analyse the causes and the extent of the presence of the gender pay gap in the UK. The broad range of concepts introduced in the Literature Review allows an appreciation of the complexity involved in narrowing this disparity , revealing the need for societal changes as well as changes to corporate policies. Goal-setting theory is introduced also, with the aim of aiding in identifying potentially effective objectives within company gender pay reports. These reports, of the top twenty FTSE l 00 companies for female boardroom representation, are qualitatively analysed herein using a mixed methods approach of both thematic analysis (Saunders, et al., 2016) and data display and analysis (Miles, et al., 2014). Whilst there is a comprehensive range of existing research around the gender pay gap, as seen in the Literature Review, little research exists concerning the language of each company’s gender pay reporting and how effective the release of these reports is likely to be in accelerating the closure of the gender pay gap. The Methodology chapter will provide context to this research by presenting its paradigm and design, before defining and justifying how the research was carried out to the highest standards of validity and reliability. The Findings section will explore the discourse of gender pay reporting within the sample by using quotations to illustrate the companies’ efforts, concluding that companies are targeting the main causes of the gender pay gap identified in the Literature Review. Particularly: the issue of few female employees in senior and leadership roles; workplace cultures favouring men over women; and the labour market interruptions experienced by more women bearing child-raising responsibilities than men. However, these targeted efforts are not universally reflected by clear objectives and until this changes, progress within the companies to which this applies is likely to be slow. This research might be continued by examining in greater depth the gender bonus gap and the effect of long-tern incentive plans on the overall pay gap of senior roles. Additionally, research into the negative fulltime gender pay gap of Northern Ireland found on page 13 in the Literature Review, might be further explored.

PLEASE NOTE: You must be a member of the University of Lincoln to be able to view this dissertation. Please log in here.

We use cookies to understand how visitors use our website and to improve the user experience. To find out more, see our Cookies Policy .

• Economics Dissertations
• All Economics Dissertations

Analysis the Components of the Gender Pay Gap in the UK: What are the Main Components of the Gender Pay Gap, and to What Extent do they Contribute to this Inequality? (2010)

What is the size of the gender pay gap in the UK? What are the main components which contribute to this gap? There have been various changes in gender relations and labour market structure, all of which have affected the pay gap. Increase in women’s educational attainment, anti-discrimination legislation and changes in women’s attitudes towards work have all caused the gap to narrow in recent years.

The Oaxaca decomposition of the gender pay gap distinguishes between components that attribute to gender differences in productivity related characteristics and a residual component which is normally recognised as discrimination. This study of data from the 2010 British labour survey shows there is a gender pay gap of approximately 14.8% of which much is attributed to uneven distribution of sexes in occupational and industrial sectors.

However it is concluded that it is misleading to assume occupational and industrial sectors as productivity-related characteristics, nonetheless they are components which contribute to the overall gender pay gap.

Over the last thirty years, the full time pay gap has narrowed markedly while there has only been a slender reduction in the part-time pay gap. The introduction of the Equal pay act in 1975 has helped to reduce this inequality and today the pay gap stands at 18.4 percent compared to a much more substantial 30 percent before the act was introduced. Part of the gap can be explained by differences in the observed characteristics of both genders, such as education and experience. However, even once taking into account these factors affecting productivity a significant gap is left unexplained. This unexplained gap derives from either employer discrimination or non-observed productivity differential.

This dissertation will initially begin with of a brief history of the gender pay gap in the UK and then go on to explain the factors which contribute to the gap such as human capital endowments and discrimination. Following this there will be a review of previous literature, description of the data and variables which are to be used for econometric analysis followed by the analysis and empirical findings of my study. Conclusions will be presented in the final section.

• 12,000 words – 60 pages in length
• Excellent use of literature
• Excellent use of economics and data analysis models: Oaxaca Decomposition, Multi Collinearity, Chow Test, Ramsey RESET, Jarque Bera and Hetroskedasticity
• Well written throughout
• Ideal for any Economics student

1. Introduction

2. Background and Stylised Facts

3. Theoretical Background Supply-side factors Demand-side factors Occupational segregation Discrimination

4. Literature Review Human capital Social reproduction Monophony and Firm size Compensating wage differentials and part-time work Occupational segregation Discrimination

5. Data and Findings Sample selection issues

6. Variables and Hypotheses Dependent variable Explanatory variables Employment Labour market and industry Occupational segregation Household and Demographics Female and Female interaction variables

7. Methodology OLS-Regression and its limitations Criticisms of the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition

8. Econometric Results and Analysis Regression Overview Decomposition overview Findings for individual variables

9. Conclusion

Bibliography

How To Order

1. Dissertation cost £55 GBP

2. Click the PayPal button

3. Click the “Click Here” button on the PayPal page to submit your credit/debit card payment

4. We will email your chosen dissertation in PDF format within 24 hours

Dissertations

Help & advice.

No notifications.

Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here .

View full disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.

An Interdisciplinary Investigation of the Gender Pay Gap

Info: 14035 words (56 pages) Dissertation Published: 4th Jan 2022

Reference this

Tagged: Business Equality

Using existing theories of the gender wage gap, this study investigates unconscious gender biases, the motherhood penalty, and the uneven distribution of unpaid household and childcare labor as the main forces persistently maintaining wage inequality. Theories aspiring to explain the pay gap often turn to highly simplistic justifications that fail to acknowledge the dynamic nature of our inherent biases, systematic constraints and societal assumptions about gender that contribute to the pay gap. This study complements existing research on wage inequality through surveys of 445 individuals with and without children, and interviews of mothers, fathers, and young adults who want children in the future. Controlling for gender and parental status, female survey participants with children take on significantly more childcare responsibilities than men, and their careers are jeopardized as a result. In conjunction, both childless male and female survey respondents assume most of the responsibilities associated with childcare to be predominately a woman’s responsibility, despite equal rates of career development and advancement goals.

Keywords: Motherhood penalty, unconscious gender bias, parental leave, gender pay gap

Table of Contents

Introduction, aim of study and research questions, background information, parental leave policies around the world, existing theories for the gender wage gap, unconscious gender bias, negotiation differentials, corporate sponsorship, the motherhood penalty, research methods, survey data, interview data, description of findings, maternity and paternity leave, career advancement, career goals, interpretation of results and conclusions, implications and next steps, limitations and future research, appendix a: survey questions for childless participants, appendix b: survey questions for parent participants, appendix c: demographic information included in both surveys.

My research aims to identify discrepancies between men and women in understanding and assuming childcare responsibilities in order to recognize inequalities at home (in unpaid labor) that may translate to inequalities in paid labor in the formal work sector. Furthermore, I aim to understand the differences between those who speculate about having kids, and those who have kids, in order to determine if the gendered division of labor often seen in families with children is the most efficient, or if it is an assumption forced onto women and men by society. In my study, the gendered division of labor occurs when specific tasks and jobs are allocated to either a man or a woman simply based on their gender i.e. women are responsible for household duties because they are women. And finally, I aim to understand the various challenges faced by working mothers. Drawing from these goals, I formed the following research questions:

• Why does the gender wage gap exist and what can we do to close the gap?
• How do women and men perceive the division of labor?
• Are women and men’s careers affected differently after having children?
• Do women and men have different career goals in terms of growth and advancement?

Second-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s broadened the publics’ attitudes around education, family, the workplace and other gender inequalities, redefining women’s involvement in the public sphere, and helping reinvent the female identity. Today, both men and women are expected to pursue higher education and become financially independent, while only fifty years ago, over half of married mothers were primary caregivers and did not engage in paid labor in the formal sector (Parker & Livingston, 2016). Today, more women graduate from college than men and over 58% of women participate in the labor force (“Status of Women in the U.S.” 2017). Moreover, female engagement in the formal paid sector is associated with greater economic growth and development.

For example, companies with more women in leadership positions generate more profit (Noland et al., 2016), companies with ethnic and gender diversity are more innovative, and thus more competitive (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013) and companies with more female directors are associated with greater corporate sustainability (McElhaney & Mobasseri, 2012). Despite the clear economic advantages of women engaging in paid work, women experience a significant wage gap. Recent studies show that women make 20% less than men, controlling for education level and occupation, and this gap is even larger for women of color (“The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap” 2017). According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, on average, full-time employed women in the United States, in total, lose more than $840 billion every year, due to the wage gap. As a result, women have less money to support their families, themselves, and have less disposable income to support businesses (“America’s Women and the Wage Gap” 2017).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an increase in women’s human capital, education, and work experience has narrowed the earnings gap between men and women over the last few decades. However, the narrowing gap has significantly decelerated in recent years, suggesting other forces at play (Day, J. C., & Downs, B., 2007). According to economists and social scientists, 38% of the gender wage gap is completely unexplained (Blau, F., & Kahn, L., 2000) and, as I argue, potentially due to implicit and inherent biases, gender stereotypes, penalties associated with motherhood, and the unbalanced distribution of unpaid labor. Despite the shifting gender roles we have seen over the last 50 years, family planning, homecare and childcare is still severely gendered and unbalanced, creating a persistently unequal distribution of work, resulting in a continued earnings gap. Social scientists call this phenomenon the “second shift” describing the unpaid work mothers perform at home in addition to the paid labor they perform at work  (Hochschild, A., & Machung, A., 2012).

Factors contributing to the wage gap, I argue, are a result of institutional, structural, individual, and cultural sexism. Sexism refers to the unjustified negative behavior against either a woman or a man and is particularly used to represent discrimination against women and girls. The multifaceted nature of sexism makes solving issues of gender inequality extremely difficult. In a 1970 study on the processes and structures of professions in the United States, Cynthia F. Epstein, a leading sociologist and researcher on gender inequality argues that women’s participation in the formal sector is limited due to the male-dominated nature of most fields. She argues that “institutionalized channels of recruitments and advancement” are not available to women in the way they are to men (Epstein, C. F., 1970, p. 965). Although her study examines systems in the 1970s when gender equality was a fairly new idea, we still see signs of institutionalized sexism today. According to the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 45th out of 144 countries in gender parity and has an overall score of 0.722, and a score of 0.162 in political representation, where 0.00 = imparity and 1.00 = parity (“The Global Gender Gap Report” 2016). These data represent the institutional gender inequality on a national level.

Scholars often attribute gender inequality in the workplace and the gender pay gap to six distinct reasons including (1) work structure – such as inflexible working hours –, (2) women’s inability to negotiate their salaries both when they start a new job and when advancing their careers within an organization, (3) the lack of corporate sponsorship women receive, (4) the lack of women in C-suite (CEO, COO, CFO, etc.) and executive roles, making it harder for other women to rise up within a company, (5) the penalties associated with being a mother and (6) unconscious gender biases, all of which fall into one or more categories within sexism. The stagnant gender norms (despite the shifting gender roles) coupled with the aforementioned theories has left us with a pay gap that refuses to close. In a sociological framework, gender norms are what society considers either male or female behaviors, which by extension form gender roles, which are the specific roles men and women are expected to assume in society (West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H., 1987).

As stated earlier, gender roles are changing, while gender norms have remained stagnant for generations. For example, while today, it is expected for women to pursue higher education, advance professionally and become financially independent (when 50 years ago this was seen as a man’s responsibility), hence the shifting gender roles. However, gender norms have not changed; women are still expected to take on most childcare and household responsibilities (Sayer, L. C., 2005).

