To the Editor:
Last week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy published an op-ed by Vincent Robinson that critiques the #ShowTheSalary campaign. Robinson, who runs an executive-recruitment firm that specializes in recruiting “diverse candidates in leadership positions” for foundations and nonprofits, claims that the campaign, while well intentioned, hinders the ability of organizations to recruit and hire diverse candidates.
No doubt, Robinson’s work and expertise are quite helpful to those who can afford his services. But what about the majority of those in the field who don’t have the luxury of an executive recruiter?
As chair of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Women’s Impact Initiative, and an advocate for equity in the nonprofit world, I feel obligated to respond. Robinson’s assumptions about the Show the Salary movement are incorrect and do little to further equity in the field for which he claims to have so much concern.
The Women’s Impact Initiative has placed significant focus on closing the wage gap in nonprofits. The data are clear: Women, and particularly women of color, remain underpaid and undervalued.
Nearly 60 years after enactment of the Equal Pay Act in the United States, female fundraisers continue to be paid between 10 to 15 percent less than their white male counterparts for the same positions. The pay gap for women of color is closer to 40 percent. This is no accident. It is the result of patriarchal and racist systems that prevent women from being paid what they’re worth. At the current rate, women will not reach equal pay globally until 2069.
In the op-ed, Robinson describes an “unfortunate scenario” in which diverse candidates are scared away from applying for roles with salaries that are significantly higher than their current positions. He claims many women in this scenario assume they aren’t qualified for the job. So, in Robinson’s view, we are to believe that because diverse candidates have been traditionally underpaid for their work, we should continue to hide salary ranges? There is no logic in continuing to perpetuate this system in the hopes that employers will just magnanimously pay a candidate what they are worth.
Robinson’s scenario and summary of the situation is insulting. Kelly Jeanine Phipps, a Black fundraiser, tweeted that the article broke her heart. “As a Black woman who has been previously underpaid for roles, it’s insulting to insinuate that I ‘can’t handle’ knowing a salary range because I’ll be scared. When actually … I just want to be valued and not taken advantage of,” Phipps wrote.
This lack of inclusivity in hiring is a common complaint by fundraisers who are women of color. I recently co-hosted a presentation on pay equity with Birgit Burton, the incoming chair of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Global and a Black woman. She shared the story of a woman of color who was highly sought after by an executive recruitment firm for a senior fundraising role. She was the successful candidate, but at the end of the process discovered that the salary was $20,000 less than she was willing to accept. When she addressed the issue with the recruiter, she was told that “there were five other white women” willing to take the position at that salary. Burton noted that stories of this kind are all too familiar among women of color fundraisers.
While pay transparency won’t stop racism, it will prevent talented women from wasting their time interviewing for jobs that don’t pay adequately.
I reached out to the people behind Show the Salary and asked for their thoughts on Robinson’s piece. A representative for the group, which works anonymously for fear of reprisals, noted that Robinson “wholly ignores why salary secrecy is a discriminatory practice. He doesn’t tackle this at all, and it’s clear why that is — it invalidates his argument.” The representative also said Robinson did not contact Show the Salary before submitting his op-ed.
Robinson claims that a “social media hammer” is not the place for a nuanced conversation about pay transparency. I disagree. The Show the Salary campaign has spurred employers to reconsider their practices. And despite Robinson’s presumptions about the impact on hiring, studies show that when the salary is posted, organizations receive 25 to 35 percent more applicants for the position.
Kim Churches, the CEO of the American Association for University Women, recently wrote about the long-term effects of pay transparency, noting that research by her organization shows the wage gap decreases in fields where pay transparency is mandated. For example, the gender pay gap for federal employees is 13 percent compared with 29 percent for employees at for-profit companies, which typically don’t publicize salaries.
Churches also notes that the pay gap accumulates over time, causing women and workers of color to make less during their lifetimes. Robinson does not account for this long-term accumulative effect.
The only people benefiting from pay secrecy are recruitment firms and employers. As activist and blogger Vu Le points out, “There is so much research on this topic now, we should not waste any more time discussing this.”
No one is arguing that pay transparency will solve all the issues women and people of color face in the workplace. But we need to start somewhere.
“We’ve never pretended Show the Salary, in isolation, will fix all of the sector’s issues, but it’s an important part of the puzzle,” said the representative for the group. “It has started conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion that just weren’t happening in our sector. Attempting to shut them down is entirely the wrong battle, and it’s damaging.”
I agree. Rather than disparaging the movement, more nonprofits should join the 300-plus organizations that have adopted the ShowTheSalary pledge.
Liz LeClair
Chair
Association of Fundraising Professionals Women’s Impact Initiative
Le Clair is also director of major gifts at the QEII Foundation, in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Publicizing Salaries Won’t ‘Scare Away’ Me or Other Women
As the name of the #ShowTheSalary campaign suggests, organizers are encouraging nonprofits and foundations to clearly post the salary details of all jobs they advertise. No vague “salary commensurate with experience” or unhelpful “competitive compensation and benefits package offered.” Just the exact salary they’re offering and a clear outline of benefits. Period.
Robinson’s argument against encouraging nonprofits to take this seemingly logical step toward increasing transparency in the field is that publishing the offered salary would scare off potential candidates. Robinson offers what he calls the “painful reality” that “particularly women and people of color are less likely to apply for jobs if they think the listed salary is a stretch based on their current compensation.”
Robinson reports that he sees this situation regularly in his work in nonprofit recruiting, and he offers it as anecdotal evidence that publishing salaries does nothing to increase diversity. In support of his argument, Robinson points to a single unpublished master’s thesis — not exactly the kind of rigorous peer-reviewed research our field deserves.
I’m not a person of color, but I am a woman who has spent the majority of my career in the nonprofit world both in the United States and the UK, which is where Show the Salary originates. I’ve worked for peanuts for organizations that churn through highly educated, driven women like myself seemingly in part because we come cheap.
Not until I went to business school did I ever fathom asking for anything above 10 percent of what I was currently making in another nonprofit role. I felt like I’d come across as greedy or that I’d stretch the resources of an organization whose mission I believed in.
And because nonprofit salaries are so often hidden and rarely discussed, I also assumed everyone else was getting by on the same wages. That was just the price one paid for working in this field, I imagined. In fact, I left nonprofits for several years in large part because the salaries were so dismal.
Attracting and retaining talented, dedicated employees who bring a wide range of skills and lived experiences to the field will take many of the actions Robinson suggests, including posting job descriptions beyond mainstream posting platforms and building intentionally diverse hiring committees.
But it will also take being honest with employees about what an organization can afford to spend on a valued role and actively encouraging qualified women, people of color, and other traditionally underpaid professionals to apply. This means clearly publishing the salaries for all nonprofit positions, no matter how high.
At the end of the day, women can handle it.
Lauren Janus
COO
Phila Engaged Giving
Hiding Salaries Allows Organizations to Evade Equality
On many levels I was disappointed by Robinson’s op-ed criticizing the attempt to get organizations to publish salaries for open positions. Of course, if one is seeking an executive position and has the benefit of a recruiter such as Robinson, it may be a different story. But that is not the case for the vast majority of workers — and it’s naive to think otherwise.
My state, Colorado, recently enacted a law that requires ads for available jobs to post salary ranges so that women and people of color can advocate for themselves. The legislation is the first of its kind in the nation. It is widely viewed as beneficial, and many women’s rights organizations, such as 9to5, supported it.
Yet, it turns out that some larger employers seeking remote employees are now excluding workers from Colorado. These include Nike, Johnson & Johnson, Lincoln Financial, and other well-known brands. One recruiting firm, RapidSOS, denied Coloradoans access to jobs because of the law. None would comment on the record to local news organizations.
Why does Robinson suppose that is?
Certainly, if a nonprofit or private business is committed to equality and transparency and has fair and just workplace policies, there would be nothing to hide. To deny transparency is to deny equality. Instead, Robinson would like us to believe that the norm is for qualified candidates to shy away from jobs because they feel the listed salary is too high. I would challenge him to consider that perhaps salaries are hidden so organizations can pay as little as possible and evade equality.
Salary transparency is not a panacea. But to suggest that it is not an essential part of the battle for equal pay is an argument for organizations resistant to the idea of equality and transparency.
Robert Austin
Public Relations Consultant
Clear Wisdom Public Relations and Consulting