Gender Pay Gaps in U.S. Federal Science Agencies: An Organizational Approach

Abstract

This study advances understanding of gender pay gaps by examining organizational variation. The gender pay gap literature supplies mechanisms but does not attend to organizational variation; the gender and science literature provides insights on the role of masculinist culture in disciplines but misses pay gap mechanisms. A data set of federal workers allows comparison of men and women in the same jobs and workplaces. Agencies associated with traditionally masculine (engineering, physical sciences) and gender-neutral (biological, interdisciplinary sciences) fields differ. Pay-gap mechanisms vary: human capital differences explain a larger share in gender-neutral agencies, while at male-typed agencies men are frequently paid more than women within the same job. Although beyond the federal workers' standardized pay scale, some interdisciplinary agencies more often pay men off grade, leading to higher earnings for men. Our theory of organizational variation helps explain local agency variation and how pay practices matter in specific organizational contexts. 1 We are grateful for feedback from colleagues at our institutions on various drafts of this article and to colleagues who commented on draft versions presented at the annual American

Narrowing but Persisting Gender Pay Gap among Employees of the US Department of Health and Human Services during 2010-2018

“…[24] The estimated gender pay gap (a female-to-male pay ratio of 91.8% in 2018) from this study is similar to what is published on Fedscope.com, which shows an average pay of $98,409 for women and $106,723 for men among DHHS employees in 2018, resulting in a female-to-male pay ratio of 92%. [25] The estimated trend of a narrowing gender pay gap observed in this study is consistent with earlier research examining different components of the federal workforce [7][8][9] and the trend across the high-income countries. [26] Fig.…”

“…[7] An agency-speci c study produces similar ndings, with a narrowed gap from 22%-31% in 1994 to 10%-27% in 2008. [8] The US Government Accountability O ce (GAO) reported an 11 cents difference in pay between men and women of the federal workforce in 2007, among which 7 cents cannot be explained with occupation or education. [9] As the acquisition of personnel data for research purposes often involve a time lag, earlier studies, including a paper published in 2019, have only been able to examine the federal workforce during 1988-2008.…”

“…[9] As the acquisition of personnel data for research purposes often involve a time lag, earlier studies, including a paper published in 2019, have only been able to examine the federal workforce during 1988-2008. [7,8,10] Several strands of literature exist in explaining the gender pay gap. The economic literature decomposes the gender pay gap into contributions of human capital, occupational segregation, and an unexplained portion that often considered as evidence of discrimination.…”

“…The economic literature decomposes the gender pay gap into contributions of human capital, occupational segregation, and an unexplained portion that often considered as evidence of discrimination. [8][9][10] Other studies have hypothesized that work hours and wage-setting institutions contributed to the gender pay gap. [11][12][13] Psychological attitudes towards competition might have accounted for some but a limited portion of the gender pay gap.…”

The confidence gap predicts the gender pay gap among STEM graduates

“…Additionally, after receiving a job offer, less-confident women might be less likely to negotiate for higher salaries, or if they do attempt to negotiate those with less confidence might be less successful in receiving more compensation than more confident men (26). From the demand side of the labor market, even if less-confident women apply to lucrative jobs, studies indicate there are a number of ways such women might be reallocated or "steered" into applicant pools for jobs that pay less (27)(28)(29). Finally, less-confident individuals that may be considered for lucrative jobs might simply be rejected for those jobs, leaving them to pursue lower-paying options after one or more failed attempts at greater levels of remuneration.…”