The United States is the only developed country in the world that does not have a mandatory paid parental leave policy. In the absence of such policies, traditional gender roles (where women are the primary “caregivers” and men are the “providers”) and the lower earnings of mothers due to the motherhood penalty (I will explore this more in depth later on) encourages women to cut back on paid employments and take on more child care responsibilities (relative to men) (Ray, C. Gornick & Schmitt, 2009). However, as researchers have shown, these policies do not necessarily lead to gender equality because childcare continues to disproportionately fall on women, essentially giving working women two full-time jobs (Aisenbrey et al., 2009; Albrecht et al., 1999), or a “second shift” (Hochschild, A., & Machung, A., 2012).

In the United Kingdom, parents who have been working for at least one year can take up to 280 days off for every child they have, and receive 90% of their pay, Germany provides 98 days of paid maternity leave at 100% pay, and Saudi Arabia provides 70 days of paid maternity and paternity leave at 50% pay (Downs & Wagner, 2013). Although the United States lags significantly behind other countries in providing appropriate time off to care for a newborn, providing mandatory or optional time off after a birth or adoption may not result in gender equality, or the earnings gap to close. According to researchers in the United States, Sweden and the Netherlands, any length of time mothers take off from work after childbirth (whether it be paid for and mandated by law or not) results in a career punishment (Aisenbrey et al., 2009).

In the United States, where there is no parental leave policy, mothers who take a short period of time off to care for their child experience some form of career consequences, and mothers who take a long period of time off move down in their careers and completely reduce their changes of upward mobility (Aisenbrey et al., 2009). In Germany, where law mandates a 98 day paid period for mothers, taking the full time off is shown to destabilize a mothers’ career (Aisenbrey et al., 2009). And in Sweden, where 480 days of paid time off is mandated, 90 of the days are allocated to the father (Gender Equality in Sweden [APA], n.d.) and 80% of their normal pay is given, women experience a negative effect on their careers when they take time off from work. Hence, even in Sweden where a lengthy legal parental leave is provided, if women want to advance their careers, they must return to paid work as soon as they can; “the longer women stay outside the labor market, the higher the depreciation of their human capital and consequently the lower the wage upon return to the labor market” (Aisenbrey et al., 2009, p. 3).

Family friendly policies aim to reduce gender inequality, but actually appear to do the opposite because both parents are not using them equally (Aisenbrey et al., 2009; Albrecht et al., 1999). Mainly women utilize gender-neutral family leave policies, while men take little or no time off from work to care for their children. In Sweden, for example, fathers took only 25% of the total parental leave in 2014 (Gender Equality in Sweden [APA], n.d.). This uneven distribution of childcare leads to gender inequality in paid and unpaid work. Thus, the solution to the gender wage gap does not simply lie in parental leave policies; rather, we must address the deeply imbedded institutional, structural, individual, and cultural sexism in order for us to reevaluate the distribution of labor.

In the following section I review literature on the gender wage gap in order to further understand the various explanations and theories for why the gap continues to persist. I analyze concepts including unconscious bias, negotiation differentials, corporate sponsorship, and the motherhood penalty. In order to shed light on the complex nature of the wage gap, my investigation is rooted in the analysis of gender wage gap theories from various disciplines including business, sociology and gender and women’s studies. By employing an interdisciplinary investigation of the wage gap, I aim to illustrate the dynamic nature of the issue, and help establish a framework for my own research and findings .

Unconscious bias, or implicit bias, refers to the attitudes and stereotypes that influence our understanding of the world and our everyday actions and decisions. These biases are automatic and completely unconscious. Unconscious biases often lead to discrimination, and greatly affect women both in academic and workplace environments (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). For example, studies have proven that when identical female and male candidates are being assessed, male applicants are seen as significantly more competent than the identical female candidate (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Van Vianen et al., 1992; Good et al., 2010). Unconscious gender biases come into play in various situations i.e. when a woman becomes a mother, and results in gender inequalities and by extension wage penalties that contribute to the wage gap.

Unconscious gender biases are often coupled with gender stereotypes, creating a highly gendered climate whereby men and women are raised differently, and given a different set of expectations. For example in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), the largest growing sectors, in 2009, women earned only 18% of all computer science degrees in the United States, and made up less than 25% of the workers in technology and engineering fields (Fisk, 2011). These data are often attributed to women’s lack of interest in these fields, however, Shelley Correll, a leading sociologist at Stanford University, argues that gender stereotypes and implicit biases may push women away from certain fields, and affects their performance, confidence, and how they are evaluated by others (Correll et al., 2014). Correll et al. argues that beliefs about gender create gender-differentiated double standards for men and women. Her study on the constraining effects of cultural understandings of gender on the career aspirations of men and women finds that when controlling for actual ability, because of these gender biases, women and men assess their own abilities differently, and thus form different career paths and aspirations. This study proves that women are not entering STEM because they are not interested or qualified; rather, they choose different career trajectories because of gender stereotypes and biases, which discourage women from pursuing these fields.

Unconscious biases can work in conjunction with other factors that contribute to wage inequality, such as how women are perceived when negotiating, establishing corporate mentorship and sponsorship, and when becoming a mother, and thus must be discussed and understood within the context of each of these issues. In the subsequent section of this literature review, unconscious gender bias is analyzed in relation to other factors contributing to the pay gap.

The gender wage gap is often attributed to salary negotiation differences between men and women that stem from the varying socialized behavioral norms and expectations, internalized sexism, and, as previously mentioned, unconscious gender biases. Socialized gender norms are seen as the “prototypes of essential expression” for either masculinity or femininity (West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H., 1987, p. 6), which establishes where we stand in society, how we relate to others, and how others relate to us. These socialized norms produce a dual effect that results in an immediate wage gap between men and women, regardless of skill level or experience. Scholars argue that these socialized norms lead to two distinct outcomes: (1) women are socialized to be kind, accommodating and less competitive and thus less likely than their male colleagues to negotiate in the first place, and (2) because society expects women to be kind, accommodating and less competitive, if they do negotiate, they are penalized for being “unfeminine” and as a result, risk jeopardizing their relationship with their managers, which can result in lower pay (Craver, C. B., 2002). Consequently, women are in a double bind.

When women and men negotiate, stereotypical beliefs and implicit biases about gender influence their interactions (Craver, C. B., 2002), resulting in an unequal propensity to negotiate, and by extension, unequal pay. Both women and men assume men to be more competitive, manipulative and win-lose negotiators, while women and men expect women to be more accommodating, win-win negotiators and less competitive (Craver, C. B., 2002; Bowles, H. R. 2013). These implicit biases cause managers to judge what men and women say and do differently, and for women, these biases work against them (Bennett et al., 2016; Blau et al., 2016). Women are socialized to feel “unfeminine” if they negotiate because they are perceived to be pushy or overbearing, making them less likely to negotiate in the first place. However, when women reject these socialized expectations and negotiate their salary, promotion, or benefits, they are more likely to elicit negative responses compared to their male colleagues (Blau et al., 2016). In a study on the social cost of negotiating, Bowles et al. (2005) found that male evaluators penalized female candidates for negotiating more than the male candidates, proving that even if we control for negotiation skills, educational level, and human capital, because of deep-rooted gender stereotypes, and implicit biases, women are unconsciously penalized and disadvantaged for negotiating.

Understanding negotiation differentials is important when discussing wage inequality, but we must be aware that controlling for these differentials does not solve the issue at hand. Even if we do control for these differentials – implicit biases, propensity to negotiate, and negotiation styles – women still do not advance to higher paying positions as frequently as their male colleagues, and still experience a wage gap.  The gender pay inequality is a multi-faceted problem that is caused and influenced by varying levels of sexism and therefore cannot be attributed to a single reason.

Sponsorship in corporate America is critical for career advancement and personal growth and development. Mentors and sponsors provide important coaching tools, advice and networks essential to younger employees trying to make their way up the corporate ladder. Mentees act as protégés and are trained and coached to stretch into a specific role, position or assignment for which their mentor or sponsor is recommending them for (Foust-Cummings et al., 2011). Sponsorship is particularly important for women because of the severe pipeline issue within the corporate structure. A corporate pipeline refers to the reduction of female employees within a firm, from entry-level roles, to senior executives. While entry-level positions have reached parity in many companies, the number of women at each level of the corporate ladder diminishes dramatically. For example, at PwC, a professional services firm, women make up 51% of the graduate intake, 47% of the global leadership teams, but only 18% of global partners (Women at PwC, 2017). This gradation seen at PwC is just one example of the pipeline issue within many companies, and corporate sponsorship is often used to mitigate this issue. However, unlike most men in corporate roles, women are less likely to have a mentor, and fail to cultivate the right kind of sponsorship (Hewlett et al., 2010).

According to Catalyst [1] research on women and men in the pipeline, when women’s mentors are highly placed within the organization, women are just as likely as men to get promoted. Thus, despite being equally qualified and competent as their male colleagues, women are not being propelled forward in their careers – and thus may experience a wage gap – because of a lack of the right type of corporate sponsorship. Furthermore, women may not be seeking sponsorship at all because the arrangement often involves spending one-on-one time with an older, married male, which can easily be perceived as an affair (again, relating to unconscious biases) (Hewlett et al., 2010). And lastly, cronyism (Epstein, C. F., 1970) and the existing stark difference in the number of men versus women in corporate leadership positions results in significantly fewer sponsorship or mentorship relationship opportunities for young female employees.

As research shows, corporate sponsorship is an effective tool used by both women, and men (although at seemingly different rates) to advance professionally. However, solving the disparity between the number of sponsored female and male employees does not address the other factors contributing to the gender wage gap, or other forms of gender discrimination. Even if a woman receives proper corporate sponsorship and advances professionally as a result (at equal rates to her male colleagues), if she decides to become a mother, she will experience significant career and wage penalties because of institutionalized sexism and gender biases.

The motherhood penalty is a term coined by sociologists who argue that relative to women who do not have children, working mothers face systematic disadvantages in pay, perceived competence, and benefits (Correll et al., 2007). In the United States working mothers face discrimination in hiring and promotion and suffer a wage penalty of approximately five percent per child (Katz, 2012). Moreover, for women under the age of 35, a larger pay gap exists between mothers and non-mothers than the pay gap between men and women (Correll et al., 2007), thus working mothers make up most of the gender pay gap.

In a study on the motherhood penalty, Correll et al. (2007) provide causal evidence proving that mothers experience discrimination in hiring, and by extension, other disadvantages in the workplace and in pay. They test the hypothesis that the motherhood penalty exists because cultural views of the “ideal worker” are antithetical to what American culture views as a “good mother”. An “ideal worker” is characterized as an individual who is committed to their work, and does not have any external distractions that could potentially get in the way of doing their job. An example of this would be dropping everything at a moments notice to take over a project, working late hours, and even coming into the office during the weekend (Correll et al., 2007).

Their study shows that when the qualifications and background experiences of fake applicants were held constant, but had varying parental status, employers unconsciously discriminated against mothers when making decisions about hiring, promotion, and salary assessments, but not fathers (Correll et al., 2007). Employers judged mothers as significantly less competent and committed than their non-mother counterparts (Correll et al., 2007) and by extension, discriminated against them when making hiring and salary decisions. In contrast, fathers were actually advantaged over childless men and were viewed as more committed to paid work and offered higher salaries (Correll et al., 2007; Hodges et al., 2010; Budig, M. J. 2014). When characteristics associated with motherhood are used to describe a worker, they experience negative biases stronger than those produced solely by gender alone (Cecilia et al., 2004). Because motherhood is seen as a status characteristic, it will implicitly lower people’s expectations for a working mother’s competence, aptness for authoritative positions, and raise the standards forcing women to work harder than their colleagues to prove her ability in the workplace (Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J., 2004).

