Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reddit CEO Ellen Pao Bans Salary Negotiations To Equalize Pay For Men, Women

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-things-equal dept.

sabri points out that Reddit CEO Ellen Pao plans to ban salary negotiations in an attempt to equalize pay for men and women. "After losing a sex-discrimination lawsuit in Silicon Valley last week, Ellen Pao continues on her crusade to bring gender equality to the tech world, but this time with a focus on her home turf. As Reddit’s interim CEO, Pao said she wants to eliminate salary negotiations from the company’s hiring process. In her first interview since the lawsuit, Pao told with the Wall Street Journal Monday that the plan would help level the playing field. 'Men negotiate harder than women do and sometimes women get penalized when they do negotiate,' she said. 'So as part of our recruiting process we don’t negotiate with candidates. We come up with an offer that we think is fair. If you want more equity, we’ll let you swap a little bit of your cash salary for equity, but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.'"

44 of 892 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Penalising better negotiators is hardly a good thing regardless if it's trying to promote equality. Really all they're doing is saving money.

    1. Re:Hmm by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really all they're doing is saving money.

      Yep. I will bet good coin, that the average salary as a whole goes down over this.

    2. Re:Hmm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If men are better negotiators...

      Is Pao saying that women are inferior negotiators? Sound s sexist to me.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, there are two problems. (1) Women are socialized to not negotiate. And, much more importantly, (2) the people the women are negotiating with are sexist (unconsciously or not) and will tend reject attempts to negotiate from women.

    4. Re:Hmm by mariox19 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps—just perhaps—the women who do attempt to negotiate are, statistically speaking, more pushy and demanding. There is a certain style to negotiating. Maybe, by and large, women are less likely to negotiate. And, maybe, the ones who do are more likely to do it wrong. I think it possibly could be more complicated than people would like to think.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    5. Re:Hmm by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that in the end they might make it harder for themselves to recruit talent.

      Or easier, now that the initial offer is also their best offer, rather than a low-ball. This may also encourage more resume submissions from people that don't like to haggle.

    6. Re:Hmm by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, conversely, they find a strong willed individual who's great at negotiating but sucks at the actual job and their overpowering personality always derail's team tasks.

      Negotiating skill does not equate to job performance, unless your job is being a negotiator.

    7. Re:Hmm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a man and a woman both use the same tactics for negotiation, the guy will, on average, be rewarded for it more than the woman. There is a lot of evidence that there is subconscious bias applied - guys are seen as "hard negotiators/motivated/etc" while gals are seen as "high needs/bitchy/demanding".

      Um huh - I sort of agree, but by the other women.

      I know a number of women who were successful in their fields, including my SO.

      Most of them say their biggest problem is not with men. But with other women. My wife, who can negotiate as well or better than anyone I know, BTW, has had more problems with other women who simply hate her. Oddly enough, the men she works with and those who worked for her, just love her. And since she's dealing with a number of construction guys, they are not always the most liberated. But they do what she tells them to do, no griping. The women though, are not so nice.

      And the same went for the successful female engineers I've worked with. The less successful ones had more of a concept of forcing a new paradigm on the workplace, with a sort of 40 hours only outlook, no lost vacation, sick leave balance of 0.

      Meanwhile the successful men and women were doing what they had to to get the job done, not trying to mold the workplace towards the LCD.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Hmm by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The less successful ones had more of a concept of forcing a new paradigm on the workplace, with a sort of 40 hours only outlook, no lost vacation, sick leave balance of 0."

      Oh! but, but... what a f* bastards! 40 hours/week, and stay by the hiring contract they signed... how they dared!!!???

      What will come next? Abolishing slavery!!!???

    9. Re:Hmm by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except being "pushy" and being "assertive" are the same thing. The only difference is the gender of the person doing it. If a man sticks up for himself, he is respected. If a woman sticks up for herself, she's a bitch.

      So you say. I say that doing the things that would get a woman called "pushy" are typically things that would get a man called "pushy", and doing things that get a woman called "bitchy" would generally get a man called an "jerk" or an "asshole".

    10. Re:Hmm by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, when I was in my 20s and even 30s I thought the same way you did. Looking back on it I realize there were a lot of tech companies that got a lot of free work that was left on the table from me and my peers because of those attitudes. Sure, staying late a couple of nights to finish something or booking time on the weekend is fine *as long as your company is also fine with giving you that time back somewhere else*. Most companies aren't, treating it as a one way street, especially in software/tech and that's not right.

