Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Scientific Blackpill (Supplemental): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→High potential women earn higher premiums in the workplace than "high potential" men, but don't report higher pay satisfaction
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
*Rudman LA, Goodwin SA. 2004. ''Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men?'' [[http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494 Abstract]] | *Rudman LA, Goodwin SA. 2004. ''Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men?'' [[http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494 Abstract]] | ||
=== | ===High potential women earn higher premiums in the workplace than "high potential" men, but don't report higher pay satisfaction=== | ||
Abstract from the paper: In this constructive replication, we revisit a provocative study by Leslie, Manchester, and Dahm (2017). They found that gender and being designated a high‐potential employee interacted in accounting for pay and that this resulted in a reversal in the commonly observed gender pay gap favoring men. Our primary aim was to examine important boundary conditions associated with their work by (a) conducting a study using a sample that would better generalize across industries and to individuals who aspire to reach senior management, (b) adding critical control variables to the statistical models used in the pay equation, and (c) by introducing a different conceptualization of the high‐potential construct. Also, to better understand the consequences of their study, we considered an additional dependent variable that addressed pay satisfaction. Even after making these model additions, the gender by high‐potential interaction term was significant—ruling out four plausible third‐variable explanations for the Leslie et al. finding. Moreover, these confirming results were observed using a sample that represented individuals employed in a wide range of industries, who had the educational backgrounds, career histories, and motivational states typically required of candidates competing for senior executive roles. Furthermore, high‐potential women did not report higher levels of pay satisfaction, suggesting that high‐potential women did not perceive their pay premium to be an inequitable advantage and that there may be limited positive return associated with using a pay premium to retain high‐potential talent. | Abstract from the paper: In this constructive replication, we revisit a provocative study by Leslie, Manchester, and Dahm (2017). They found that gender and being designated a high‐potential employee interacted in accounting for pay and that this resulted in a reversal in the commonly observed gender pay gap favoring men. Our primary aim was to examine important boundary conditions associated with their work by (a) conducting a study using a sample that would better generalize across industries and to individuals who aspire to reach senior management, (b) adding critical control variables to the statistical models used in the pay equation, and (c) by introducing a different conceptualization of the high‐potential construct. Also, to better understand the consequences of their study, we considered an additional dependent variable that addressed pay satisfaction. Even after making these model additions, the gender by high‐potential interaction term was significant—ruling out four plausible third‐variable explanations for the Leslie et al. finding. Moreover, these confirming results were observed using a sample that represented individuals employed in a wide range of industries, who had the educational backgrounds, career histories, and motivational states typically required of candidates competing for senior executive roles. Furthermore, high‐potential women did not report higher levels of pay satisfaction, suggesting that high‐potential women did not perceive their pay premium to be an inequitable advantage and that there may be limited positive return associated with using a pay premium to retain high‐potential talent. | ||