The motherhood penalty is often attributed to women valuing family more than work and employment, and thus receiving lower pay. In a study on the relationship between endorsement of family and power, anticipated work commitment and expected peak pay, Lips et al. (2009) confirmed that men expect higher peak salaries and value power more and family less than women. However, for both men and women valuing power was a predictor of higher expected peak salary, and valuing family was a predictor of lower anticipated work commitment. For women, reduced work commitment meant that they had a lower anticipated peak pay, and for men, valuing family meant that they had higher expectations for peak pay. Thus, between men and women, expectations around work and family matters are perceived quite differently. For men, even if they valued family matters, their expectations for peak pay were still high, despite the belief that valuing family was related to lower work commitment (the study also found that men and women differ in their anticipated peak career salaries with men expecting to make, on average, $20,500 a year more than what women expect to make). Women on the other hand associated lower work commitment with lower anticipated peak pay.

As studies show, the motherhood penalty greatly affects the gender wage gap due to the deep-rooted cultural beliefs of what it means to be a good worker and a good mother. Cultural norms and ideologies about gender lead to unconscious biases against mothers, framing them as less committed to work, less available, and distracted, and thus experience discrimination in hiring, promotion, and pay. Although Correll et al.’s (2007) research confirms the theory that employed mothers experience a per child wage penalty, and that mothers experience discrimination during the hiring process, their findings cannot attribute motherhood as the sole reason for the wage penalty. There are many other institutional, personal, and cultural factors that have left us with a pay gap that refuses to close.

Through survey data and interviews, I attempt to identify discrepancies between men and women in understanding and assuming childcare responsibilities in order to recognize inequalities at home (in unpaid labor) that may translate into inequalities in paid labor in the formal sector. Furthermore, I aim to compare those who speculate about having kids to those who have kids in order to determine if the gendered division of labor often seen in families with children is the most efficient, or if it is an assumption forced onto women and men by society. Moreover, I aim to further understand the various challenges working mothers experience to help shed light on the injustices women face. My data are based on the surveys and interviews of individuals with and without children, resulting in 445 surveys and 10 interviews. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data aim to complement one another, supporting empirical survey data with lived experiences and stories.

My survey was informed by Professor Carol Kehr Tittle’s study from her book Careers and Family: Sex Roles and Adolescent Life Plans (1981), which aims to understand the varying expectations around careers and family between young men and women. Her study shows discrepancies between young men and women in understanding how having children will affect their careers, but no gendered differences in career aspirations. My study builds upon many of the questions from Tittles’ research, with added questions that aim to understand opinions on maternity and paternity leave, thoughts on career advancement after having a child, and career development goals. I also developed and distributed a second survey for individuals who already have children, which aims to understand how having a child affected their careers, and how the responsibilities associated with childcare were distributed between partners. By comparing the two groups­– individuals with children, and individuals without– I aim to observe trends, differences and themes. Thus, for my analysis, I controlled for parental status and gender, and did not control for age. In a few analyses, I also controlled for whether the male or female respondents want children in the future or not. This was to discard irrelevant answers related to having children.

I recruited study participants through online tools and social media platforms ­– Facebook, email, text, online community pages and forums – and by asking my community to distribute the survey to their own networks. My sample included 222 individuals without children, and 223 individuals with children. Though my respondents primarily female (277 women, 165 men in total), I made an overt effort to capture male respondents. A majority of study participants without children were between the ages of 18 and 24, while most participants with children were between 45 and 54 years old.

The survey was titled Career Development and Family Planning Survey to avoid gendered connotations that may otherwise deter potential male participants. I distributed the survey for 18 days, between the months of February and March. The survey was divided into two separate sets of questions – one set was for individuals with children, and the other was for individuals without children – in order to identify potential discrepancies between the two groups. I included important demographic information – such as socio-economic status, race and education- to identify and discuss potential intersections. Survey and demographic questions are listed in Appendix A, B and C.

Most of the survey response options were pre set, so participants for the most part did not have the option to give free responses. The purpose of this method was to easily identify potential trends in a purely quantitative manner. A few questions asked participants to explain their binary– either “yes” or “no”– responses so that I could incorporate important perspectives into the final analysis. For example, one question asked if participants want to go back to work after having a child. Following the question was a free response section asking them to elaborate on why they do or do not want to return to work. The quantitative survey data were analyzed using an online statistical analysis software [2] . I used a standard z-score calculation for two population proportions, since I was comparing responses between male and female participants and did not have an equal sample size for each cohort. The qualitative free-response survey answers were organized and analyzed based on similarity of the sentiments. For example, if several answers were describing similar ideas, they were grouped together to help identify recurring themes.

In order to supplement the survey data, I conducted a total of 10 interviews. I interviewed five men and five women, six were parents and four were not. The sample size is particularly small because I did not want to look for trends or common themes; rather, I wanted to listen to interviewees tell their stories about their careers and having children, in order to give life to the survey data. I left the questions from the interview fairly open-ended, mainly using the opportunity I had to listen and take notes. Important quotes from the interviews have been included throughout the following findings section. These quotes help illuminate important findings from the quantitative survey data.

My sample demographic predominately includes highly educated individuals from a high socioeconomic status. Nearly 50% of the respondents’ yearly household income before taxes is $100,000 or above, and 75.6% of the respondents have either earned, or are currently pursuing a Bachelors degree or higher, or some sort of professional or associate degree. Most survey respondents are from the Bay Area, emphasizing predominantly liberal political and social beliefs. For my research analysis, I successfully collected 445 survey responses, 277 women, 165 men, and three gender non-binary individuals. Of the 277 women, 158 were mothers and 119 did not have children, and of the 165 men, 62 were fathers and 103 did not have children. Because my sample included very few individuals who identified as gender non-binary, I did not include their responses in my analysis.

My findings are broken into three parts:

(1) Maternity and Paternity Leave ; where I discuss men and women’s opinions around parental leave and childcare resources, and compare their opinions to what occurs in reality i.e. comparing their opinions to what the parent participants actually did when they had children

(2) Career Advancement ; where I analyze the differences between men and women in how having children affects their careers, and

(3) Career Goals ; where I look at men and women’s opinions around career development and professional growth. In addition, throughout the discussion of my findings, I highlight important interview and survey quotes that aim to supplement the quantitative findings with qualitative stories, thoughts, and experiences.

Before I begin analyzing the data, it must be noted that from the sample of individuals who do not have children (this includes 222 total individuals who identify as either a man or woman), 75.7% of the childless men indicated that they want to have children in the future, while only 58.5% of childless women reported wanting children in the future. Moreover, 16% of women do not want children at all, while only 12.6% of men say they do not want children. Thus, the data show that significantly more men than women want children in the future, contrasting common discourse that women are more interested in family matters, homecare and childcare (Parker-Pope, 2012).

This discrepancy between men and women in wanting children may exist because women are aware of the disadvantages they will face if they have children. As Correll et al. (2007) show in their study on the motherhood penalty, when the qualifications and background experiences are held constant between men and women, employers discriminated against mothers, but not fathers (Correll et al., 2007) highlighting the disadvantages women face, but not men, when having kids. I will bring this particular result into discussion with later findings throughout the following subsections.

Of the 222 respondents without children, significant distinctions between men and women in thinking about maternity and paternity leave exists, supporting the claim that both men and women know that the burdens of having a child fall differently on them. Although men are more likely than women to want kids in the future, as mentioned before, they are less likely than women to think about maternity or paternity leave. For this analysis, I only included responses from those who want children in the future. Of this cohort there were a total of 70 female and 78 male respondents. The data show 93% of the female participants marked having thought about parental leave, while only 61.2% of men say the same, as shown in figure 1 below .

Figure 1- Figure 1 shows the number of childless individuals who have or have not ever thought about maternity or paternity leave. Survey respondents were asked to mark either “yes” or “no” to this question. For the purposes of this analysis, only childless respondents who indicated that they want children in the future were included, resulting in 148 total participants (78 male and 78 female).

This finding complements trends of the percentage of fathers who actually take advantage of paternity leave opportunities. For example, as mentioned before, in Sweden where a robust family leave policy is mandated by law, and a significant portion of the family leave time is specifically designated to men, fathers take advantage of a significantly smaller portion of the total parental leave time than mothers (Gender Equality in Sweden [APA], n.d.). Moreover, as shown in a study from the Center for Work and Family at Boston College, when fathers worked for a company that offered 6 weeks of paid paternity leave, only 7% of men took advantage of the full time (Harrington et al., 2014).

To further understand if study participants care about having a parental leave policy (provided by their employers) or childcare resources (such as an on site daycare), childless individuals were asked to mark various items they care about in their current or future careers. Respondents were not limited to a specific number of responses, so participants were able to check as many or as few as they liked. This was to gain a true understanding of what childless individuals want in their current or future careers without limiting them to a certain number of responses. The selectable items ranged from family planning and childcare resources to professional and personal development opportunities (for a list of all the questions, please refer to Appendix A). For this specific analysis, again, I chose to only include responses from men and women who indicated that they want children in the future. The data have been divided into two separate charts and subsections, divided between figures 2.1 and 2.2 . Items related to family planning and childcare resources are shown below in figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1- Figure 2.1 shows the percent of childless individuals who have indicated caring about having paternity leave, maternity leave, or childcare resources in their current or future careers. For the purposes of this analysis, only childless respondents who indicated that they want children in the future were included, resulting in 148 total participants (78 male and 78 female).

As figure 2.1 illustrates, from the sample of individuals, the largest discrepancy exists between men and women in item Maternity Leave (“ I want to work for a company that provides paid maternity leave” ). Here we can see that significantly more women selected this option, indicating that working for a company that provides paid maternity leave is important, mainly for women. Of the total of 70 female participants who want children in the future, 85% marked wanting to work for a company that provides paid maternity leave. Of the 78 male respondents, 53% marked this same category.

For item Paternity Leave (“ I want to work for a company that provides paid paternity leave”) , although more men selected this option than women (61% men and 48% women), this finding was statistically insignificant at the 5% significance level. In addition, item Childcare (“ I want to work for a company that provides free childcare services”) was also statistically insignificant at the 5% significance level (29% men and 40% women). Thus, from my sample of childless individuals, maternity leave is the only item where we see a significant gendered division.

This finding complements the Pew Research Center study on the American publics’ opinion on men and women taking time off from work following a birth or adoption of a child. The study shows that 15% of American adults say men should not be able to take paternity leave at all (either paid or unpaid) while only 3% believe women should not take maternity leave (Horowitz, 2017). Thus, the finding from the Pew Research Center corroborates the significantly higher percentage of participants who selected maternity leave as something important in their current or future careers. The data suggests that both women and men believe in dividing responsibilities in a gendered manner. I did not expect to see so few women from my sample select paternity leave as something important to them. I hypothesized that women would care about paternity leave at almost equal rates as maternity leave because of the significant challenges that are associated with having a child. I also hypothesized that because women are aware of the unequal division of labor, they would be more likely to prefer both maternity and paternity leave options. I will bring this result back into discussion in the section Career Advancement .