      Companies love attitudes like yours because it helps weed out the people who won't be taken advantage of.

    11. Re:Hmm by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The thing is, if you go to a company where everyone works 60 hours a week and you want to work 40, you are fucking everyone else in your team."

      I have no problems, in principle, to sign for a 60 hour/week under a fair agreement both parties are comfortable with. And under such a fair agreement, I don't give a damn about how much the rest of my team works nor I think I should.

      But the thing is, if you go to a company that hires for a 40 hour/week but where everyone works 60 hours a week, not such an uncommon scenario, it is the company the one fucking all of them, not the one that wants to stay by the letter of the contract that both the company and him have agreed upon and signed.

      It is curious -and sad, how we the minions get to accept the master's rationale and make it ours.

    12. Re:Hmm by sa1lnr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "(1) Women are socialized to not negotiate"

      Having been married for 28 years I can tell you that this statement is utter nonsense.

    13. Re:Hmm by horm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're assuming the women are negotiating with men, which reveals your own prejudice.

  2. These days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Men negotiate harder than women do"

    Let's punish people who are good at something! Diversity!

    1. Re:These days... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Men negotiate harder than women do"

      So everyone is penalized because women are inferior to men. Nice.

      But the bigger issue is why negotiating even exists at all. Too many companies want to make the hiring process like buying a used car, offering you a low figure, hoping you'll take it, and only offering more if you "negotiate harder".

    2. Re:These days... by Yoda222 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no good reason to pay a good negotiator more than a bad, except if you want to hire someone for a position where you need negotiation skills.

    3. Re:These days... by Cereal+Box · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It exists because you've got two parties with two different goals. One wants to get paid as much as possible, the other wants to acquire something for as little as possible.

    4. Re:These days... by Anrego · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I feel like it exists for a few main reasons:

      - People have different priorities. Some are all about the money, some want the retirement contribution, some want equity, some want vacation, etc. People also proportionally value these things differently. How much do you value an extra week of vacation to say, more retirement contribution or more salary? Negotiation solves this problem.

      - As has been said, the employer and candidate have two directly opposing goals. The employer wants to pay the least they can while not feeling like you'll get a higher paying opportunity a few weeks later, and the employee wants the most money.

      - Negotiation keeps things competitive. If every company stopped allowing negotiations, it would either become a race to the bottom or the top (I'm actually not even sure which, but the cynic in me thinks bottom).

      Ultimately, I think this whole thing is stupid. I'm a guy, but I have to imagine this is patronizing as all hell to women. Isn't this the kind of shit feminists have been fighting forever?

    5. Re:These days... by sayfawa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Everyone's focusing on the first part of that sentence, and not the 2nd...
      Take two people who negotiate equally strongly; the one with the penis is called confident and achieving, the one with the vagina is pushy and catty.
      So too late, some people (the one's with the vaginas) are already being punished for being good at something.

      --
      Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    6. Re:These days... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually most things can be negotiated for. What determines it is the relative price. If it's 5 bucks, they aren't likely to negotiate because they have very little profit margin.

      If it's $100K, there's going to be multiple 1000s in wiggle room.

      But mostly, you list examples of buying 'goods' and not services. Services are inherently more negotiable since it's time vs money instead of stuff vs money. (basically the same as above)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    7. Re:These days... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      maybe its not about men vs women. that's a red herring.

      in the bay area, at least, job salary negotiations exist mostly for non H1B's. H1B's will take what they can get and be thankful for that.

      US born and raised folks have had more options and they won't be manipulated (as much) as foreign workers let themselves be.

      which do you think companies want more of? those that can walk and go elsewhere vs those that are indentured?

      the same for salaries. those who are indentured won't be able to negotiate salaries. those few of us who are left, 'need' to be stripped of that right, too (according to her).

      this is CEO vs common man, not man vs woman.

      war on the middle class, just with a distraction tactic added.

      same old, same old (sigh) ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:These days... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a difference between being 'confident' and 'pushy,' and it has nothing to do with gender.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:These days... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Moreover the OP missed (as did most of the readers here) a too-subtle point made in the summary: it's not about who's better at negotiating, it's about the fact that culturally we (usually) are comfortable about men being pushy about their salary, while women tend to be treated negatively if they do the same thing. It's likely not a conscious decision on the part of those they try to negotiate with, more an unconscious reaction to a difference in expectations, but ill intentioned or otherwise it does actually happen.

