WGEA just dropped its annual gender pay gap data. Every Australian employer with 100 or more people now has their number published online, searchable by anyone.
Some will be relieved. Some embarrassed. Many will shrug. That shrug is the problem.
Your pay gap is a map, not a judgement
The gender pay gap isn't primarily about paying women less than men for the same job (although that's definitely a thing). The gap is structural: who has access to the higher-paying roles, and why.
In investment management, the picture is stark. Our Path to Parity research found only 19% of portfolio managers are women - down 4% since 2017. Our Women in Wealth report found females hold only 13% of senior advisory roles. Those leadership roles attract the biggest salaries and largest bonuses, and the higher you look, the fewer women you see.
The 'rainmaker' defence doesn't hold up
I hear this a lot: "These men bring in the deals. Of course they earn more - what can we do?"
But if women don't have access to those roles, they can't become rainmakers. The question isn't why the men in senior roles earn more. It's why women aren't in those roles to begin with.
Our research shows the barriers are real and they compound. More women exit or take parental leave at senior analyst and senior associate levels - the career stage when reputations are made. They are more likely to be given 'soft' work and less likely to develop the technical track record that earns recognition. In male-dominated teams with male-centric networks, finding a sponsor who backs your potential is harder if you're a woman.
None of that is inevitable. All of it is a leadership choice.
The pay gap won't close by itself. It closes when the shrugs stops, the questions start, and action happens.
So what does good look like?
The firms making real progress treat the gender pay gap as a lens to interrogate how talent decisions are made. They ask hard questions about who gets access to revenue, stretch roles, sponsorship and promotion - and what assumptions sit underneath those choices.
They assess hiring, promotion and redundancy decisions through the gender pay gap lens by modelling how these decisions will impact the gap.
Systemic barriers are often invisible to the people perpetuating them. Leaders who understand their own biases are more intentional about who to champion and support. Those decisions, multiplied across an organisation, are what moves the dial.
And women navigating these systems have their own inner game to manage. Sustaining confidence, clarity and self-trust in environments where you may be underrepresented also requires greater self-awareness. When that inner foundation is strong, and matched with structural support, talent translates into influence more quickly.
The pay gap won't close by itself. It closes when the shrugs stops, the questions start, and action happens.
Inspiration and ideas to sharpen your inner game
- Too many men, or too few women? (article): This Forbes article unpacks new research showing how we frame the gender gap changes everything - including whether people act on it. The same stat lands differently depending on whose advantage you name. Worth reading before you look at your next pay gap number. Read>>
- Why bias training usually backfires (podcast): In this episode of WorkLife, organisational psychologist Adam Grant investigates why one-off bias workshops rarely work - and sometimes make things worse. The science points to something harder and more personal: changing the habits we don't even know we have. Listen>>
Share: