Abundant research has documented a gender pay gap; women earn less than men, all else being equal. Against the backdrop of an overall female penalty, we propose that the widespread adoption of diversity goals in organizations creates a female premium for certain women. We integrate the economic principle of supply and demand with theory from the field of strategic human resource management and theorize that individuals perceive high-potential women-who have the abilities needed to reach the upper echelons of organizations, where women remain underrepresented-as more valuable for achieving organizational diversity goals than high-potential men and, in turn, reward them with higher pay. Two field studies (Studies 1 and 3) and two laboratory experiments (Studies 2 and 4) reveal a female premium that is unique to high-potential women (Studies 1 and 2), driven by perceptions that high-potential women have more diversity value than high-potential men (Studies 2 and 4), and larger in contexts where diversity goals are stronger (Studies 3 and 4). Our theory and findings challenge the assumption that the gender pay gap uniformly disadvantages women and offer new insight into why and when the female penalty reverses and becomes a female premium. A strange thing began to happen a couple of years ago. As if the stars had simultaneously aligned in my favor, rather than having to ask, I began receiving [pay] increases that were 3-4 times the standard annual rates. In addition to my regular bonus, I received "special" cash and equity incentives from the company's operating committee and Board of Directors. Soon, executives from external companies began calling and attempting to recruit me to their firms. I honestly wondered what "list" my name was on and how that list had ended up in the hands of this many executives at the same time. I have always delivered strong business results, but the intense focus that companies now have on "diversity" and "gender balance" is definitely working in my favor.

We examine the relationships between work-to-family conflict, time allocation across work activities, and the outcomes of work satisfaction, well-being, and salary in the context of self-regulation and self-discrepancy theories. We posit work-to-family conflict is associated with self-discrepant time allocation such that employees with higher levels of work-to-family conflict are likely to allocate less time than preferred to work activities that require greater self-regulatory resources (e.g., tasks that are complex, or those with longer term goals that delay rewards and closure) and allocate more time than preferred to activities that demand fewer self-regulatory resources or are replenishing (e.g., those that provide closure or are prosocial). We suggest this self-discrepant time allocation (actual vs. preferred time allocation) is one mechanism by which work-to-family conflict leads to negative employee consequences (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Using polynomial regression and response surface methodology, we find that discrepancies between actual and preferred time allocations to work activities negatively relate to work satisfaction, psychological well-being, and physical well-being. Self-discrepant time allocation mediates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and work satisfaction and well-being, while actual time allocation (rather than the discrepancy) mediates the relationship between work-to-family conflict and salary. We find that women are more likely than men to report self-discrepant time allocations as work-to-family conflict increases.

No abstract

No abstract