The higher percentage of women who selected maternity leave and not paternity leave does not necessarily suggest that both men and women prefer the gendered division of labor, but perhaps something assumed because of institutionalized sexism and gendered norms. In a 2017 study by the Council on Contemporary Families, young Americans were asked if they agreed with the statement “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family” . 74% and 52% of women and men, respectively, disagreed with this statement (Pepin & Cotter, 2017). Hence, almost 50% of men believe that men should be the financial achiever, and women should be the primary caregivers, while only 26% of women believe in such a gendered division. Thus, although significantly more women in my study care about maternity leave than paternity leave, these women may not necessarily agree with or want such a strict gendered division of labor –as shown in the study from the Council on Contemporary Families– but instead are complicit to such a division due to external forces of sexism (Epstein, C. F., 1970). These findings support the notion that women and men believe the effects of having kids will fall differently on them. Although significantly more men want children in the future than women, men are not proportionately thinking about the repercussions of having children, as shown in the number of men who have ever thought about parental leave, or care about having a paternity leave policy provided by their employers. In contrast, women want children in the future at significantly lower rates, but think about parental leave at significantly higher rates.

In order to compare childless respondents’ views about maternity and paternity leave to individuals with children, I asked mothers and fathers in my sample to indicate how much time they took off from work when they had their first child. From my sample of parent respondents, significantly more women than men took time off from work when their first child was born, and as a result, my data show that the mother respondents’ careers were affected (I will discuss the effects in the section Career Advancement ). From my survey sample, 93.6% of women took time off from work or were not working when they had their first child, while all men from my survey sample were working when they had their first child, and 55.6% of men say they took time off from work when their first child was born. Thus, 44.4% of men went back to work immediately after their child was born.

I expected to see such a result as research shows that most housework and childcare continues to fall on women (Hochschild, A., & Machung, A., 2012) and that men take advantage of parental leave policies at significantly lower rates than women (Harrington et al., 2014). It must be noted that because women are the ones who give birth and actually experience pregnancy, it may seem obvious that they take time off from work at significantly higher rates than men. However, regardless of this reality, these findings still suggest an unequal division of labor. Physically, mothers are able to return to work just a few weeks after giving birth (the speed of a woman’s return is influenced by factors including family structure, education level, and birth history) but the most important factor is whether or not the new mom had been working prior to giving birth (Han et al., 2008). This suggests that although women take significantly more time off after childbirth, they do in fact want to go back to work, but may not be able to because their partners are not present to take on more childcare responsibilities (I will return to this argument in the section Career Goals ).

To further illustrate the unequal division of labor, and external forces of institutionalized sexism, one interviewee describes why he was not able to take advantage of the full paternity leave provided to him, even though he wanted to. He currently works for a company with 8 weeks of paid paternity leave and 12 weeks of maternity leave. Although he was given 8 weeks of paid time off, he explains that he was only really able to take 2 weeks; “most men do not take advantage of the full paternity leave because of fear of getting paid less, our job bonuses are discretionary, and because of stigma”. This excerpt helps illustrate the external forces that may push women and men into certain roles, and demonstrates why men may not have the true opportunity to take on more childcare responsibilities, which by  extension, places it on women.

When asked “ Do you think it will be harder to advance in your career if you have a child?” 52.8% of childless women in my sample marked “yes” in response to this question, while only 25.3% of childless men marked “yes”. The 27.5% difference between men and women in regards to this question demonstrates the differential effect of having children. Significantly more women believe that having a child will make it harder to advance their careers, demonstrating the imbalance in assuming childcare responsibilities. This finding complements the 2013 study by Pew Research Center where among parents with some work experience, mothers with children under the age of 18 were three times as likely as fathers to say that having a child made it harder to advance their career. The study found that while 51% of women agreed with this sentiment, only 16% of men agreed (Parker, 2015). In addition, this finding complements existing research on the repercussions of taking time off from work to have a child. As Aisenbrey et al. (2009) show in their study on the effects of parental leave policies in the United States, Germany, and Sweden, mothers who take a short period of time off to care for their child experience career consequences, despite the number of paid days off provided by the government. Thus the 27.5% difference between men and women in believing it will be harder to advance their careers if they have children is expected and warranted.

This discrepancy was also touched on in several interviews, but one interview in particular clearly illustrates the external effects that jeopardize women’s careers. The following excerpt is from a mother of two young children who was forced to quit her job after having a baby. She worked in banking and finance when she had her first child and explains why she had no choice but to quit shortly after coming back from maternity leave : “Banking is a male dominated field. When I would leave my desk to pump, my manager would get upset because I wasn’t at my desk, and I was a high performing employee! I decided to quit my job after I realized that I was waking up my daughter after work to breastfeed her, and when I got home at 10 ‘o’clock at night when I got back from entertaining clients”. Here the interviewee describes how she was forced into a position where she had to completely pause her career for her baby because her employer did not provide proper care for her as a new mother. She stated later on that she never wants to return to her previous employer because of how poorly she was treated. Pausing her career now will have serious repercussions on career advancement later on (Aisenbrey et al., 2009; Correll et al., 2007) and by losing a high performing employee, the company experienced a significant sunk cost (Boushey et al., 2012).

To further illustrate the childless participant’s opinions on the effects of children on career advancement, parent participants were asked to indicate how their careers developed after having children. When asked “ What happened in your career within five years of having your first child?” the data show that mother respondents’ careers were impacted much more heavily than the male respondents. The survey data show that while 3.5% of women went from full-time to part-time and 6.3% of women stepped down to a less demanding role, no fathers from my sample experienced such career changes. Other important differences include the number of women versus men who quit their job within five years of having a child. While 16.1% of women say they quit their jobs, only 5.6% of men say they did the same. Additionally, only 12.6% of women were promoted within five years, while 25.9% of men reported to have been promoted within five years of having their first child, supporting Correll et al., 2007; Hodges et al., 2010 and Budig, M. J.’s 2014 studies proving that fatherhood is rewarded in paid work, while motherhood is penalized (Correll et al., 2007). Furthermore, the discrepancies between men and women in career advancement within five years of having a child confirms the views of the childless respondents on how having a child will affect their careers. Moreover, these findings may help explain why significantly fewer women than men in my sample want children in the future.

I was expecting to see differences between childless men and women’s responses to their thoughts on career advancement after having a child, however, these findings coupled with the results from Maternity and Paternity Leave displays an interesting result. As the data shows, significantly more women believe having a child will affect their career advancement. However the question remains as to why significantly fewer women care about paternity leave in their current or future careers. I expected to see significantly more women select paternity leave (which is why I allowed respondents to select as many options as they wanted), however seeing that women selected maternity leave at significantly higher rates than paternity leave suggest that women tend to internalize childcare responsibilities more than men.

While there are distinct variations between the male and female responses to questions related to the effects of having children, no such variation exists in relation to career goals and wanting to return to work after having a child. When childless survey respondents were asked to mark items they cared most about in their current or future careers, we see no gendered division in items related to career growth, promotion opportunities, and flexibility. The results are pictured in figure 2.2.

In item Growth (“I want to work for a company that has many opportunities for growth”) 84% and 85% of women and men, respectively, selected this option, showing us that both men and women care about growing professionally. Thus, my data show that there is no statistical evidence that suggests that either men or women care more or less about opportunities for growth.

Figure 2.2- Figure 2.2 shows the percent of childless individuals who have indicated caring about personal growth, getting promoted, work-life balance in their current or future careers. For the purposes of this analysis, only childless respondents who indicated that they want children in the future were included, resulting in 148 total participants (78 male and 78 female).

Similarly, in item Getting Promoted (“I care about getting promoted and making my way to the top of the company”) 65% of men and women in my sample selected this option, showing that both men and women, equally, care about advancing professionally. This finding complements research on career importance by gender of men and women between the ages of 18 and 34 from the Pew Research Center. The study shows that in 1997, 58% and 56% of young men and women, respectively, believe that being successful in a high-paying career or profession is “one of the most important things” or “very important” in their lives. While in 2010/2011, 59% and 66% of young men and women, respectively, agreed with the same sentiments (Patten, E., & Parker, K., 2012).

Moreover, my survey results contrast 1970s research findings indicating that females are inherently less motivated and less interested in advancing professionally (Horner, M. S. 1972). These studies show the clear reversal of traditional gender roles around work and careers. The subsequent items –work life balance, and flexibility– also show statistically insignificant variations between the male and female respondents, highlighting the lack of a gendered division in these categories. Thus, while women experience a greater pull from home and work roles than men (Farmer, H. S. 1987) my data suggest that their career aspirations are not altered as a result.

Furthermore, my data show that 93.9% and 95.6% of women and men, respectively, plan to go back to work after having a child, further demonstrating shifting gender roles and changed expectations around women and work. Today, men are no longer seen as the primary breadwinners, and women are just as likely as men to want to get back to work after having a child, despite the clear professional disadvantages women experience when having kids (Correll et. al., 2007).

To examine reasons for why survey participants want to return (or not return) to work after having a child, I listed a type-in sub-section where participants had the opportunity to freely express their opinions. Analyzing the text, I found two distinct trends that differentiated the female responses from the male responses. Many of the female responses expressed a sense of urgency in wanting to go back to work, such as by wanting to set an example for their children, or by maintaining financial autonomy. For example, an 18-24 year old female noted “I can’t see myself as a stay at home parent. I need to be working and equally contributing to the family finances. I don’t want to be dependent on my spouse’s income”.

Similarly, another 18-24 year old female states “ I don’t want to lose my self autonomy the way I watched my mother give up hers by quitting her job to raise kids”.

And finally, a 25-34 year old explains “I need to set a good example for my kids, one in which I show them how strong their mom is”.

In contrast, the male responses express an implicit assumption around going back to work after having a child. Their reasons for going back to work did not express urgency or desire to set an example for their children, rather, their responses expressed assumption about their role as the man in the relationship: “as the male in the partnership, a pregnancy will have no physical effect on me and will allow me to go back to work. Once past infancy I’m sure my partner and I will work out a schedule which would allow me to work full time”  (18-24 year old male).

The three females’ responses illustrate a sense of responsibility they feel in contributing financially to their families, the control they seek to maintain after having children, and the desire to set an example for their children proving to them that women can be mothers and maintain a career. The male’s response illustrates a slightly different reaction to this same question. His response actually includes his partners’ involvement, where he is assuming that his partner will be there for him so that he is ensured the opportunity to go back to work. This response in particular further emphasizes the idea that men and women assume childcare responsibilities differently. Similar to how significantly more women thought about maternity and paternity leave, and significantly more women also believed that having a child will affect their career advancement opportunities, the statement from this male respondent illustrates the assumption that as a man, he will go back to work after having a child, no matter what.

My findings show significant gender disparities in views related to maternity and paternity leave, childcare, and the effects of having a child on career advancement. The data however show no such gender disparity in ideas related to career goals, professional growth and development, and wanting to return to work after having a child. Thus, from my sample, women and men care about advancing professionally at equal rates, but at the same time, both women and men assume childcare responsibilities to be predominantly a women’s job. The findings from this study reinforce existing research on societal opinions on the division of labor, the shifting gender roles, and the motherhood penalty. The discrepancies shown in both samples (from individuals with children, and individuals without) show that unpaid labor and responsibilities associated with childcare are not only still highly gendered, but also expected, by both women and men, to be divided in this way. These findings suggest forces of institutional, structural, individual, and cultural sexism that affect how both women and men view and make sense of the division of labor. Cultural expectations about gender roles force women to take on a “second shift”, which as studies have suggested, may be a contributing to the wage gap.

