Two Ways Compensation And Diversity Should Not Be At Odds
By Jen Bolson Meer and Xiomara Padamsee
Originally appeared on Ahead of the Heard
At this time of year, schools are buzzing with the sounds of potential new teachers, school leaders, and other team members. Candidates are touring schools, presenting sample lessons, and interviewing, all with the end goal of an accepted offer. Given talent shortages in some areas of the country, Bellwether’s Talent Advising team has seen increased interest from both traditional and charter public school systems in redesigning their compensation approaches to best position them to attract top talent.
Despite renewed energy in our sector to create diverse, equitable, and inclusive teams of adults that will then better create equitable and inclusive environments for students, existing diversity conversations don’t talk enough about compensation, and vice versa. Reasons for this may range from lack of awareness to conflicting priorities such as autonomy and flexibility. In well-intentioned efforts to woo particularly high-potential candidates, we often find leaders making isolated “little” decisions around compensation and rewards which can unintentionally create an inequitable set of practices and behaviors. In larger organizations where hiring authority is dispersed across a larger group of managers, these disparate choices can have even greater consequences.
For example, referral bonuses are all the rage, particularly in tight hiring markets for strong mission-oriented organizations where mission fit is critical for a successful hire. Referral bonuses are paid to existing staff members for referring successful candidates to their employer.
Why might this create a diversity problem? This is a technique that does an excellent job of maintaining the status quo of your current team demographics. Your current team is going to know more people similar to themselves due to their natural networks. Now, if you already have a diverse set of staff, then maintaining the status quo through existing networks could be fine, but if you are trying to expand your pipeline to develop a more diverse pool, this practice could hurt more than help.
Instead, you can target your referral bonuses to those who find candidates for particularly high-need subject areas or schools, limiting them to where you truly need an extra tool in your toolbox. You could also offer bonuses to staff who actively support your efforts to expand your pipeline by attending career fairs at HBCUs or identity-based conferences or by reaching out to affinity groups at teachers colleges.
As another example, opportunities to negotiate are handled differently at different organizations, with some school systems tied to a strict salary and bonus schedule while others may offer a bonus or higher salary when a candidate negotiates.
Why might this create an equity or inclusiveness problem? It’s well-known that some identity groups are more actively, consistently socialized to negotiate. In our work with clients, we see lax negotiation approaches leading to greater perception of compensation inequity among staff members. In addition, the more leeway a leader has in determining compensation, the more likely you are to see unintentional bias begin to show up in actual wage differentials. No matter how much anti-bias training we do, we need structures in place to mitigate this.
Leaders often say they need to have flexibility to negotiate, and while I might personally beg to differ after working at multiple organizations with strict policies, I understand the concern. To achieve your goals more equitably, we usually recommend getting really clear ahead of time on the factors that you might negotiate around, such as former salary, competitive offers, or years of relevant experience. You can then both identify a policy that can apply to anyone equitably, but also proactively communicate that policy so hiring managers and candidates less likely to negotiate otherwise now have a clear policy to work from. In addition, calibration meetings to align on decisions across managers or a compensation review step can enable some autonomy in hiring manager decision-making while providing some checks and balances in the system to intervene when unintentional bias shows up in outcomes.
If you incorporate a wide number of perspectives and zoom out on your compensation approach, you can preemptively adjust or identify when your well-intended initiatives have subtly morphed into an equity challenge. By proactively addressing these “little” structural decisions, you can improve retention; more easily meet your goals around diversity, equity, and inclusiveness; and reduce hiring pressure. Competitive compensation does not have to be at odds with building a diverse, equitable, and inclusive organization.