      I know women I work with who are considered "difficult" by all the (male) colleagues around me, simply because they do actually try to get ahead. For the example I'm thinking of, there's literally nothing she does that isn't done by far less qualified male colleagues who end up in more senior positions. But nobody wants to work with her, because she's "pushy".

      We're rewarding people of one gender when they negotiate a salary. We're punishing people of the other when they negotiate a salary. Surely even Slashdot's current infestation of MRAs must see the problem with that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:These days... by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ultimately, I think this whole thing is stupid. I'm a guy, but I have to imagine this is patronizing as all hell to women. Isn't this the kind of shit feminists have been fighting forever?

      This is the Social Justice Warrior brand of feminism rather than the egalitarian brand of feminism.

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
  3. Negotiation by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We come up with an offer that we think is fair.

    That's a pretty poor negotiating strategy if you're trying to hire the talent you want rather than the gender you want.

    Why wouldn't I spend the time to fly out and interview if there was a significant chance I wouldn't like whatever number it was that they considered 'fair' and I couldn't negotiate from there?

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Negotiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because you should know what they are offering beforehand, otherwise why go? You are paid for your ability to work, probably at a technically challenging job, not for your skill at negotiation and self marketing. If you have more skill go for a better job or try for a "senior" version of the same post but dont expect better pay for the same work.

  4. What if you are hiring a salesperson? by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't the ability to negotiate be a useful skill for a Reddit salesperson?

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  5. Re:Of course that Republican bitch... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1, Insightful

    doesn't want labor t be able to negotiate higher pay. Their kind hates us and wants us to die. She is so Republican. She thinks we have no rights.

    Really? She sounds more like a Democrat to me. I thought the mantra of the Democrat party was equality through mediocrity?

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  6. Yeah, right. by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Men negotiate harder than women do"

    So, she makes a sexist statement to defend not negotiating in order to eliminate sexism? Fail. Would she use the same claim to defend hiring men over women for positions which involve negotiating contracts?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  7. Crazy by yog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought she was a little off, because of her battle with her previous employer. But this is ridiculous. According to the WSJ, she is personally vetting potential candidates for their attitudes on diversity, and if a candidate says "I am not concerned about diversity" or "I don't consider diversity important" then they don't get hired. And now this salary non-negotiation thing. No one of any value is going to interview there.

    I suppose the ones who are already there are safe because if she starts firing, say, white men, she's going to eventually have a nasty lawsuit to deal with. But I know her type. She probably won't fire anyone; she'll just harass and hound them into quitting.

    I can't believe Reddit wants this person as their CEO; she's going to destroy the company.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:Crazy by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose the ones who are already there are safe because if she starts firing, say, white men, she's going to eventually have a nasty lawsuit to deal with.

      My observation is that unless said white males are either gay or Jewish there's no hope for them to ever win a discrimination lawsuit.

    2. Re:Crazy by Brulath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are making a lot of claims without sufficient evidence to back them up. So she fits nicely into a stereotype in your mind because of one thing she does and therefore she's going to destroy a company on her mad crusade to... equality?

      Vetting candidates for their attitudes towards diversity in a diverse workplace isn't a terrible idea; you want people who will fit in with the company's culture, and if you can identify problems earlier on it should reduce the number of times a hire doesn't work out. That doesn't mean she won't hire someone who doesn't rate diversity as their #1 life goal, but if someone point-blank denies (“We ask [Reddit job candidates] what they think about diversity, and we did weed people out because of that.”) that equality has any value then perhaps they wouldn't work out.

      The news media puts the worst possible spin on everybody, because outrage sells very well. Don't go taking what they say and condemning a person without applying some critical thinking first. Maybe she will be the doom that you predict, but there's no evidence of that yet.

  8. Changes are not necessarily fixes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CEO feels they were wronged in a prior stint, makes knee-jerk reaction to claim the moral high ground against those who claimed the prior legal action was just for personal enrichment. CEO fails to recognize that the company wouldn't have been negotiating if it wasn't necessary for them to attract and keep the talent they believed was necessary to succeed; already planning future lawsuit when board ousts CEO due to lackluster performance in 3 years after the best contributors leave for other companies that will reward them for their skills.

    Likely result: overpaying for talent after getting burned by multiple candidates, losing competitive edge due to loss of exceptional contributors, and not fixing a damn thing about all the people they've already hired.

  9. She's a piece of work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gay scammer husband who also sued for "discrimination", and will possibly spend time in prison for fraud. Real bitch on wheels that nobody at work liked, and she felt entitled to raises/bonuses/etc... Sues company nice enough to hire her in the first place, and which bent over backwards acceding to her crazy demands prior and during the lawsuit.