As discussed before, my research and findings do not suggest that women and men must both do equal amounts of the same type of work in order for us to reach gender equality. I argue, instead that if a woman wants to take on most of the childcare responsibilities, she should be free to make that choice. And, if a woman wants to both have a child and advance her career, she should have the same rights and opportunities as a man to do so. This may be achieved by changing cultural norms around household and childcare labor, such as de-stigmatizing childcare for men so that they can take on more responsibilities without feeling societal pressures, and by implementing practices within corporate America that promote equal pay and gender equality.

In seeking to analyze the dynamic nature of the gender wage gap, this paper has argued that women and men perceive the division of labor differently –women tend to internalize childcare responsibilities, while men tend to assume responsibilities in the formal work sector– which results in inequalities in paid work for women. The data show that both women and men expect a gendered division of labor that puts most of the unpaid labor on women, which by extension, makes it harder for women to advance professionally. Despite these findings, survey data suggest that both women and men want to advance professionally at equal rates. However, because of institutionalized sexism (as shown in the stigma men feel around taking paternity leave, and the lack of parental leave policies) gender norms –and thus a gendered division of labor– is supported and encouraged by our current political and social systems (Epstein, C. F., 1970).

In order for us to achieve gender parity, we need to make changes on a national level. However, to begin this process, companies can make changes to end wage and workplace inequalities. Gap Inc. is an example of a Fortune 500 company that pays female and male employees equally and has equal representation of men and women at various levels of leadership and managerial positions. Kellie McElhaney, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, outlines a few practices that contribute to Gap’s success in achieving true equality, which can be implemented by other companies as well:

• Create a company culture that fosters the growth and development of all employees, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation (McElhaney, K., & Smith, G., 2016). In addition, create a culture that de-stigmatizes parental leave and encourage both mothers and fathers to take time off if they can.
• Analyze pay data often, and use this information to make internal changes to support and promote equal pay (McElhaney, K., & Smith, G., 2016).
• Develop a formal mentorship and sponsorship program that eliminates the need for side networking. If new employees are paired with senior employees through a pre-set system, biases and cronyism is mitigated.
• Provide family-friendly policies that support both men and women when they have a child (McElhaney, K., & Smith, G., 2016).

These methods have contributed to Gap’s success in achieving gender pay parity and a high representation of women in various levels of the organization (McElhaney, K., & Smith, G., 2016). Other companies may implement these approaches as well to work towards wage parity and equality within their organizations.

Although this research project was carefully constructed and carried out, there are a few limitations of the study that should be addressed in future research. Due to the small scale of the survey study, and how the survey was distributed (via my own social media platforms), I was not able to capture a diverse demographic. Most survey respondents were from very similar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, and thus, I was not able to discuss the issue of the gender wage gap in regard to varying intersections. For future studies, intersections such as race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation and educational background should all be considered in order to gain a holistic understanding of wage inequality. In addition, although I hoped to include fairly even numbers of male and female respondents, I had a particularly difficult time collecting survey data from men. Due to time constraints I was not able to spend more time targeting my survey distribution efforts to men alone. Moreover, because the survey was distributed via social media platforms within my network, I may have been unable to capture a larger male demographic. And finally, future research may need to control for age in a similar analysis in order to identify potential trends within specific age groups.

This study poses many questions for further investigation and research. Given the multifaceted nature of the wage gap, future research must be cognizant of cultural differences that may affect perceptions of the division of labor. In some cultures, gender is the determining factor for what roles and responsibilities one has, and may not be easily altered. Future researchers may want to explore the division of labor in same-sex couples. How do these couples divide household and childcare work? Do these couples gravitate towards normative gender roles (see West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H., 1987) based on the degree of their masculine and feminine qualities i.e. the partner with feminine qualities may take on childcare responsibilities, and the partner with masculine qualities may take on most of the financial duties? Other areas of study include analyzing male and female perspectives on the division of labor using a longitudinal analysis, the role of family members who help the parents with household and childcare work (and if their presence affects female labor force participation rate and career advancement trajectories), and the interaction between political party associations and beliefs on the division of labor. The gender pay gap is a multifaceted issue that must be addressed on a national level by our politicians, on a social level by businesses, and on an individual level by being cognizant of normative gender norms and unconscious gender biases. In order for us to fully close the wage gap, we need to make fundamental cultural changes to help foster inclusion, exercise equality, and eliminate all forms of sexism.

Aisenbrey, S., Evertsson, M., & Grunow, D. (2009). Is There a Career Penalty for Mothers’ Time Out? A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces ,  88 (2), 573–605.

Albrecht, J. W., Edin, P. A., Sundström, M., & Vroman, S. B. (1999). Career interruptions and subsequent earnings: A reexamination using Swedish data.  Journal of human Resources , 294-311.

America’s Women and the Wage Gap  (Rep.). (2009). Washington DC: National Partnership for Women & Families.

Bennett, J., Wariner, S., & Campbell, H. F. (2016).  Feminist fight club: an office survival manual (for a sexist workplace) . New York: Harper Wave, an imprint of HarperCollins .

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2016).  The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations  (No. w21913). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2000). Gender Differences in Pay.  The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 75-99. doi:10.3386/w7732

Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing  employees.  Center for American Progress ,  16 .

Bowles, H. R. (2013). Psychological perspectives on gender in negotiation.  The Sage handbook of gender and psychology , 465-483.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: situational mechanics of gender in negotiation.  Journal of personality and social psychology 951.

Budig, M. J. (2014). The fatherhood bonus & the motherhood penalty: Parenthood and the gender gap in pay.  Washington, DC: Third Way .

Budig, M. J., & Hodges, M. J. (2014). Statistical models and empirical evidence for differences in the motherhood penalty across the earnings distribution.  American Sociological Review ,  79 (2), 358-364.

Connolly, B. G., & Abrahams, B. G. (2014, October 27). Great Leaders Who Make the Mix Work. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2013/09/great-leaders-who-make-the-mix-work

Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?  1.  American journal of sociology ,  112 (5), 1297-1338.

Correll, S. J., Kelly, E. L., O’Connor, L. T., & Williams, J. C. (2014). Redesigning, redefining work. Work and Occupations , 41 (1), 3-17.

Craver, C. B. (2002). Gender and negotiation performance.  Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology ,  4 (3), 183-193.

Day, J. C., & Downs, B. (2007).  Examining the Gender Earnings Gap: Occupational   Differences and the Life Course  (Rep.). U.S. Census Bureau.

Downs, T., & Wagner, S. (2014, December 15). Parental leave laws in the U.S. and abroad: Evolving international standards (Part 1). Retrieved April 30, 2017, from http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/12/15/parental-leave-laws-in-the-us-and-abroad-evolving

Epstein, C. F. (1970). Encountering the male establishment: Sex-status limits on women’s careers in the professions.  American Journal of Sociology ,  75 (6), 965-982.

Farmer, H. S. (1987). A multivariate model for explaining gender differences in career and achievement motivation. Educational Researcher , 16 (2), 5-9.

Fisk , S. (2011). Negative Math Stereotypes = Too Few Women How Gendered Beliefs Funnel Women Away from Science and Engineering (and What Can Be Done about It) (Vol. 1, pp. 5-6, Rep.). The Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research.

Foust-Cummings, H., Dinolfo, S., & Kohler, J. (2011). Sponsoring women to success.  New York, NY: Catalyst .

Gender equality in Sweden | The official site of Sweden. (2017, January 09). Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://sweden.se/society/gender-equality-in-sweden/

Good, J. J., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: The costs of being a target of benevolent sexism.  Sex Roles ,  62 (7-8), 481-493.

Han, W. J., Ruhm, C. J., Waldfogel, J., & Washbrook, E. (2008). The timing of mothers’  employment after childbirth.  Monthly labor review/US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ,  131 (6), 15.

Harrington, B., Van Deusen, F., Sabatini Fraone, J., & Eddy, S. (2014). The New Dad: Take Your Leave: Perspectives on Paternity Leave from Fathers, Leading Organizations, and Global Policies.  Boston, Mass: Boston College Center for Work & Family .

Hewlett, S. A., Peraino, K., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2010).  The sponsor effect: Breaking through the last glass ceiling . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2012).  The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home . Penguin.

Hodges, M. J., & Budig, M. J. (2010). Who gets the daddy bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings.  Gender & Society ,  24 (6), 717-745.

Horner, M. S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement‐related conflicts in  women.  Journal of Social issues ,  28 (2), 157-175.

Horowitz, J. M. H. a. (2017, March 27). About one-in-seven Americans don’t think men should be able to take any paternity leave. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/27/about-one-in-seven-americans-dont-think-men-should-be-able-to-take-any-paternity-leave/

Joanna Pepin and David Cotter: Trending Towards Traditionalism? Changes in Youths’ Gender Ideology. (2017, March 31). Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://contemporaryfamilies.org/2-pepin-cotter-traditionalism/

Kricheli-Katz, T. (2012). Choice, Discrimination, and the Motherhood Penalty. Law & Society Review , 46 (3), 557–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00506.x

Lips, H., & Lawson, K. (2009). Work values, gender, and expectations about work commitment and pay: Laying the groundwork for the “motherhood penalty”?.  Sex Roles ,  61 (9-10), 667-676.

McElhaney, K. A., & Mobasseri, S. (2012). Women create a sustainable future.  UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, October .

McElhaney, K., & Smith, G. (2016).  Eliminating the Pay Gap: An Exploration of Gender Equality, Equal Pay, and A Company that Is Leading the Way  (Rep.). UC Berkeley.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,  109 (41), 16474-16479.

Noland, M., Moran, T., & Kotschwar, B. R. (2016). Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey.

P. (n.d.). Gender Diversity International Women’s Day. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from  http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/diversity/women-at-pwc/internationalwomensday.html

Parker-Pope, T. (2012, March 22). Do Women Like Child Care More Than Men? Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/do-women-like-child-care-more-than-men/

Parker, K,. & Livingston, G. (2016, June 16). 6 facts about American fathers. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.ord/fact-tank/2016/06/16/fathers-day-facts/

Parker, K. (2015, March 10). Despite progress, women still bear heavier load than men in balancing work and family. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/10/women-still-bear-heavier-load-than-men-balancing-work-family/

Patten, E., & Parker, K. (2012, April 19). A Gender Reversal On Career Aspirations. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/04/19/a-gender-reversal-on-career-aspirations

Ray, R., Gornick, J. C., & Schmitt, J. (2008). Parental leave policies in 21 countries.  Assessing generosity and gender equality .

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Motherhood as a status characteristic.  Journal of Social Issues ,  60 (4), 683-700.

Sayer, L. C. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work and free time.  Social forces ,  84 (1), 285-303.

State Data. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2017, from https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/state-data/united-states/#employment-earnings

The Global Gender Gap Report 2016 (Rep.). (n.d.). World Economic Forum. Retrieved March 14, 2017.

The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap (Spring 2017). (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2017, from http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

Tittle, C. K. (1981). Careers and family; sex roles and adolescent life plans.

