Should I point out that I'm a woman when negotiating starting salary?

Question

The pay gap between men and women has been in the news lately so I'm wondering if it would be an appropriate strategy to use this when negotiating a starting salary at a new company as a Senior Software Engineer.

Them: "What salary range are you looking for"?

Me: "I'm sure you will provide an appropriate offer given my qualifications and experience..."

Do I finish this sentence by subtly implying that they shouldn't pay me less than men in the same position?

Options:

• given the current focus on gender pay equity.
• that would not come under scrutiny if a gender gap analysis was done on your payroll.
• that is in line with male colleagues.
• ...

Answer 1

Ok, as a woman who works in the IT industry and has worked as a Senior Software Engineer for many years, my answer is simply Don't bring gender into the equation!

I know what I am prepared to work for. I know what market rate is for someone of my qualifications and experience. There aren't two market rates, one for men and one for women. Negotiate for the salary that fits your expectations, qualifications and experience.

Honestly, as a new person coming in to a new organisation, you probably have a better chance at hitting market rate, rather than someone going up the ranks within an organisation. The differential at that point is normally because of promotions or lack thereof.

So all I can suggest is to educate yourself on what is the appropriate market rate for your experience, and, decide what you are prepared to work for, and go from there.

From your comment on an earlier answer:

I'm a great software engineer but a lousy negotiator. I'm looking for an easy way to get fair pay

The most important thing to remember in any negotiation is don't sell yourself short. There is no easy way around that. I'm not the best negotiator myself, but I know what is fair and what I'm prepared to work for. If that isn't met, then move on.

Answer 2

This is likely to cause offense. Such a statement would imply (without evidence) that the people you are negotiating with are likely to discriminate against you because you are a woman. Suggesting that the people who are about to employ you are probably sexist is not a good way to start off in a new position.

The idea that a significant part of the gender pay gap is caused by direct discrimination is controversial. According to the most thorough studies of the issue, most of the pay gap is explained by factors like different career choices, education, and experience. The remaining portion of the gap may be due to discrimination, or other factors such as women being less likely to negotiate for higher salaries. Wikipedia summarizes the evidence.

Most studies do conclude that there is some discrimination involved, but find that the largest part of the gap is due to other, measurable factors. Typically, there aren't good ways to measure discrimination directly, so studies tend to infer that the portion of the salary gap not explained by any measurable factors is caused by discrimination. While this may be reasonable, it is a judgement call, as there may be other unmeasurable factors that explain the gap. Here is more good information from Skeptics Stack Exchange.

It is not clear, based on the evidence, that individual employers discriminating based on gender for salaries is actually a meaningful contributor to the gender gap. Even those who highlight the pay gap as a big problem often focus on arguments like "society values jobs women do less" or "women are socialized to go into lower paying fields" more than direct discrimination.

Even if you disagree and believe direct discrimination is widespread, there is still no evidence that your particular employer discriminates.

Ultimately, the best option (whether discrimination exists or not) is to negotiate for pay that is in line with your qualifications, skills, and experience.

There are lots of other questions on this site about how to negotiate salaries, so I'm not going to repeat advice about that here.

Update: thanks, commenters, for the feedback. I remain convinced about the main points I have made, but I realize that not everyone agrees. I have added more discussion and the other reference suggested, and I hope it is a fair treatment of the evidence (whatever your conclusions may be).

Answer 3

No, don't point out that you are a woman.

You don't want to be paid in line with your male colleagues. You want to be paid in line with your qualifications. (And your skill at negotiating.)

If your male colleagues are less qualified than you are, and/or less adept at negotiating, you want to be paid more. If your male colleagues are more qualified, yes, in principle you want to have a matching salary, but then you are overpaid, and that could be a problem down the road - better to accept a lower salary and work on your qualification.

As deviantfan notes, asking for special treatment based on your gender can paint you as a high-maintenance employee, and not only salary-wise, but also management-attention-wise. Not good. Plus, you don't want something like this ever to become public knowledge among your peers. With professional HR, it won't ever come out, but if anyone ever mentions "that software engineer who got a higher starting salary because she's a woman", you will not be liked by your colleagues - neither men nor women.

Focus on your skills and qualifications, and negotiate well.

Answer 4

You want to be paid like your male colleagues. That's good! Now, you need to negotiate like them too. Set your expectations higher (men tend to ask for higher raises) than you would.

You don't need to point out you are a woman, you need to point out how much they should value you (by first pointing to what you have achieved/accomplished during your time with them). Then you need to set forward what you think is a fair compensation for all the presumably good work you do for them.

