The gender pay gap arises largely in part from the unpaid care work women complete, that enables men to have kids and work in full-time employment.  To accommodate for their unpaid care responsibilities, women are forced to go part time, with 42% of women in the UK working part-time in comparison to 11% of men, and women make 75% of unpaid care workers. The problem? Part-time work is paid less per hour than full time work – in part because it is rare that high-level jobs allow flexible working hours. Women end up working in jobs below their skill level that offer them the flexibility they need but not the pay they deserve. 

To make matters worse, many policies actively contribute in discouraging the continued participation of women in the labour force. And it starts with maternity leave – with numerous studies having shown that properly paid leave increases female participation after the birth of their first child, whilst inadequate leave is an active abettor in causing a woman to leave her job. If maternity leave does not accommodate, the risk of women leaving their job completely or transitioning to part time work is greatly increased. For example, when Google noticed they were losing women who had just given birth at twice the rate of other employees, they increased their maternity leave from 3 months at partial pay to 5 months at full pay. The attrition rate dropped 50%. 

However, this does not mean maternity leave does not come with professional setbacks for women. In 2015, Newham councillor Charlotte McLean had to stay in hospital for months after she gave birth prematurely. Despite having remained in contact with the council and assured she had normal workers’ rights, upon return she was told she would have to stand for re-election because she had been off for six months. Newham council, rather than accommodating for the bodily reality of McLean, instead opted to ensure all expectant mothers were fully informed on their lack of rights – an active discouragement of female participation. The following year, Brigid Jones, a Birmingham city councillor, was told she would have to step down from her role when she too become pregnant. Never would a man be told that were his wife to become pregnant he would have to step down, and the gender bias is clear – men are encouraged and expected to be part of the working sector, whilst women are discouraged and expected to adhere to their domestic responsibilities. Women are thus shouldered with the weight of social expectation, expected to have to trade their job for their children. 

Paternity leave is also instrumental in increasing female employment. Sweden, with around 80% female employment in 2016, the highest in the EU, also has one of the most generous paternity leave policies in the world, with 3 months reserved leave. Men, however, only took this leave on offer when forced to by the government – with only 6% of Swedish men taking this leave before the ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ policy was introduced, despite it being available to them from 1974. When men are encouraged to share domestic responsibilities, the weight unfairly imposed on women is released, and female employment is increased. Men who take paternity leave tend to be more involved in childcare in the future, explaining why a Swedish 2010 study found that for every month of paternity leave taken by the father, the mother’s earnings increased by 7%. The benefits of policies that enshrine in law equal parenting responsibility for a child that two people, not one, have created, are long lasting. 

Of course, women’s unpaid care work doesn’t start and end with newborn babies. Around the world, women continue to be disadvantaged by a working culture that suggests male needs are universal. For example, what counts as a work expense. Uniforms and tools are in, emergency day care is out. Or what counts as the ‘best office in the world’, unveiled by Apple, with ‘medical and dental treatment’, ‘spas’ but no children's daycare. Best office in the world for men perhaps? Women are forced to forgo their work for their kids, resulting in less extra work/research for their jobs being completed out-of-hours, and more expenses needed to cover costs of the unpaid care they already do. Dawn Bovasso, a female creative director, highlighted this implicit bias when her company announced it was hosting a director’s dinner. Would this be worth the $200 it would cost for her babysitter and travel? Her male colleagues were able to easily accept, even booking the hotel next to the restaurant to drink – and this was claimable on company expenses, whilst her childcare was not. Expense codes are based on the assumption that the employee has a wife at home to look after the kids, and this work doesn’t need paying for, because it’s women’s work, they already do it, and it is their job as mothers (but not the male’s job as a father). As Bovasso summed up: “You can get $30 for a takeout if working late, (because your wife isn’t there to cook you dinner), but you can’t get $30 for a sitter (because your wife is at home with the kids).’

