Every year around November, a news item pops up on most UK media platforms saying that from this day until the end of the year, women are working for nothing. This is presented as an illustration of the gender pay gap, the discrepancy between what men and women earn in the UK.

The gender pay gap has become another 'fact' that is promoted widely, including by respectable publications. Earlier this year the Financial Times (April 23, 2019) reported that "there are still no sectors in the UK economy where women are paid the same as men" and that "the median pay gap this year [2018] was 11.9%". These are shocking facts. This suggests that women in UK workplaces are being actively discriminated against by employers. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for women to assume that such discrimination does apply to them, that their contribution will not be fairly valued, that they will not achieve pay parity with men, that they are oppressed by their male counterparts, and to demand that companies and government develop further policies to correct this inequality. The impact of this information is significant: it is demoralising, divisive and harmful. In our coaching work we regularly encounter women and men concerned about this situation and struggling to know how to address it, both for themselves and their teams. For a woman to assume, based on the presentation of these facts, that her male counterparts are paid more, is corrosive.

So how would that look if we knew that that information was misleading?

In the 2018 figures reported by the FT, 10,428 employers disclosed what they paid per hour to their men and women. Of these, 1,421 companies pay women more than men, while 8,113 pay men more than women. That is the gender pay gap. Yet when you probe a little (but not much) deeper a rather different picture emerges. What the headlines don't state, and it seems they actively obscure, is that these figures are based on a comparison of hourly rates of pay across all jobs across the UK. As the Office for National Statistics (the government office which measures and provides gender pay gap data) states, the gender pay gap "is not a measure of the difference in pay between men and women for doing the same job". Therefore these are not comparable numbers - it's like comparing apples with oranges. Regardless of age, qualifications, type of job, full- or part-time, seniority and experience, all hourly rates are thrown in together. EasyJet provides a classic illustration of this - their gender pay gap for 2018 is reported as a whopping 54%. However this is because their pilots who are 94% male earn considerably more than their cabin crew who are 70% female. Their (then female) CEO and leadership team have set a target for 20% of pilots to be female by 2020 - a target they are struggling with as there are very few female pilots qualifying, despite targeted initiatives to encourage them to do so.

When you compare like with like (comparable jobs and comparable sectors) a very different picture emerges:

• For men and women between the ages of 18 and 39 the gender pay gap is virtually zero (it widens after the age of 40)
• For men and women in part time work aged between 30 and 39 there is a negative pay gap (i.e. women earn more than men)

This presents an entirely different picture to the emphasis touted by virtually all mainstream UK media. These figures are encouraging, suggesting that the 1970s Equal Pay legislation is working its way through the age range. They reveal a significantly improved - and improving - picture and that younger women are benefiting. 

Among older employees a greater number of men than women are in senior positions, partly through having better opportunities in earlier years, and therefore they earn more. Women tend to take more time out from their careers for family reasons and are more likely to work part-time, so they earn less. On average, men tend to work longer hours and are more likely to work in dangerous, high risk or unsocial roles which typically pay more. For a long time many women have been unfairly treated in the workplace and their careers and earnings have been significantly impacted (as many of us have experienced directly) but all of these factors notwithstanding, year-on-year the data show significant positive change.

The gender pay gap is yet another topic that seems to have become the cause de jour for those keen to virtue-signal their woke credentials. Weaponising this data to further such a political agenda actually harms women (and men) and creates yet more completely unnecessary tension and pessimism. In reality, there is more to do but also much to celebrate in this improving picture.

​It is often said that people don't leave jobs or organisations, they leave their managers. But is that true?
​
As we have come to expect in this range of articles, and unsurprisingly, it's not quite that straightforward. The evidence would suggest that bad bosses do influence whether people leave jobs and that good bosses can encourage people to stay who might otherwise leave, but there is more to it.

Here are some of the main reasons that influence people to leave their employer:

1. Feeling that matters at work are being dealt with unfairly
2. Perceiving that the employer has failed to deliver on promises made
3. Experiencing a negative and unsupportive atmosphere from colleagues/team
 
The first two centre on trust, or the lack of it. Experiencing a breach of trust usually has negative results, including a decrease in motivation and engagement. In fact when the employee's perception is that the organisation has behaved unfairly whilst also perceiving that their manager is supportive, this can lead to an unhealthy and unproductive silo mentality or a 'them and us' situation. In these circumstances there is a high risk that when the manager leaves, many of the team members will follow rapidly afterwards.
 
The nature of the job is also important in retaining employees. Where people are unclear about their role or the expectations of them they are more likely to leave. Similarly  if they perceive that the job is boring and monotonous, unimportant/pointless, or that they have little control over it and limited decision making ability, they are more likely to leave. Many of these characteristics are also related to greater stress so these are likely to be associated.

Most of these features can be controlled and improved. For example, managers can

• give feedback
• enable more decision making
• listen more
• communicate clearly
• set clear goals and expectations
• honour their commitments
• reshape jobs/processes

 
Raising this awareness and developing these skills in managers and managers-to-be is a straightforward and accessible activity, and one that might be included in training, coaching and performance appraisal practices.
​
To see more information on the study see here.

