Thoughts on Reddit’s Elimination of Salary Negotiations
There have been lots of articles about this, but the one I like most is the Salon article, which you can read here.
THOUGHT #1: ELIMINATING NEGOTIATIONS DOESN’T ACTUALLY SOLVE THE WAGE GAP.
Pao’s move to eliminate salary negotiations doesn’t directly address the root of the issue. Eliminating negotiations still leaves room for the company to pay their employees unfairly, below the market rate, or even to engage in gender discrimination.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Simply telling employees that the first offer they got is the only offer they’ll get DOESN’T help if the offer is unfair to begin with.
And what does it mean that salary negotiations are eliminated? Does that mean that employees can no longer ask for a raise either? Because that to me just sounds like all employees would be at the mercy of their employer, never able to advocate for themselves if they think they are being underpaid.
The real solution would be salary transparency. If, as a company, you believe you are paying people fairly, then there is no shame in making salaries public. If someone disagrees, then, fine, it’s time for a conversation. But at least that transparency helps people to determine if they’re being paid fairly to begin with. Salary transparency automatically means that any gender disparity can be addressed immediately if it ever occurs.
If you simply eliminate negotiations, all you’ve done is take away employees’ right to advocate for themselves, without empowering them to know when inequality is afoot.
And in the long run, I actually think that eliminating the employee’s right to advocate for themself AND continuing to keep salaries hidden from all employees only increases the potential for companies to abuse and underpay their people.
To be fair: I’m sure Ellen Pao, as Reddit’s interim CEO, is working hard to ensure that all of Reddit’s female and male employees are paid fairly with no gender discrimination. This is not a critique of Reddit per se, simply their tactic of eliminating salary negotiations.
I’m glad that Ellen Pao is able to draw so much media attention to this issue, but I implore everyone who is and does support gender equality to think deeply about how we can actually solve the wage gap, and not just put a bandage on it.
THOUGHT #2: LET’S BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE WE USE TO TALK ABOUT GENDER INEQUALITY.
The reason I like the Salon article (slightly more so than this Mic article) is that the Salon article explicitly frames the issue like this:
Pao is right about disparities in outcome when men and women negotiate. According to a 2006 study, researchers found that women who negotiate often pay a price. The study found the “negative effect” of negotiation — a decline in the evaluator’s willingness to work with the person who negotiated — was 5.5 times greater for women than it was for men.
This frames the issue as a problem of our culture – the problem is that women are treated differently even when they act the same way as men.
On the other hand, I think the Mic article could be a little more careful with their language:
A 2007 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that women were less likely to negotiate salaries. For historical reasons relating to power, politeness and language, the study argued that, "framing situations as opportunities for negotiation is particularly intimidating to women."
Even though the first part of the sentence (“for historical reasons”) is the key, the final point of the sentence feels like it’s saying that women are more intimidated of negotiating than men are, just by virtue of the fact that they are women. I doubt the writer meant to intimate this, but I think the phrasing leaves room for people to think that this is somehow just the way women are.
Which, obviously, it is not.
I think it’s very important for us to be explicit when writing about issues of gender equality about the root of the inequality. Women are raised in a culture that teaches us to NOT explicitly ask for what we need and want. We’ve been told since we were children that it isn’t nice for us not to be “ladylike.”
So this is how I would rephrase it: It’s NOT that negotiating is “particularly intimidating to women.” It’s that women have been PENALIZED their whole lives for being up front about what they want and need. We have been criticized for being too blunt, too straightforward, too aggressive, too bitchy... really anything that isn’t considered “ladylike.”
Let’s be clear: I don’t give a shit about being ladylike, and neither should any other woman.
The problem is our culture and with gender stereotypes. Women wouldn’t have to be intimidated of negotiating if they were treated with the same respect as men are. And women wouldn’t have to feel like they should tone themselves down if the world wouldn’t stop threatening us for not acting or behaving according to gender norms.
The language that we use is important, because it shapes how we all think of the issue – even subtly and in ways that we don’t suspect.