Amara Larsen· Benefits Analyst, Silverline Media
Posted in Pay Equity Research Council ·
Every year the study reports an unadjusted gap and an adjusted one, and every year members quote whichever suits them. Before the 2027 round I think the council should settle how we define and present the two.
My concern is the adjusted figure. Last year we let respondents report it using whatever controls they chose, and the number of controls ranged from three to nineteen. An organisation that controls for level, function, tenure, performance rating and location has explained away much of the unadjusted figure, including things that may themselves reflect bias.
I propose we ask for a standard minimum set and report anything further separately. Views by the 21st, please.
0 reactions · 1 reply · 5 views
Benefits Manager, Bellwether Consulting
Agree, and I would name performance rating as the control to treat separately. In two analyses I have run, ratings themselves differed by gender by a small but consistent margin, so controlling for them hid part of the gap. A standard set of level, job family, location and tenure would be defensible; anything beyond that should be reported as an extended model.
