How much more base wage or salary would your employer need to pay you – if any – in order to “take the issue of money off the table” for you? Initial findings reflecting the responses of the 116 people who kindly participated in my survey, along with respondent demographics, were presented in the Part 1 post.
What we learned initially is that the “magic number”, on average across everyone, is about 30%. What we also learned, though, was that the individual responses ranged dramatically – from 0% to 200%. The factor which most influenced the figure that participants provided was external comparisons, the individual’s sense of the going rate for their position in the market, but we also found that a host of different things potentially impacted their “calculation” of this amount … from internal peer comparisons and living expenses to personal performance and sense of worth.
Now we dig a little deeper and look at the data by two demographic cuts, starting with age group of the respondent. What distinctions do we see in how different age groups answer the question about the amount of pay increase which would take the issue of money off the table for them? Some interesting ones, as it turns out. Take a look at the responses in the tables below; first, the percent of wage/salary increase required and second, the factor that most influenced the response given.
We see that the youngest group (18-29 years old) needs the largest increase in order to remove money as an issue. I don’t think this is surprising, given that this cohort is just getting settled in their careers, some having recently graduated from college and many probably living independently and responsible for their own living expenses for the first time. Every buck counts at this age, speaking as the mother of two young adults. This is borne out by the fact that this age group also cited living expenses as the top factor influencing their responses.
Now notice how the figure drops progressively as the groups go up in age, until we hit the 60+ workers. My guess is that many in this group have just had their retirement accounts decimated by the stock market and are feeling the need for short-term fixed income to prop them back up. These seasoned workers, in addition to noting external comparisons as a key influence, provided the most “other” responses, noting what they felt to be a unique set of circumstances related to their pay angst.
On to gender. Check out the responses by gender in the tables below.
Interestingly, based on their responses, women require a lower base increase amount in order to take the issue of money of the table for them - nearly 20% lower than men. Argh. I think that’s all I’m going to say about that.
Some curious, although not dramatic, differences in the influencers chosen by women and men. Women, in comparison to men, were more likely to report that their pay figures were influenced by internal comparisons and living expenses. Are these findings connected to the female brain being more wired for relationships, and perhaps more attuned to their family financial circumstances? Men, competitive creatures that we’ve been told they can be, were more influenced by external comparisons.
I’m going to leave my analysis to just these brief comments and pass the mike to my readers for their reactions.
Thoughts?
I’m not done with this topic yet. Look for Part 3 to come soon with some summary observations and opinion.
In response to your factual finding that, "women require a lower base increase amount in order to take the issue of money of the table for them - nearly 20% lower than men," I see many possible reasons. That differential would make perfect sense if women were paid 20% higher than their comparable male peers, so their superior absolute pay position would permit them to feel satisfied with a relatively smaller bump. Sure. Could be possible. Might be true.
Or the women might all be VPs while the men are all mere analysts, so the job level differences are masked while the gender differences seem to jump out (apples and oranges). Female VPs close to the top ceiling might be very happy with an incremental improvement to their already-handsome executive TR package while financially-strapped male analysts low in the organizational ranks would demand orders of magnitude more to attain "happiness." How did the answers compare against last year's (?) magic metric of ~$75K as the income level above which pay satisfaction is asymptotic or marginal or however they defined the research results?
It may have nothing to do with socialization protocols or psychological stereotypes.
If I have the mike now, my answer is: possibly.
Posted by: E. James (Jim) Brennan | October 23, 2011 at 01:12 AM
Could you explain the Aargh? The numbers make sense to me. I'm female, paid well enough (though who couldn't use more money?) in a conservative company in traditionally male IT. Territorial bickering is heavy in our culture and bullying fairly accepted. I can handle it but I miss a supportive, collaborative workplace. Once I have a living wage - which I do and then some - there's no amount of additional money that would make me happy to spend 9-10 hours a day in a culture of disrespect. When I've pushed through completing an effort while taking an unusual beating sometimes I get a bonus or other reward. I know my manager means well by it but it makes me feel like a kicked dog getting a pity biscuit. Money is off the table. Respectful culture is on the table. First things first.
Posted by: Cathie | October 23, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Jim:
Spoken like a consultant. :)
Cathie:
I accept your explanation that the money question can't even be on the table for rational consideration in such a disrespectful culture, but not sure that this addresses why females overall should need a smaller raise than males to (all other things considered) take the issue of money off the table.
My "aargh" comes from having read and written so much about pay equity and comparable worth and the need to address female/male pay disparities; it is disheartening to me to find that women are consistently asking for less. So much so, that I don't even want to think about it or analyze it further. But I welcome other thoughts.
Posted by: Ann Bares | October 24, 2011 at 03:55 PM
I hope you will think about it, since what you think matters to your readers! Have you read Dan Pink, about intrinsic and extrinsic rewards? I've never seen anyone study whether women value non-cash rewards over cash rewards to a greater extent than men but I'd like to see such a study. If I spend 9-10 hours a day at work, I want work to be part of my life. I want to feel I'm challenged and making a valuable and valued contribution in a strong team culture. If my workplace is miserable, getting paid more is like being thirsty and negotiating for extra oil to drink. I want to be well paid but I value things other than cash. When money is off the table, great culture is on it.
Posted by: Cathie | October 25, 2011 at 08:30 PM
Cathie's response is not gender-specific, because everyone wants and needs those things. We met Dan at the SanDiego W@W conference (Ann has written separately about that, too) and (in person, before tradecraft experts) he basically said absolutely nothing out of line with our common best practice concepts. Like, none of those over-the-top sweeping generalities so often attributed to him or extrapolated out of his old research citations of small academic European studies, for example.
Money still pays the bills, and the Western (if not global) socialization process does train women from childhood to be more consensus-sensitive, conflict-averse and peace-seeking than rough dirty competitive men. Speaking very generally, of course. It is experating if women won't push to negotiate as hard as men do, because it gives an easy excuse to employers who poo-poo the continuing (although diminished) gender pay equity differential. Or maybe it's true that women simply don't care about money as much as men do.
Posted by: E James (Jim) Brennan | October 27, 2011 at 03:34 PM