Performative Equity gets kicked to the curb with pay transparency data

The transparent pay data made public last week by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) gender pay gap report has left private companies feeling like their dirty laundry is on display.

Australian companies are under fire as employees and media hold them to account on their policies and practices around gender equity – the data clearly illuminating a gap between what companies say they’re doing, and what’s occurring.

And yet this comes in despite of a recent report showing 90% of Australian businesses and HR leaders say that diversity, equity, and inclusion protocols are embedded into their talent strategies(1). Not to mention the slew of media coverage focusing on female CEO’s, female led companies, and greater focus on gender issues in recent years.

So where are we still missing the mark on closing the gap in dollar real figures?

The gender pay gap data offers a level of company pay transparency never available before. As a result, current and potential employees can clearly see their companies gender policy reflected in hard figures – an opportunity to hold them accountable, and kick previously accepted performative equity to the curb.

What’s performative equity, and why is it potentially harmful?

From the RUOK? morning teas, to annual International Women’s Day breakfasts, turning the company logo rainbow for a month, or boasting allyship for First Nations Australians at work – corporate Australia has a long-standing history of performative equity in support of social issues. But has there been sustainable change where it matters most – to the lived experiences of those it’s designed to support?

Performative equity is often well intentioned. However, it’s focused on superficial change. As a result, it shows how we want to be seen, rather than how things really are – and doesn’t fundamentally challenge the status quo or dominant groups in power. Performative equity makes us feel like we’re doing something about an issue – standing in solidarity, raising awareness, reducing stigma, promoting diversity – but performative equity is easy at its best, and dangerous at its worst.

When performative equity isn’t coupled with authentic equity – systemic change – it falls flat, failing to drive real and substantial impact in addressing underlying root causes of inequity. Data shows us that this can leave minority groups, like women and people of colour, worse off(4).

As the gender pay gap report illuminated, we still have a long road to travel before pay equality and gender equity in the workplace will be realised in Australia(2).

And the same goes for the increasing rates of burnout and mental health concerns in the workplace. Despite the plethora of ‘solutions’ on the market – wellbeing applications, relaxation classes, mindfulness programs – a recent Oxford University study showed these interventions achieved no discernible increase to the mental wellbeing of individuals(3).

Oxford Professor William Fleming reported in the research ‘I find little evidence in support of any benefits from these interventions with even some small indication of harm that would confirm fears from critics.’

And yet, much like addressing diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace, ample time and investment continues to pour into addressing these challenges to no avail. And in some cases, continue to worsen.

It’s time to kick performative equity to the curb and allow data to drive genuine and authentic change where it matters most.

Data transparency driving real accountability

As corporate Australia scurries to defend their gender pay gap disparities, the real opportunity comes in realising that performative equity alone will not close this gap.

This is a catalyst moment to unpack where we’re still getting it wrong, and redirect resources into driving meaningful change at a systemic level. This requires a genuine commitment to action at all levels – corporate leaders, governments, industry bodies, and individuals – and will be the longer, bumpier, road less travelled.

The workforce composition data made transparent through the WGEA report has shown that despite our best awareness campaigns, women are still overwhelming filling lower positions on the company ladder contributing the largest explanation for the gender pay gap.

A multifaceted solution – where the voices, needs and challenges of women are heard, first – is required. It calls for companies to take accountability for overhauling strategic objectives and aligning policy and practices accordingly to ensure that women have equitable access to resources, promotions, and support to progress their careers. And that they aren’t inequitably disadvantaged by life stages such as care giving and parenthood.

However, without genuine buy in from leadership too, we’ll continue to flounder at the surface. Courage, a healthy appetite for discomfort, and a willingness to let go of ‘how we’ve done things around here’ is essential ingredients in moving forward.

As civil rights activist and scholar Audre Lorde implores us

‘The master’s tool will never dismantle the masters house.’

So, maybe it’s time we stepped outside of the house altogether and built a new one?

References

1.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Randstad. (2023). Talent Trends 2023.https://content.randstadsourceright.com/hubfs/2023_TTR/Randstad-Enterprise-2023-global-talent-trends-report-230220.pdf

2.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Workplace Gender Equality Agency. (2024). Employer gender pay gaps published first time. https://www.wgea.gov.au/newsroom/employer-gender-pay-gaps-published-first-time-Media-release

3.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Fleming,nbsp;W. J.nbsp;(2023).nbsp;Employee well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions: Cross-sectional evidence from the United Kingdom.nbsp;Industrial Relations Journal,nbsp;1–21.nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12418

4.      McCullough, S. R, & Erasmus, S. (2021). Assessing the Impact of Equity Work in Transportation. UC Davis: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2154FBQ Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sg7k9cn

Some examples of performative equity action vs authentic equity action.