Van Vianen, N. E., & Willemsen, T. M. (1992). The Employment Interview: The Role of Sex Stereotypes in the Evaluation of Male and Female Job Applicants in the Netherlands1.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology ,  22 (6), 471-491.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society , 1 (2), 125–151.

[1] Catalyst is a nonprofit organization with a mission to accelerate progress for women through workplace inclusion. They provide extensive research available to the public and help companies become more diverse and inclusive.

[2] Z Score Calculator for 2 Population Proportions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2017, from http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/ztest/Default2.aspx

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

• Dissertation Writing Service

• Dissertation Proposal Writing Service

• Topics and Titles Writing Service

Related Content

Content relating to: "Equality"

Equality regards individuals having equal rights and status including access to the same goods and services giving them the same opportunities in life regardless of their heritage or beliefs.

Related Articles

Disproportionate Policing Against Certain Social Groups

Discuss the proposition that contemporary forms of policing and/or social control are used disproportionally against particular social groups and assess the implications of this. Social control ca...

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established in 1975 and since this time sexual harassment has been one of its major issues that arise in the workplace on a day to day basis....

Multicultural Competence of Resident Assistants in Residence Halls: The Impact of Diversity Training

This paper aims to investigate why resident assistants (RAs) need to be multiculturally competent and how can diversity training help facilitate this process....

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please:

Our academic writing and marking services can help you!

• Marking Service
• Samples of our Service
• Full Service Portfolio

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your university studies!

• Dissertation Examples
• Dissertation Proposal Examples
• Example Dissertation Titles
• Example Dissertation Topics
• How to Write a Dissertation
• Free Resources Index

We use cookies to improve our website. If you continue , we'll assume that you agree to our cookie policy .

Page navigation

The graduate gender pay gap.

Micha-Shannon Smith

The latest data shows that, while the gender pay gap is wider for non-graduates, it is still sizeable among those who have studied at university. But how does the UK compare on the international stage?

Recent data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggests the difference in pay between men and women is at its lowest since the survey began in 1997. 1

Down half a percentage point from 2017, the latest figures indicate an 8.6% gap in earnings between men and women in full-time employment. The gap widens to 17.9% when the earnings of part-time workers are taken into account. 2

However, it's important to note that the difference in earnings between those aged 18 to 39 was found to be close to zero in 2018, a fact that highlights the complex nature of this issue. 3

While there is no definitive answer as to why this gap exists, multiple contributing factors have been identified. One is the level of education an individual has attained, as the difference between male and female pay is much greater among non-graduates than it is among graduates.

Nevertheless, a sizeable gap does exist between male and female graduates.

The graduate gap

New experimental Graduate Outcomes data from HESA reveals that 15 months after their 2018 graduation, male graduates were paid 10% more than female graduates. 4

Further, recent research has shown that, in the UK, once differences in 'pre-university characteristics' are accounted for, attaining a university-level education increases women's earnings by 28% on average at age 29, compared with an 8% increase for male graduates at the same age. 5

Nevertheless, despite these generous returns, female graduates continue to find themselves earning less than their male counterparts throughout all stages of life, with Department for Education figures showing that the median earnings of women five years after graduation are £3,600 less than that of men at £24,700 and £28,300 respectively. 6

And whereas the average median income of women typically increases with time after graduation, it increases for men at a much more rapid pace. An 8% gap in favour of men one year after graduation extends to 11% three years after, 15% five years after and 31% ten years after. 7 These figures are alarming, although on closer inspection the complexity of the situation becomes even more apparent.

Across OECD countries, tertiary educated women in full-time employment only earn, on average, 75% of the earnings of men.

The impact of subject choice

A major contributor to this trend is motherhood. Regardless of the fact that attending university reduces the likelihood of a woman having children by the age of 34, there is no evidence to suggest that this effect continues into their early 40s. 8

Interestingly, it is from this point onward that the gap widens and both economic inactivity and part-time work become much more prevalent among female graduates. This may help to explain why fewer women are found to be in either leadership roles or the top salary quartile, as part-time employees tend to receive lower pay, with evidence also suggesting that they are presented with fewer opportunities for career progression. 9

Ostensibly, it is true that 'the motherhood factor' can help to explain the unequal returns that women receive years after graduation in comparison to men. However, it does not help to explain the existence of such a gap before 40. Choice of degree subject and university can also have an effect on graduate outcomes.

Women are more likely to enrol onto courses associated with lower returns. 10 For instance, the humanities, associated with lower earning potential than STEM subjects, are dominated by women , who made up 64% of all graduates in these subjects in 2016/17. Women accounted for just 4% of technology, engineering and maths graduates .

This issue is further compounded by the propensity for women to 'settle' for lower pay regardless of the occupation in question. Even when surveyed, women’s expectations for a starting salary were found to be 15% lower than that of men. 11

International comparisons

While the UK does have an issue with differences in pay between male and female graduates, it is not alone in this respect, as women do not earn as much as men in any OECD or partner country. 12

In fact, not only is the UK's gap between male and female graduates smaller than both the OECD and EU23 average, but we can also see that out of 36 OECD countries, the UK has the 13th smallest gap, one that is not much wider than that of the countries preceding it – with Costa Rica being the exception. 13 However, the pay gap between men and women working in education is larger than any other OECD member country, with women in this sector earning just 60% of the earnings of tertiary educated men. 14

Across OECD countries, tertiary educated women in full-time employment only earn, on average, 75% of the earnings of men, a figure which shrinks by 6% when those employed on a part-time basis are taken into account. This gap is very similar to that of the UK where tertiary educated women in full-time employment make 78% of the earnings of men according to OECD data, which is equal to that of both Switzerland and Spain, but smaller than that of the United States and Canada - standing at 71% and 73% respectively. 15 16

Similar to the UK, there is no single reason that can explain the gaps between genders across OECD counties. In some countries significant numbers of women go on to raise a family full time after leaving education. On the other hand are longstanding issues of gender stereotyping, discrimination and the weight of social conventions. Nevertheless, particular emphasis is put on the subject choices of women, as the trend of women studying subjects associated with lower earning potential is replicated across OECD countries.

There are actions being taken to address the gap between male and female wages, with campaigns such as WISE being employed to encourage women to choose subjects associated with greater returns. However, it is hard to imagine the gap closing completely without significant societal shifts.

1. The Gender Pay Gap: 2018 Briefing , Institute of Economic Affairs, 2018.

2. Gender pay gap in the UK: 2018 , Office for National Statistics, 2018.

4. Higher Education Graduate Outcomes Statistics: UK, 2017/18 - Summary , HESA, 2020.

5. The impact of undergraduate degrees on early-career earnings , IFS, 2018.

6. Graduate outcomes (LEO): Employment and earnings outcomes of higher education graduates by subject studied and graduate characteristics in 2016/17 , Department for Education, 2019.

8. The impact of higher education on the living standards of female graduates , IFS, 2018

9. The Gender Pay Gap: 2018 Briefing , Institute of Economic Affairs, 2018.

10. Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators , OECD, 2019.

11. What do graduates want? 2019 , Bright Network, 2019.

12. Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators , OECD, 2019.

14. See graph on page 88

16. See table on page 93

Tagged with

Was this page useful.

Thank you for your feedback

Get insights in your inbox!

Almost there!

Check your email to confirm.

Waiting for the subscription response...

Related articles

Loading articles...

{{article.data.article_title.value.text}}

{{article.data.author.linkedDocumentContent.full_name.value.text}}

{{article.date}}

This article is tagged with:

Event: {{article.data.page_title.value.text}}.

{{article.data.city.value}}

This event is tagged with:

Gender pay gap reporting: Understand what it is, if you need to report and why

Learn about the gender pay gap, find out which employers need to report on it and understand why it's important

This guide is designed to help employers understand more about the gender pay gap and find out if they need to report on it. It provides a summary of the regulations, which organisations they apply to, and what happens if you don’t report your gender pay gap figures. It explains what the gender pay gap is, what causes it, why it needs to be tackled, and why gender pay gap reporting has been introduced.

There has been a government consultation since gender pay gap reporting was introduced, looking at mandatory reporting of ethnicity pay data and, although there is not a legal requirement, some organisations are already reporting. We strongly encourage you to also report on ethnicity pay gaps. For more information, see the CIPD guide on Ethnicity pay reporting .

The CIPD provides information on the legislation relating to gender pay gap reporting in our dedicated member resource. This legal information provided is for guidance only and if your organisation is following related legal proceedings, you should seek further legal advice from a specialist solicitor. 

For guidance on how to calculate and publish your gender pay gap report refer to our guide on calculation and publication

What is the gender pay gap.

The gender pay gap is a measure of labour market or workplace disadvantage, expressed in terms of a comparison between men’s and women’s average (median) hourly rates of pay. It’s about pay, but also about other factors, such as occupational segregation, or the fact that in the main it’s women who look after children and other dependants.

Gender pay gap reporting doesn’t specifically ask who earns what, but what women earn compared with men. It provides a framework within which gender pay gaps can be surfaced, enabling us to constructively consider why they exist and what to do about them.

The gap can be measured in various ways, and it’s important to understand how, in any specific context, the gap is being measured. A gender pay gap can be expressed as:

• A positive measure, for example, a gap of 13.9% – this indicates the extent to which women earn, on average, less per hour than their male counterparts.
• A negative measure, for example, a gap of −9.2% – this indicates the extent to which women earn, on average, more per hour than their male counterparts. This may happen, for example, if you employ a high proportion of men in low-paid, part-time work, and/or your senior and higher-paid employees are women.

Example: A negative gender pay gap

Avocet Care employs 305 staff across six residential homes providing specialist dementia care. The employees are predominantly female. The highest-paid employees are highly qualified nursing and managerial staff, only three of whom are male. At each home four to five men are employed as maintenance staff and drivers. These jobs are relatively low paid.

Avocet’s mean and median gender pay gap calculations show gaps in favour of women, and its pay quartiles show the predominance of women in all four quartiles. The company does not pay bonuses.

In its narrative Avocet points to the predominance of women in the care home sector, and to the shortage of suitably qualified male carers. It also sets out what action it is taking to recruit more men into its caring and nursing roles, and explains that, given its mixed-sex client profile, attracting more men is a business priority.

To fully understand the gender pay gap, we need to think about it in three different ways:

• As a measure of labour market disadvantage – for example, throughout the economy, women are concentrated in lower-paid jobs.
• As a measure of workplace disadvantage – for example, women in your organisation are concentrated in lower-paid jobs; this is where the government wants you to act. Taking steps to reduce the gap at workplace level will help narrow the gap at national level.
• As a measure of the difference between the individual earnings of a man and a woman – a difference doesn’t automatically mean that the woman is missing out on equal pay. To be entitled to equal pay, a woman must be employed by the same employer, on the same terms and conditions, and the work that she does has to be equal to that being done by her male colleague. And even then, there may be an acceptable reason for the pay difference, such as location. However, it’s also important not to lose sight of the fact that unequal pay may be contributing to the gender pay gap.

Gender pay gaps are the outcome of economic, cultural, societal and educational factors. Some argue that they reflect personal choice but, although the decision to seek paid employment may be an individual choice, that choice is strongly influenced by matters outside of the individual’s control, such as the availability and affordability of childcare, and it is still the case that the choices available to women are more constrained than those available to men. The key influences on the gender pay gap are summarised in figure 1.