I also urge you to read over Jane S' answer. This part especially is super important: "Negotiate for the salary that fits your expectations, qualifications and experience.". You are not negotiating for womankind, you are negotiating for yourself.

Answer 5

There's absolutely no point in raising the issue. Unless you have a very unusual name, they already know you're female. So any offer they make will already be constrained by their attitudes.

Also whether or not the general job market is negative is also irrelevant. At the time you'll be just one candidate of several.

So caution would be my watchword.

Answer 6

This was going to be a comment but takes too much space.

I don't know that the pay gap is actually real. I believe that it's either:

• A remnant. Women moving up the org chart and getting a standard % raise based on older substandard pay.

• Totally made by the women going into the negotiation and expecting to get less and there for accepting less.

For all the companies that I have had a hand in the hiring process (which usually would be for IT/Dev positions) There is a chart, a table, or a budget that is the constraint. Usually presented as $x - $y against experience and skills. Something like

1 Years - 100 - 200
2 Years - 120 - 220
3 Years - 130 - 220
4 Years - 140 - 220
5 Years - 150 - 230

Never have I seen a chart, table or budget that split out women and men. However I have seen the following.

The expected negotiation is:

What do you want?

I want something in the range of 150.

-- Then I look at the chart and see of there in range. If there near the bottom I accept. If there near the top we continue.

I would like to offer you 100. Consider that and the other benefits.

I can't do 100, how about 125.

Ok, I can offer 125.

I have seen woman who seem to expect to get less, and thus take the 100 offer with no counter offer (I have guys do it too, but it seems women do it more, though I don't really know why).

If there is a pay gap, I feel (can't prove) that it exists in that fact, and not in any way (for most companies) a deliberate effort to pay women less.

Because of that I would suggest that the downsides outweigh the single potential benefit (scaring them into doing the right thing.)

You could be passed up because you're making gender a thing. To be honest, when hiring any women or anyone really, I keep an eye out for people who think they are going to be in the default position of being screwed over. These people tend to think that they're being picked on when asked to work late, or that extra weekend. The new guy (or gal in this case) always gets the crap work. It's not picking on, it's seniority. So I try to weed out applicants that feel like they're going to turn every "Can you work late?" into "Are you picking on me because I'm a woman?"

Answer 7

I'm not able to comment. I would not suggest bringing up "The pay gap between men and women" as this is a myth at best. There are no reputable economists or statisticians that acknowledge a gender wage gape exists in North America (assuming this is where you are as it is not specified, and please research this before commenting).

Discussing known myths as reality may cause some worry with potential employers. I would not discuss this with them, nor would I make your gender a major point of discussion, as your gender encompasses approximately 50% of the population, it is generally irrelevant.

Do I finish this sentence by subtly implying that they shouldn't pay me less than men in the same position?

This is a very bad idea. Displaying clear passive-aggressive tendencies in the interview is not likely to help you in any way.

Although some of what I have said is in previous answers, no one has addressed the pay gap as a myth, which I feel is important for future negations and consideration.

Best of luck.

Answer 8

What you are in effect asking is if there is a reasonable, low-risk way to deal with systemic gender discrimination risk.

Sorry, probably not.

There are no easy ways around systemic discrimination.

Stating you are aware of the problem doesn't help. Asking them to be aware of the problem doesn't help.

You can look to find organizations which publically state they are aware of the issue and work to combat it. Asking about this during an interview is high risk, as the reaction of people in power to being asked about "do you oppress?" is usually very negative. You can see lots of evidence about this in this very Q&A, where people talk about being offended by the question, or treat someone who believes this is the case as someone not to hire.

The upside of asking is that you will pre-filter out the workplaces where the attitude is "there is no problem". The downside is you pre-filter. As a prospective employee, there is a large power imbalance, and often you need the job more than they need to employ you specifically. Sometimes this isn't the case, and they need you more than the opposite: but modern business practices basically revolves around eliminating that possibility as much as possible.

If there was an easy way around systemic discrimination, the problem would already be solved.

So, rather than talk about it in the interview (or before!), examine the public statements of the company around the gender pay gap. There are employers explicitly working to eliminate it, that study their own pay gap problems and publish their successes and failures pubically. Seek out such employers. Find employers that use objective, transparent criteria (almost anything will do!) to determine salaries to avoid the negotiation trap.

There are companies who will probably respond enthusiastically to being asked about their gender pay gap policies, such as McMaster University. There are many, many others which will respond with deciding not to hire you, or flagging you as a troublemaker.