The culture of work as a whole needs a radical overhaul – women are not the unencumbered workers the traditional workplace was designed for. None of us, including businesses, could do without the unpaid care work women complete behind the scenes. So why are women then penalised? The workplace needs to start recognising, valuing and encouraging the continued participation of women, and designing a paid workplace to account for it. Moreover, unconscious gender bias contributes to this gender gap. A study’s findings reveal that when equally qualified men and women are compared, and their potential evaluated, men get the advantage. Women of a certain age are often overlooked because their company expects them to leave to have children, whatever the individual woman’s intentions are about childbirth. 

In fact it is proven that men are 1.4 x more likely to be favoured over women when evaluated. For example, in public health in the US, where women file more grant applications than men, male researchers were awarded more than twice as many grants as women. This type of bias plays out in organisations every day. Men can be unconsciously seen as having more potential, so they are given more opportunities. It’s not a conscious thing. Instead, it’s an unconscious reaction to a lifetime of seeing mostly men in leadership roles.  Such discrimination based on sex has been recognised as unfair and is now recognised in legislation in most western countries. However, social perception is not so easy to change, and legislation can only do so much.

So what does this mean for businesses?

Due to the gender bias, while it may seem unconsciously better for a business to be run by male figures due to their history of leadership roles, evidence actually suggests otherwise. Instead, it would appear that companies benefit from being diverse and having women in leadership roles. When re-examining the business case for Inclusion & diversity McKinsey & Company found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 21% more likely to outperform on profitability and 27% more likely to have superior value creation Additionally, it would seem that there is a penalty for opting out of diversity. Overall companies in the bottom quartile for gender diversity were 29% less likely to achieve above- average profitability than all the other companies in their data set. Thus, one can conclude that having a diverse company brings not only the benefit of gender equality, but that of increased profitability.

As young women this lack of gender equality in the work place should not sit well. Increasing gender equality is not only beneficial in terms of the success of the company, but essential to create equal opportunities for women. By increasing the equality in a work place, equal opportunities of roles for men and women in our society would be promoted, as social perception would change to better associate women with positions of leadership Therefore, not only is it important that companies are more diverse in order to improve the company’s success, but also essential from a front which tries to create equal opportunities for genders.

So what can companies do in order to reduce the gender inequality?

Change needs to come from the top, with leading figures showing their commitment. When employees see more senior staff prioritising and role-modelling gender diversity, they are more likely to be committed themselves. When employees think gender diversity lead to positive business results, they are more likely to be personally committed. Therefore, strong leadership in this area is required by senior executives.

To help reduce the unconscious bias, businesses can offer training. Non-diverse attitudes are sometimes held because of a lack of education, or exposure to forward thinking environments.  Bias training raises awareness of the stereotypes that disadvantage women and enables employees to take steps to counteract these biases.  For instance, only 47% of employees know what to do to improve gender diversity in their organisation. Companies need to ensure that hiring, promotions and reviews are fair and do not conform to the unconscious bias. They also need to review their hiring and review processes to make sure there aren’t any gaps or inconsistencies. By tracking outcomes and set gender targets they can establish clear goals to gauge their progress. In setting achievable targets, companies will feel more able to reach this ultimate goal and gradually help to increase gender diversity.

Furthermore, with the glass ceiling effect still very much around today, this being the idea that women are halted in the workplace and can never quite reach the senior roles, it is essential that companies encourage women to ask for sponsorships and push for interactions with senior leaders and managers. This would enable women progress further and fulfil more of their potential, with studies showing frequent interactions directly link back to greater ambition.

In encouraging more work flexibility in roles particularly for men and aiding the uptake of shared parental roles, this will be a proactive approach to help resolve the issue concerning the setback that women go through in their advancement in a company during maternity leave. By reducing the gender inequalities in businesses women and men will both equally experience the same halts in their progression due to family constraints.

Embracing diversity and training needed:

We can clearly see that gender inequality does exist within businesses. In order to make their company more profitable in addition to increasing gender rights and making the employees happier, companies should become more diverse and try to decrease gender inequalities. To do this, bias training should be offered in addition to setting goals, quotas, and blind hiring (where gender is not disclosed) to increase gender diversity. Leading figures should show their commitment to these ideas in order to encourage employees to do the same.

Penny Zacharatou and Holly Harrison