Unpaid caring responsibilities

The cost of childcare has been identified as a particular problem that affects women’s participation in the labour market. A 2017 report from Working Families found that childcare costs account for a significant proportion of family expenditure and that the high cost of childcare has a great influence on whether parents, particularly mothers, choose to either give up work or reduce their working hours. And, in so far as the care of adults is concerned, women are more likely than men to be carers.

Women as unpaid carers: A survey carried out by Carers UK in 2022 found that 80% of carers are female .

Between 2000 and 2015, time spent caring for adults by people aged over 50 has increased, but there is concern that there may not be enough unpaid carers to meet future demand. Factors such as increasing female employment, fewer children and higher divorce rates among men over 60 years may affect the future availability of children to provide unpaid care for their elderly parents. In 2015/16, an estimated 345,000 unpaid carers aged 16-64 in England, predominantly women, left employment to provide care.

In 2022, 600 people a day, on average, left work to take on caring responsibilities, and 75% of carers still in employment worry about juggling work and care.

Occupational segregation

Despite half a century of equalities legislation, the UK labour market remains highly segregated, with men dominating some types of job and women others; many women are concentrated in the ‘five Cs’ of caring, cleaning, catering, clerical and cashiering, all of which tend to be lower paid. In terms of the gender pay gap, the problem with occupational segregation is not that men and women are doing different types of work, but that segregation is associated with these jobs being valued differently. The introduction of the National Minimum Wage and the National Living Wage provides a wage floor for the lowest-paid jobs but does nothing to challenge any underlying undervaluation of the work.

In terms of gender pay gap reporting, a lot of attention has been paid to vertical segregation – jobs in the higher echelons of an organisation being dominated by men – but horizontal segregation also contributes to the gender pay gap. Horizontal segregation occurs lower down the hierarchy and manifests as men and women doing distinctly different types of work, with the ‘male’ jobs being paid more than the ‘female’ jobs. When the reverse is true – the ‘female’ jobs being paid more than the ‘male’ jobs – a negative gender pay gap may arise. In the first two years of gender pay gap reporting, some employers have been paying increasing attention to the impact of horizontal segregation and are looking to find ways of tackling it.

Pay discrimination

In terms of the gender pay gap’s contribution to actual inequalities in pay, horizontal occupational segregation presents a high risk of equal pay claims, as does a high mean bonus gap. We look at this later in What your measures tell you , but it would be sensible to take account of the risk of equal pay claims being brought. In 2017/18, the Employment Tribunal received 35,558 equal pay claims . In 2018/19 the figure fell to 26,860, but as the reports only provide the headline figures for the number of cases filed, it is not possible to form a view as to why there has been a substantial drop.

Part-time working

Looking only at part-time employees, we see a negative gender pay gap, with median pay for part-time employees being higher for women than for men . However, hourly rates of pay for part-time work tend to be lower than for full-time work and, with such a high percentage of women working part-time, their low hourly rates of pay mean that the gender pay gap for all employees is greater than that for full-time employees alone. Seventy-one per cent of part-time workers are women; 38% of women work part-time, compared with 14% of men. And whereas men tend to work part-time at the beginning and end of their working lives, women do so in their middle years.

As well as the moral case for making access to work and progression opportunities more equal for men and women, the economic benefits of closing the gap are considerable. Because of this, the government considers that the rate of progress is too slow and has committed to closing the gap within a generation. Gender pay gap reporting is one way of fulfilling that commitment. We look at the benefits in more detail in the section 'Why should the gender pay gap be addressed?’.

Promoting pay transparency

Pay transparency, which provides people with the information to assess the fairness of the way in which pay is allocated, is increasingly being demanded by regulators and the public. For some time now, companies have been required to disclose their directors’ pay, while public bodies must disclose the pay of their senior officers.

The pay transparency afforded by gender pay gap reporting helps to illuminate the structural drivers of inequality, such as occupational segregation or the unequal distribution of family responsibilities.

It also prompts employers to examine structural or cultural barriers within the organisation that may be contributing to the pay gap and, ideally, tackle them. In other words, addressing the factors that are creating a ‘glass ceiling’, preventing women from progressing to the most senior roles.

Gender pay gap reporting is also consistent with the kind of transparency that has long been required by the equal pay legislation, namely that everyone involved in a pay system should know how it operates. This means employees and their managers knowing what an employee must do to earn each component of their pay packet. For example, what does an employee have to do to earn their salary, or why does one employee receive a particular allowance, but another employee doesn’t?

Putting the kind of transparency afforded by the equal pay legislation alongside gender pay gap reporting means we have the information needed to uncover the causes of gender pay inequality. An example of how, in the context of gender pay gap reporting, these two kinds of transparency complement each other would be to know why you are paying someone a bonus, information which could help you to explain the bonus gap reported in your gender pay gap report.

At whole economy level, the gender pay gap is calculated from data drawn from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), which is carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). ASHE is based on a 1% sample of employee jobs, drawn from HMRC Pay As You Earn records. ASHE collects information on the levels, distribution and make-up of earnings and hours paid. Results are produced by gender and by various industrial, occupational and geographic breakdowns, as well as by public and private sectors and by age group.

In the absence of an annual report on the overall gender pay gap in the UK (such as, for example, that produced by Belgium ), ASHE is the key official source of information on the gender pay gap in the UK, but to get a full picture of women’s earnings relative to men’s, it’s important to read the annual survey in its entirety, and not just the section on the gender pay gap. Knowing, say, that average earnings in the private sector are lower than those in the public sector, and that in 2018 earnings growth was greater for full-time than for part-time workers , helps to put the gender pay gap into context.

In April 2023, the UK’s gender pay gap for full-time employees was 7.7%, meaning that average pay for full-time female employees was 7.7% lower than for full-time male employees, or for every £1 a full-time male employee earned, a full-time female worker earned 92.3 pence.

Among all employees, the gender pay gap decreased to 14.3% from 14.9% in 2022. The Office for National Statistics notes that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, earnings estimates were affected by changes in composition of the workforce and the impact of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) making interpretation difficult. Additionally, data collection disruption and lower response rates mean that, for 2020 and 2021, data were subject to more uncertainty and should be treated with caution.

Source:  The gender pay gap 2023

How the ONS estimates the UK gender pay gap

The ONS estimates the gender pay gap based on hourly earnings, excluding overtime, and bases its calculations on median rather than mean earnings.

• Hourly earnings are used because they take account of the fact that men are proportionally more likely than women to work full-time. At ages 16–21, men’s jobs are split almost equally between full-time (52.1%) and part-time (47.9%), but, between the ages of 30–39 and 40–49, more than 90% of men’s jobs are full-time (93.7% and 92.8% respectively). For women, only 67.5% (ages 30–39) and 64.1% (ages 40–49) hold full-time jobs.
• Overtime is excluded because, as it is still in the main women who bear the day-to-day responsibility for looking after children or dependent relatives, they are less likely than men to work overtime.
• The ONS prefers median rather than mean earnings because the median is not affected by extreme values. However, as the mean gap captures the fact that the upper end of the earnings distribution is dominated by men, the mean is an important measure of women’s labour market disadvantage.

Women’s patterns of paid work differ from those of men, and this can put them at a disadvantage, but men’s and women’s work experience is converging – the proportion of men working part-time, for example, rose from around 7% in 1992, to 13% in 2010 and to 15.2% in 2021. And for women, full-time employment has grown more quickly than part-time employment.

While the baseline measurement for both ASHE and gender pay gap reporting is of hourly earnings, it’s also possible to calculate the gender pay gap by weekly, monthly and annual earnings, and by occupation, age, ethnicity and disability status, and to analyse the gap at various points in the earnings distribution. You probably feel that the six measures you are being asked to produce are more than enough, but it’s worthwhile bearing in mind that the deeper down you drill into your people and pay data, the more likely you are to recognise what it is you need to do to take effective action to reduce your gender pay gap.

Over the past 30 years the gender pay gap in full-time employment has narrowed, but the pace of improvement has been uneven and there’s still a way to go. Knowing where the sticking points are may help you deal with your organisation’s own gender pay gap.

As can be seen from figure 2 above, the gender pay gap has decreased markedly over time, but what the figure doesn’t show is that the extent to which it has done so has varied across different age groups. The gender pay gap is small or negative for employees in their 20s or 30s but widens considerably for older age groups.

The gender pay gap within different groups of occupations also varies considerably, and in different ways for different occupations. The pay gap has been consistently high for those in the skilled trades, and for managers and directors. It has been consistently lower than the national average for professional and associate professional occupations, because, with increased attendance at universities, there have been proportionately more women entering professional and associate professional occupational groups. However, a lack of flexible working arrangements on offer at senior levels more generally is a factor affecting women’s progression opportunities.

In addition to the moral and social justice case for gender equality, there are further national and organisational benefits of seeking to close the gender pay gap (figure 3).

With women outperforming men educationally, the case for ensuring their skills are fully utilised is incontestable. In addition, failing to tackle a gender pay gap is likely to cause damage to your organisation’s reputation in the eyes of both current and potential clients and employees.

The economy: Gender equality, economic growth, pay and pensions

A key source of evidence on the economic dimensions of the gender pay gap is the report of the 2016 inquiry into the gap by the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC). The WEC found that the UK’s 19.2% gap (2016) was not only an equality issue, it also represented a significant loss to UK productivity and, in the face of an ageing workforce, a skills crisis, the need for a more competitive economy, and that the gap needed to be addressed. The WEC concluded that tackling the underlying causes of the gender pay gap would not only increase productivity and address skills shortages, but it would also improve the performance of individual organisations.

Several studies support the WEC’s conclusion:

• In its evidence to the inquiry, the former UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) quoted research suggesting that the underutilisation of women’s skills costs the UK economy between 1.3% and 2% of GDP every year. The UKCES also suggested that eradicating the full-time gender pay gap would contribute an additional £41 billion of spending into the economy each year.
• McKinsey’s 2016 report , The Power of Parity: Advancing women’s equality in the United Kingdom, suggested that even partial progress towards parity had the potential to add as much as £150 billion to GDP by 2025, over and above the business-as-usual scenario – in fact, an estimated 6.8% more. This would be the equivalent of raising GDP growth by 0.7% per year for the next 10 years.
• The Gender Pensions Gap Report 2022 study showed that while women’s expected retirement income is increasing and the gender gap is shrinking, women’s pension wealth is only 33.5% of men’s, or for every £1 a man had in his pension pot, a woman had just 33.5 pence. Closing the gap by bringing women’s earnings up to the level of men’s would increase the likelihood of women being able to provide for their own pensions, thereby reducing both pensioner poverty and the welfare support needed to counter it.

The workplace: Gender equality, talent and reputation

At an organisational level, promoting gender equality is part of being a good employer, one that strives to achieve fairness. Being open about your gender pay gap and how you’re tackling it increases employee confidence in you as an employer, and in your pay and reward processes.

Organisations with gender-diverse profiles at senior levels make a better financial return than those who do not. McKinsey’s Diversity Matters research has shown that for every 10% increase in gender diversity in a UK company’s executive team, earnings before interest and taxes rose by 3.5%. But the national ratio of women in leadership relative to men is poor (there are currently two male managers for every female manager), with the UK lagging behind comparable economies such as the United States, Sweden and Canada.