So, only ask a question like "what policies do you have to address gender pay gaps" or the like if you are planning to walk away if they don't give the answer you want.

This can be a valid option, and it does send a message (that their lack of gender pay gap policies can cost them hires). But it sends a message at a cost, and with the power imbalance involved in interview and employment, odds are they aren't listening too hard to you.

Answer 9

I'm pretty sure this is not the best answer but let me bring this idea forward.

Depending on location (this is relevant). Female Software employees are scarce, most people will find that having a mixed set of persona's in a team will be more productive and different solutions will be proposed and implemented.

That being said, they might even consider adding a female dev to their team more valueable instead of thinking you should get paid less. Especially in the IT field I don't believe people will handle this way towards you.

What I do see here is that you're basically giving them the choice on rewarding you for your expertise, if you don't come forward with a target wage they will aim below this. This is a thing I've seen in other answers (Like the top voted) that women tend to not ask for a raise or a better starting salary. If you do you will easily get better options.

I'm just a Medior in my country after half a year of being a Junior at my first job here, when I would not have asked for a certain amount I would have earned about 10% less than when I did (their offer was way lower).

That said, instead of bringing up I'm a woman which to me would be an insult as recruiter since it would imply I am indeed discriminating. That being said, if I as recruiter would think you're not worth as much as any other I would simply not offer you more or hire you. If you'd bring up the I am a woman factor I would reject you fully, to most people it's irrelevant it's about your expertise.

I would bring forward an idea of what I'd think be fair (and top it off a little so they can also lower it slightly and still make me happy).

I hope this gives some insights in your issue, as for female developers our company's lead dev is one and I'm totally happy with this.

Answer 10

Idealistically, you should approach such negotiations without any regard to gender, for which the plethora of other advice holds true. However, there is an observed historical issue within the tech industry with regards to women and I can understand wanting to do something to address that.

During an interview during salary discussion is not the time to address it. Depending on where you're interviewing, many western countries have a bunch of anti-discrimination laws that prohibit factors like gender, age, marital status, etc. being of consequence in the hiring process. While some of these are harder to hide than others, it does put limits on the appropriateness of discussing them or calling them to attention during the interview. Attempting to use it as a negotiation tactic amplifies the inappropriateness of this and would not be considered professional.

However, earlier in the interview you can approach this subject indirectly by discussing gender equality in the workplace and what measures they have in place to ensure this. A number of companies are quite proactive in their diversity efforts and a good interviewer would welcome the opportunity to sell the position on these features, whereas others should at least confirm that they adhere to minimum standards mandated by local law. Depending on how they answer this, this may give you more confidence that when you do engage in salary negotiation, it will be on a level playing field.

Answer 11

Women are underpaid because: 1. They are apparently less good at blowing their own trumpet in an interview, which makes them appear less qualified when they are not. 2. They request less money and accept lower offers.

At least the second part you can overcome reasonably easily: 1. Read up how much the gender gap is, less pay for the same work (not for the same job, but for the same work). 2. Decide what pay range would suit you (lower end = where you might consider taking the job but will first try hard to get something better, high end = where you sign right there and then). 3. Add the gender gap to your range.

When you think you are asking for too much money, then you are about in the right range.

Answer 12

Ok, I'll play woman's advocate here. Many of the other answers are based on the assumption that you've got the weaker hand in negotiations, and you shouldn't risk the hiring company's ire by asking a potentially offensive question. However, you are a software engineer and this is an industry with negative employment. So, I think it's altogether feasible that you have the stronger hand in the negotiations.

In that situation, it might not necessarily be a mistake to pre-filter workplaces that don't take gender issues in the workplace seriously. If a company's answer to a question about the wage gap is anything less than "the wage gap is a serious issue and we're committed to closing it," than that could reasonably indicate other problems with the company.

Maybe they're outright a bunch of sexist jerks, maybe they're merely indifferent on issues that are important to you, maybe they're just naive. I don't have much confidence in any of the above having your back should gender-discriminatory workplace happenstance (of which there are many varieties) befall you.

So, if you have the time and resources to find a company that fits your values (and there are companies that are proudly committed to closing the wage gap), aren't you just taking reasonable steps to protect your self-interest? There's nothing wrong with prioritizing a supportive culture over any other measure of a company.

Answer 13

Well, no... First obviously, if you had a face to face interview, they should ideally have figured this one out. Second, if you feel the need to point out that you are a woman and "need equitable pay" kinda implies you are a jerk, or don't trust them to make a decision based on your qualifications/