Bias in Internal Structures

Pay differences in jobs held by men, women, and people of color have focused attention on internal pay structures. Much of this attention has been directed at job evaluation as both a potential source of bias against women and a mechanism to reduce bias. However, there is no evidence that the job evaluator’s gender affects the results. In contrast to the gender of the jobholder or the evaluator, the evidence on compensable factors and bias is less clear. One study found that compensable factors related to job content did reflect bias against work done predominantly by women, but factors pertaining to employee requirements did not. The second potential source of bias affects job evaluation indirectly, through the current wages paid for jobs. If job evaluation is based on the current wages paid and the jobs held predominantly by women are underpaid, then the results simply mirror bias in the current pay rates. Several recommendations seek to ensure that job evaluation plans are bias-free. First, to define the compensable factors and scales to include the content of jobs held predominantly by women. Second, to ensure that factor weights are not consistently biased against jobs held predominantly by women. Are factors usually associated with these jobs always given less weight? Finally, to apply the plan in as bias-free a manner as feasible. Ensure that the job descriptions are bias-free, exclude incumbent names from the job evaluation process, and train diverse evaluators. Little attention has been paid to assessor training or validating the certification process. Employment tests used for hiring and promotion decisions must be demonstrably free of illegal bias. It seems logical that certification procedures used to determine pay structures would require the same.