No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
If sex discrimination in pay is still a societal problem, job evaluation is the answer
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2022
Abstract
Strah et al. (2021) claimed “pay inequality between men and women remains a salient societal issue” (p. 1). We agree that it is a societal issue, but we believe this issue has already been solved by existing job evaluation procedures. Job evaluation procedures have shown to be reliable and valid methods for assessing whether an organization can meet equal pay standards. The authors presented no scientific evidence that this was inaccurate. In fact, nearly 50 years ago there was considerable evidence that equal pay standards, both scientific and legal, were met by job evaluation.
- Type
- Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
References
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: Is “women’s” work valued as highly as “men’s”? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1416–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvey, R. D., Passino, E. M., & Lounsbury, J. W. (1977). Job analysis results as influenced by sex of incumbent and sex of analysts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvey, R. D. (1986). Sex bias in job evaluation procedures. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, G. V., & Doverspike, D. (1989). Another defense of point-factor job analysis. Personnel, 33–36.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § (1964).Google Scholar
Cooper, E. A., & Barrett, G. V. (1984). Equal pay and gender: Implications of court cases for personnel practices. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan 417 U.S. 188 (1974).Google Scholar
County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981).Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Doverspike, D., & Barrett, G. V. (1984). An internal bias analysis of a job evaluation instrument. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 648–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doverspike, D., Carlisi, A. M., Barrett, G. V., & Alexander, R. A. (1983). Generalizability analysis of a point-method job evaluation instrument. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 476–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Equal Pay Act, 29 § 206 (d) (1963).Google Scholar
Grams, R., & Schwab, D. P. (1985). An investigation of systematic gender-related error in job evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 279–290.Google Scholar
Mahoney, T. A., & Blake, R. A. (1979, August 8–11). Organizational pay as a function of sex stereotypes and job content [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Schwab, D. P., & Grams, R. (1985). Sex-related errors in job evaluation: A “real world” test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strah, N., Rupp, D. E., & Morris, S. (2021). Job analysis and job classifications for addressing pay inequality in organizations: Adjusting our methods within a shifting legal landscape. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 15(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office. (November, 1995). Federal job classification comparison of job content with grades assigned in selected occupations. https://www.gao.gov/products/ggd-96-20
Google Scholar