Learning Methods
A traditional classroom couples on-site learning with the added value of face-to-face interaction with instructors and peers. With courses and exams scheduled worldwide, you will be sure to find a class near you.
Highly Interactive
On-going interaction with instructor throughout the entire classroom event
Interaction with peers/professionals via face-to-face
Components (May Include)
On-site instructor-led delivery of course modules, discussions, exercises, case studies, and application opportunities
Supplemental learning elements such as: audio/video files, tools and templates, articles and/or white papers
E-course materials available two weeks prior to the course start date; printed course materials ship directly to the event location
One + Days
Varies by course ranging from one to multiple days
Technical Needs
Specific requirements are clearly noted on the course page
Virtual Classroom
Ideal for those who appreciate live education instruction, but looking to save on travel. A virtual classroom affords you many of the same learning benefits as traditional–all from the convenience of your office.
Highly Interactive
On-going interaction with instructor throughout the entire virtual classroom event
Interaction with peers/professionals via online environment
Components (May Include)
Live online instructor-led delivery of course modules, discussions, exercises, case studies, and application opportunities
Supplemental learning elements such as: audio/video files, tools and templates, articles and/or white papers
E-course materials available up to one week prior to the course start date. Recorded playback and supplemental materials available up to seven days after the live event.
Varies by course ranging from one to multiple sessions
Technical Needs
Adobe Flash Player
Acrobat Reader
Computer with sound capability and high-speed internet access
Phone line access
A self-paced, online learning experience that allows you to study any time of day. Course material is pre-recorded by an instructor and you have the flexibility to view content modules as desired.
Independent Learning
Components (May Include)
Pre-recorded course modules
Supplemental learning elements such as: audio/video files, online quizzes
E-course materials are available online within one business day of purchase
Optional purchased print material ships within 7 business days
120 Days - Anytime
120-day access to e-course materials available online within one business day from the date of purchase
Direct access to all components
Technical Needs
Adobe Flash Player
Acrobat Reader
Computer with sound capability and high-speed internet access
Contact Sponsor
Paul Thompson
Phone: 1 44 01614322584
Contact by Email | Website
Sorry, you can't add this item to the cart.
You have reached the maximum allowed quantity for purchase in your cart or the item isn't available anymore.
Product successfully added to your cart!
View your cart
Continue shopping
Please note our website will be undergoing routine maintenance and will not be available Saturday, July 9 at 3:00 AM ET until Monday, July 11 at 6:00 AM ET. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Deep Dive

Looking Beneath the Surface of the Gender Pay Gap

ImageOver and over we hear that women in the United States who work full-time are paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to men. This statistic is repeated by many organizations and in many publications. (See “The 20% Gender Pay Gap Is Misleading Without Context.”) So, what are all of these examples missing? While some sources talk about occupations, there is no discussion of the actual work being done, no mention of the job.



Because gender pay inequity addresses the pay of all employees, it is an obvious major issue that demands the attention of total rewards professionals. Only by exploring the issue in depth can we properly respond to inquiries from not only employees and executive management but also the inquiring press and politicians.

The articles referenced in the first sidebar all use data from the exact same source, namely the Census Bureau report, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016.” (See Tables 1 and 2.) What do these numbers represent? It is the ratio of the median income of more than 47,000 women to the median income of more than 63,000 men who were respondents to a Census Bureau “Current Population Survey” (CPS), no matter the industry, occupation, level of work and location.

The CPS, which originated in the late 1930s, is the longest-running survey conducted by the Census Bureau. It is a household survey primarily used to collect employment data. Data are collected throughout the year, every year. (See “Census Bureau’s CPS Methodology.”)

After the data are collected for each gender, everything is thrown into one big pot for the calculation of the median income: secretaries, bricklayers, senior IT professionals, dishwashers, company presidents, chemical engineers and so on. Most importantly, there are no questions in the survey questionnaire about the specific work people were doing. Hence, those compensation factors that may account for legitimate pay differences were neither gathered nor considered. (See “Survey Shortcomings.”)

In general, what factors do determine a person’s pay? Figure 1 identifies factors that help determine a person’s pay, including five system factors and three individual factors. The five system factors typically are the foundation for the pay range of a job. Two factors of the job that focus on the work — market pay and internal value — are combined to form a job’s pay range (usually determined by an assigned grade). Note the emphasis on the job rather than the occupation or the title: This is what is missing from the discussion of, and efforts to achieve, pay parity.

We all are familiar with the concept and laws regarding equal pay. The Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963, and it mandates equal pay for “equal work on the jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” Notice the act’s focus on the work. Again, there was no reference to the work or jobs in any of the articles that would form a basis for 80%.



For all practical purposes, the 80% number is conceptually meaningless with regard to pay parity because it only indicates that many female-dominated jobs are paid less than many male-dominated jobs. From this data, we do not know how the two genders are paid within a job. As such, nothing actionable can be derived from this figure regarding parity for the work done.

This is a prime example of a statistical phenomenon known as Simpson’s Paradox. This paradox can get you into a heap of trouble if you inappropriately combine different groups into one, especially if the results are a basis for a policy decision. (See “Simpson’s Paradox.”)

After examining the example, the answer to the question, “Should I combine the data for different jobs into one figure?” is “Do so at your own peril.”



Why do the articles and pronouncements ignore the missing link of work? We can only speculate. The information in the CPS is there for all to see. One wonders, then, why those articles’ authors did not dig into the data to understand what the numbers really represent. Assuming the authors are familiar with the Equal Pay Act, why did they ignore the context of equal work in their statements? Are they so caught up in a narrative that women are undervalued that it clouds their thinking process? Or are they using these figures to advance a political agenda? These are not idle questions, given the false statements in a presidential political campaign, and given the almost universal ignorance of the missing work context.

In 2012, the ratio was 0.77 from that year’s Census Bureau survey, which was the source of a 2012 campaign TV ad stating, “President Obama knows that women being paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men isn’t just unfair, it hurts families.” The addition of “same work” was misleading and this same misleading notion was repeated in his State of the Union address.

They’re not “lying with statistics,” but are being dishonest by not telling the whole story with the context of the figures (lying by omission).

For whatever reason, authors of the articles apparently either did not dig into the data to discover the context of what was reported, or simply chose to ignore it. But that is our task as total rewards professionals.




The 80% figure raises volatile false expectations because it creates a climate of envy, oppression and divisiveness. Improperly discussed, it can be very contentious. What might women think? “Either my company or the government is going to bring me to parity. Someone has to do something.” But that’s not going to happen, because it can’t happen.

The implication is that a woman doesn’t have to change jobs or careers. So, envy, dissatisfaction and frustration occur because of the incompleteness and subsequent misleading nature of the 80% pay statements and articles.

The “something” that must be done is to be honest with the numbers, and that includes their context. To repeat, it is incumbent on total rewards professionals to exercise their critical thinking, especially when the message to female employees is so misleading.

The actions to take are three-fold:

  • Ensure your own house is in order vis-à-vis equal pay. In my consulting experience, most companies want to pay their employees fairly for the work that they do. Employees who perceive they are paid fairly are engaged employees and that is clearly in a company’s self-interest. Most total rewards professionals have or can get the statistical tools needed to conduct internal audits and identify and correct equal pay issues.
  • Educate yourself on the source and context of the 80% figure. Focus on gender pay differences within jobs. Be prepared to tell the whole story. Truth is what we are seeking –– the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
  • Speak out about it with complete facts and don’t let the misinformation spread by the default of your silence. Silence is assent with the misleading statements.


John Davis.jpgJohn H. Davis, Ph.D., CCP,  is the retired president of Davis Consulting.