Women make up around half the talent pool, so attracting and retaining them is central to future success. Women are better qualified than ever before with girls still doing better than boys at both GCSE and A level in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Even before gender pay gap reporting was introduced, employees and job seekers were taking pay gap data into account when applying for a job or considering whether to stay in one. Now, with gender pay gap reports available on the government’s gender pay gap viewing service site, school-leavers, graduates and older workers looking to change jobs are all now able to access information about your gender pay gap, and they are sure to do so.

CIPD guidance on reward

For more on employee attitudes to reward, take a look at the CIPD’s factsheet on reward and pay . For women, an employer’s record on equality, inclusion and diversity is especially important. PwC’s report, The Female Millennial: A new era of talent , shows that young women seek out employers with a strong record on equality, diversity and inclusion. Eighty-five per cent of female millennials surveyed said an employer’s policy on equality, diversity and workforce inclusion was important when deciding whether or not to work for them. Being open about your gender pay gap, and proactive in tackling its causes, will reduce the likelihood of your organisation being seen as a second- or third-choice employer.

What do I have to report and when?

Regulations introduced in 2017 require public, private and voluntary sector organisations, with 250 or more employees, to report annually on their gender pay gap using a specified ‘snapshot date’ relevant to their sector (see figure 5).

The snapshot date will always be 31 March for public authorities, and 5 April for all other employers, in any year in which they have 250 or more relevant employees. This date is:

• the date which determines who counts as an employee for the purposes of gender pay gap reporting
• the date used to determine employees’ hourly pay (your gender pay gap calculations are based on hourly pay, as defined by the Regulations)
• the date from which you have a year to publish your gender pay gap report.

Most employers will know if they have 250 or more employees on the relevant snapshot date (figure 5). Those whose headcount hovers around or varies above and below the 250 threshold, is so close to 250 that the definition of employee used in the Regulations means they may end up hitting 250, or includes a large number of non-standard employees employees (such as agency workers, or self-employed workers), will need to check if the Regulations apply. It’s also important to note that the definition of employee used to work out if you are a relevant employer may not be one you are used to using, and that duration of employment is not taken into account.

If your organisation employs fewer than 250 people, it is still a useful discipline for you to calculate the size of your organisation’s gender pay gap and think about what action may be required. We encourage all employers of whatever size to calculate and publish their pay gaps. And if your employee numbers cross over the threshold or the government should at any time lower the 250-employee reporting threshold, if you’re already collecting and analysing the data, you will be ahead of the game.

There are six different measures (figure 6) of the gender pay gap and each provides a slightly different take, but each is more meaningful if read alongside the others and in the context of your overall HR and payroll policies and practices, such as training and development, or recruitment and selection. It is likely that your recruitment practices, for example, will impact on starting salaries, which will in turn feed into both your mean and median gender pay gap figures, while the way in which you manage performance may well feed into your bonus pay gap. You will also want to read each year’s figures alongside those of previous years, both to measure progress and to gain a greater understanding of your gender pay gap.

As with the snapshot date, the deadline varies depending on the sector (see figure 5 above). If you decide to publish before the deadline, which we would encourage, you may find it helpful to stick to the same date every year to ensure consistency, and help your readers gain a clearer understanding of any gender pay gap.

You must publish the required data on the UK Government’s gender pay gap reporting service website . For private and voluntary sector employers, the information will have to be accompanied by a statement confirming its accuracy, signed by a director or equivalent, which includes their name and job title. Once you have published your report on the reporting service website, it automatically appears on the government’s viewing service website, where any interested person is able to access it. The viewing service website also lets people know if a report is late.

You must also publish your pay data on your own organisation’s website in a manner that is accessible to employees and the public, and you will have to ensure that it remains there for at least three years.

We look in detail at how to calculate employee earnings in this guide . Here, you simply need to know that your calculations will be based on:

• gross ordinary pay (including basic pay, piecework pay, shift premiums, paid leave pay and allowances)
• bonus pay (personal, team bonuses and so on)

Paid in the relevant pay period (pay period including the snapshot date) and by the snapshot date (31 March for public sector, 5 April for businesses and charities).

What you say about your gender pay gap, and where and how you choose to say it, is of paramount importance. While the reporting process makes publication of your figures and the sign-off of those figures compulsory, you also have the option of including an accompanying narrative and an action plan. Communication is also about how you inform your employees and the wider world about your organisation’s gender pay gap report. We look at this in the section: How to communicate your gender pay gap .

Narratives and action plans

Although there is currently no legal obligation, the government strongly encourages employers to produce a voluntary accompanying narrative that provides context, explains any pay gaps, and sets out what actions will be taken. We also encourage you to produce a narrative, and the Regulations may change in the future.

The government’s reporting site enables you to include a link to where your full report appears on your own site. The government’s viewing service site (which mirrors the reporting site) provides readers with a link headed ‘See what this employer has to say about their gender pay gap’; clicking on this takes readers through to where your report appears on your own site.

The Regulations do not require you to publish an action plan either, or even to draw one up, but the government encourages you to do so, as do the CIPD. Uploading an action plan on your website, alongside a narrative, lets people know what action you are planning to take to address the gap, and that you are serious about doing so. In addition to helping you tackle the gender pay gap itself, drawing up an action plan will help you to answer questions about what you are doing.

We also recommend that you draw up a communications plan well before you publish any data, to ensure that you tell the story you want to tell and are ready to respond to questions. We look at this in the 'How to communicate your gender pay gap' section .

• the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties and Public Authorities) Regulations 2017 – these apply to public bodies
• the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 – these apply to private and voluntary sector organisations.

Who should perform the calculations?

Payroll software should do most of the work for you, so do engage with your software provider. You will also want, as with any major HR or payroll project, to ensure that you have the right skills on board to interpret your figures and understand the causes of any gap, communicate effectively to your various stakeholders, and plan how you will address your gap. Larger organisations may want to create a team that includes people with knowledge of the organisation’s payroll and HR systems, a communications expert, and someone with an understanding of statistics. The Royal Statistical Society has noted that with the introduction of gender pay gap reporting, the government is, in effect, asking HR professionals to take on some important statistical tasks, and one of the aims of this guide is to support HR professionals in obtaining, analysing and taking action on their data.

If you think you are at risk of equal pay claims

Despite some overlap, the gender pay gap is a different issue to equal pay, and the two should be considered independently. Reducing a gender pay gap does not necessarily reduce the risk of equal pay claims. The gender pay gap regulations and equal pay regulations provide more information on each.

What happens if an employer doesn't report on their gender pay gap?

Failure to comply amounts to a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and would therefore open an organisation up to action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The EHRC have a series of actions and penalties that they can impose on organisations depending on the type of business and nature of the breach. We provide focused legal guidance on each of these stages in our dedicated Gender pay gap law page .

Where can I find more information?

Cipd sources.

Employment law: Equal pay: UK employment law Topic page: Flexible and hybrid working Topic page: Recruitment Topic page: Reward Factsheet: Induction

External sources

Acas Business in the Community Equality and Human Rights Commission Equal Pay Portal

Gov.UK Gender pay gap reporting service Gender pay gap viewing service website Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties and Public Authorities) Regulations 2017

Tackling barriers to work today whilst creating inclusive workplaces of tomorrow.

Bullying and harassment

Discover our practice guidance and recommendations to tackle bullying and harassment in the workplace. 

Related content

11 Jun, 2024

The CIPD Good Work Index provides an annual snapshot of job quality in the UK, giving insight to drive improvement to working lives

Understand the fundamentals, as well as how to choose and install the right scheme for your organisation

While offering different pay methods could be a boost for employees, we need to ensure there are no unintended consequences

Latest guides

This guide offers advice on assessing skills, planning skills development and deploying and redeploying staff

Practical guidance on helping employees adapt and thrive when faced with workplace stress

Advice and tips on how HR professionals can support organisational and individual resilience

Guidance for employers on starting or improving an internship programme, including a checklist and model agreement

Employers concerned about EU pay directive’s impact on wage bills

Employers are concerned about the impact the EU Pay Transparency Directive will have on wage bills, competitiveness and the link between individual pay and performance.

Research by think-tank The Conference Board, based on a survey of 78 of Europe’s largest employers, found that 41% have yet to begin preparing for the directive, which was passed by the EU Parliament and Council in 2023. EU member states have until June 2026 to introduce or change regulations that comply with the directive,

Under the EU Pay Transparency Directive , organisations with at least 100 employees in an EU country must publish their gender pay gap. If the gap is higher than 5%, they must take mitigating action or face fines.

EU Pay Transparency Directive

EU Pay Transparency Directive: should employers prepare?

Two-fifths preparing for EU pay transparency rules

How global employers approach pay transparency (on-demand webinar)

Job applicants will also have the right to receive pay information and employers cannot ask candidates about their previous salary or current pay.

The Conference Board found that 55% of senior HR executives say that they have, or are planning, a single approach to pay transparency across their international operations. Only 30% will restrict it to their European businesses.

Less than 2% of businesses believe that they are already compliant, while 10% believe they are close to readiness.

The findings echo the results of a poll by WTW last month , which found that 21% of organisations had not made any preparations for the directive.

The Conference Board’s Countdown to the EU’s new law on pay transparency report finds that employers are concerned that the new requirements could expose salary information to competitors, while the value of pay differentials as a tool for recruitment and retention will be reduced.

Other concerns included a reduction in the ability to reward top performers and wage inflation as job candidates and employees could have higher expectations.

A poll held at the report’s launch event in Brussels found that 44% of respondents were concerned or very concerned about the impact on wage bills, with only 3% not at all concerned. Of the 75 respondents to the poll, 43% said that the directive could increase their European wage bills by between 2.6% and 5%.

The report finds that CHROs may need to revise their pay structure to ensure it uses reliable data and objective criteria.

Jean-Marc Verbist, leader of the Conference Board Human Capital Center, Europe, said: “Our analysis shows that complying with the directive is data-intensive and requires a high level of cross-functional collaboration, so it is a concern that many businesses have not yet begun to prepare for it.

“Compliance is likely to come with a significant cost. Beyond the anticipated short-term rise in wage bills, businesses will also need to invest in training, data gathering, and internal and external communications.

“Chief human resource officers need to ensure their boards and senior managers are aware of the risks of non- and low-quality compliance: not just potential fines, but also increased workplace tensions and loss of productivity.”

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

Reward, compensation and benefits opportunities

Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is editor of OHW+ and HR and wellbeing editor at Personnel Today. Ashleigh's areas of interest include employee health and wellbeing, equality and inclusion and skills development. She has hosted many webinars for Personnel Today, on topics including employee retention, financial wellbeing and menopause support. Prior to joining Personnel Today in 2018, she covered the road transport sector for Commercial Motor and Motor Transport magazines, touching on some of the employment and wellbeing issues experienced by those in road haulage.

UK cancer survival rates now lagging decades behind Europe

‘fair work agency’ proposed by labour party, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Take-up slow for europe’s only state menstrual paid..., gartner reveals latest hr trends on tech, pay..., how pepsico pushes employee experience to the max, skilled uk workers eligible for italy’s new digital..., uk employers’ guide to short-term eu work assignments, portugal’s four-day week reduces anxiety and fatigue, nokia to shed 14,000 jobs as 5g demand..., institute of directors: uk could be left behind..., lego leader lands top spot for ai in..., platform workers legislation could drive uber out of....