Engendering Inequity? How Social Accounts Create vs. Merely Explain Unfavorable Pay Outcomes for Women

Abstract

Two studies examined how managers' pay decisions for male and female employees are affected by the opportunity to provide social accounts and how managers think about the value of accounts for men versus women. I theorized that managers would treat social accounts as substitutes for pay for women but not for men, paradoxically leading managers who could behave more procedurally fairly to create gender-based distributive injustice. Study 1 confirms this hypothesis. Practicing managers who learned before making pay decisions that they could provide a social account—here, an explanation of circumstances justifying low raises—paid women less than men and less than women for whom they could not provide this account. Also as hypothesized, when an account was available, experienced managers paid women less than did inexperienced managers. In addition to pay decisions, participants' explicit beliefs about the value of accounts as substitutes for pay (Study 1) and in motivating male and female employees (Study 2) were examined. When participants expected the account to make the employee feel that he or she had been treated with a high level of procedural fairness (Study 1), or the language of the account explicitly acknowledged and apologized for unfair treatment (Study 2), participants assumed that the account would be significantly more valuable for women than for men. This difference was greater for experienced participants than inexperienced ones. I discuss the implications of this “substitutability thesis” and these results for research on justice and gender as well as for achieving gender equity in the workplace.

Gender and Organization Science: Introduction to a Virtual Special Issue

“…Interestingly, Belliveau (2012) identified an unexpected way that a system of procedural justice could be subverted. She examined the organizational dynamics that can lead to pay discrepancies for women.…”

“…Women compare themselves with other women when assessing their likelihood of career success (Gibson and Lawrence 2010). Managers compare women with other women when determining individuals' expectations for pay and performance (Belliveau 2012). Coworkers pay attention to each other's expectations when deciding to demonstrate sensitive behavior (Williams and Polman 2014).…”

Does Gender Raise the Ethical Bar? Exploring the Punishment of Ethical Violations at Work

“…Over several decades, social scientists have unveiled evidence of persistent, multi-faceted discrimination against professional women seeking to rise in the ranks of their organizations. Women face greater challenges than men at many stages of their ascent, including when they obtain higher education (Milkman, Akinola, & Chugh, 2012), seek to enter organizations (Belliveau, 2005;Goldin & Rouse, 2000;Gorman 2005), and when their performance is evaluated to determine promotion or compensation (Beckman & Phillips, 2005;Belliveau, 2012;Castilla, 2008;Castilla, 2011;DiPrete and Soule, 1988;Fernandez-Mateo, 2009;Joshi, 2014;McGinn & Milkman, 2013;Olson & Becker 1983). At each stage, gender stereotypes bias judgments and decisions, hindering women's advancement (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010;Brescoll, 2011;Heilman, 2012;Rudman & Phelan, 2008).…”

When do leaders grant voice? How leaders’ perceptions of followers’ control and belongingness needs affect the enactment of fair procedures

“…helping), they are Follower Needs and Leader Voice Enactment 4 more likely to enact procedures in a fair manner and this effect is mediated by the leader's trust in the employee. Furthermore, Belliveau (2012) found that managers sometimes treat procedural fairness (i.e. post-decision voice) as a substitute for lower pay, but only in their interactions with female employees.…”