The researchers found that employees actively employing their signature strengths at work build their own positive attitude and engagement with work. They have found that personality type does affect the impact of using personal strengths. For example, those who measure high in Extraversion and low in Neuroticism experience greater benefit from daily strengths use. 
​
What about those people who are high in Neuroticism? Their findings suggest that people who are impulsive and more prone to stress (and who may experience feelings of anxiety, anger, frustration, and depression more regularly) derive little benefit from strengths use without additional support. Given that the use of strengths does have beneficial impact, the authors suggest that these people may require additional personal and/or environmental support to facilitate their use. 

This study provides further confirmation that the use of strengths is an important predictor of positive affect which is particularly important in working environments that require learning and creativity.

The authors conclude that "organisations and managers should facilitate employee strengths use, because when employees employ these strengths they are more dedicated and energised at work".

Millennials (those people born between 1981 and 1996) have had a rough press in the last few years. Pictured as being entitled, narcissistic and self-centred it would be easy to think that they would be a dismal prospect to have as colleagues or employees. Given that these people will now be in the 22-37 year old age range, they're already making up a fair chunk of the workforce.

Aside from being potentially deeply patronising, is there any truth in this or is yet another example of self-appointed experts creating an issue they can earn a few bob in consultancy fees from?

A recent PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) report describes clear differences with Millennials, including

• Only 18 percent of those surveyed expected to stay with their current employer for the long term, with over a quarter expecting to have six employers or more in their work life.
• 38 percent felt older senior management do not relate to younger workers, and 34 percent said their personal drive was intimidating to other generations.
• Career progression is a top priority for millennials, who expect to rise rapidly through the organisation. Competitive salaries came second place.

It doesn't take much thought or imagination to conclude that these aspirations apply to any group of people in the 20-30s age range. There is nothing unique here about this specific generation. However these kind of conclusions and headlines are now commonplace.

All generations such as Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), Generation X (1965 to 1980) and Millennials tend to view the previous generation in a similar way. In the early part of our working lives most of us are at our most ambitious, creative and idealistic - this applies to all people, in all cultures, across time. 

In 2012, a wide-ranging meta analysis (1) (i.e. analysing the results from multiple, different studies) looked at generational work differences in three key areas: 

• commitment to the organisation
• job satisfaction
• intention to leave

The researchers found no significant attitudinal differences which could be explained by generation. They found some differences that could be explained by age however - for example, older workers were slightly less likely to leave their jobs. This was found to be most likely due to older workers having more autonomy and expertise in their roles, and therefore greater job satisfaction.

Making a special case of a specific generation is misleading and unhelpful and creates yet another opportunity to foster difference, and pitch "us" against "them". It promotes a false need for organisations to provide more training and development to fix this "problem". The key message for employers is that you should not shape your management and recruitment strategies around different generational values. At least, not until there is real evidence that those differences exist.

So forget the "problem with Millennials". The iGen (Generation Z) generation however, could well be another matter... See our forthcoming article on Stress and Anxiety for further details .

Law careers are changing. The pace and nature of client work, the impact of new technology, global markets, diversity targets and changing career aspirations are leading to changes both in opportunity and expectation for UK lawyers. We know from our work with law firms that retaining good lawyers and providing a stimulating and satisfying work environment is challenging. Turnover rates can be high in competitive markets and time needed to induct new lawyers into complex and fast moving client work inevitably impacts performance.

Over the last 18 months we have looked specifically at these areas, tapping into the experiences of a number of UK lawyers at differing levels of experience and in varying law firm sizes. [Our findings are available here in our recent report]. In a forthcoming series of short articles we assess the key challenges of retention, performance, well-being and gender diversity, and offer some solutions.

​Here, we look at retention.

​Just over 23% of lawyers in our survey indicated that they expected to remain within their current firm for between 3 and 5 years.  This included nearly 40% of senior associates with a further 10% of them intending to leave within the next 1 to 2 years.  A further 33% of lawyers indicated that they didn't know how long they intended to stay.

The challenge for all businesses to be able to attract and retain the best people they can is well known and much talked about. Many firms turn to their relatively low staff turnover or the number of applicants to their recruitment initiatives and conclude that all is well. But is this right?

Not infrequently we work with people on development programmes and workshops who, to put it charitably, are not exactly 'on fire' with enthusiasm for their job or their firm. Most of them are not doing a poor job but they are not performing anywhere near as well as they could be - meaning that both firm and lawyer suffer. They frequently feel stuck and undervalued in the role and would prefer to be doing something different – or differently. This is not where optimal performance or job satisfaction comes from. From the wider business perspective this also creates vulnerability; the risk of good people being poached by other firms - always a concern - becomes greater.
​
What does it take to attract and retain good people who are committed and perform well? 

​Legal careers are changing. The pace and nature of client work, the impact of new technology, global markets/Brexit, diversity targets and career aspirations are leading to changes both in opportunity and expectation for lawyers.