    She then gets a job as CEO at Reddit 'somehow' (some sort of shady nepotism), and proceeds to get revenge by basically turning the place into an SJW-only space.

    If I was a white dude working at Reddit I'd be looking around for other work.

    Oh, and she can't ban salary negotiation. She can only say Reddit won't budge on their first offer. The potential employee can just say "mm, OK, but X-Cotech just offered me 5% more - see ya."

  10. Sounds good to me. by Seor+Jojoba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It means that in order for Reddit to be competitive in hiring, they will need to make a first offer (the fixed salary+benefits) that is at or above the market average. As a jobseeker, I can just look at what they have to offer and take it or leave it. No haggling. No drama. That sounds good to me! I'm decent at negotiating, but I don't enjoy it.

    For jobs where negotiating skill is NOT part of the job, the negotiation ban should make hiring decisions better correlate with merit. And generally, I want to be surrounded with people hired for relevant merits, and not just good self-promoters.

  11. Is negotiation a skill required for the job? by duckintheface · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the ability to negotiate aggressively is not a talent required for the job, there is no reason why someone who negotiates well should get a higher salary. The same skills that make for aggressive negotiation (affinity for conflict situations for example) may make a prospective employee perform less well in team situations.

    An interview should give the employer a chance to describe the job and the prospective employee a chance to describe their relevant talents. Each side should then know the market value of the applicants skills with respect to the job. If the company's offer does not match the applicants pay requirement, them should part ways. What does a negotiation accomplish?

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Is negotiation a skill required for the job? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I have to ask - did she negotiate her own salary?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Is negotiation a skill required for the job? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Games of chicken are easy to lose. I've found that those who claim to be good negotiators (such as with buying a new car) also tend to be somewhat annoying as well; aggressive, boisterous, high ego, self centered, etc. They're not afraid to lose that game of chicken, and indeed they are treating it like some sporting contest.

      The problem is not "women don't negotiate" in this case, the problem is "Company chief aggressively negotiated own salary but demands that no one else in company is allowed to do as she did."

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    3. Re:Is negotiation a skill required for the job? by N1AK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When is the last time you negotiated prices at the grocery store?

      When was the last time you didn't negotiate prices on a house or car? And which is selecting an employer more like, buying you milk and bread for the week or a major purchasing decision?

  12. Pao = Sexist by uncqual · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Men negotiate harder than women do

    Is this because woman are unable to negotiate as hard? Because they are unwilling to? Because they are too stupid to? What is her explanation? Is it hormonal? Does it have to do with having different body mass distribution? Inquiring minds want to know.

    If it's to their advantage to negotiate hard and men and women are indistinguishable professionally, women obviously are just as able to negotiate hard (and, given negotiations I've been in, I have no reason to doubt they are not just as capable at this art).

    Pao is really insulting women by saying this.

    This really opens a Pandora's box. If she thinks women, by virtue of being female, are not as good at this important aspect of professional life, one wonders what other parts of their professional lives women are not as good at. She should give us a complete list - who knows what might be on it.

    I wonder what would happen if she ran a purchasing organization or a sales organization. Usually the willingness and capability to negotiate effectively (and, therefore, hard) are basic job requirements for these positions. Would she refuse to hire women because, as she has stated, they are not as good at negotiating hard (ouch, there's a sexual discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen)? Would she refuse to negotiate salary and lose the very people who would negotiate effectively on behalf of her company? In reality, negotiation is always a part of almost any senior job -- you have to negotiate for headcount, resources, approval for projects, even convincing a customer that they don't need something is "negotiating".

    Perhaps she has realized that she (the individual, not the gender) is not good at negotiating and this is a convenient way to avoid acknowledging this reality.

    Perhaps she doesn't realize that no party to a successful negotiation goes away unhappy - does she lack confidence in herself and her own staff being able to negotiate successfully?

    If Reddit has a candidate they really want and offers them $180K and they get an offer from another company for $200K (assuming similar fringe benefits and option valuations), how is it good for the company to walk away from the candidate instead of negotiate? Both $180K and $200K may be "fair" offers. Just because her company didn't happen to guess precisely what the FMV was for the person will she really stubbornly refuse to negotiate and start over from ground zero in trying to fill the position (which will likely cost tens of thousands of dollars in staff time and more tens of thousands of dollars in delay in filling the opening)?

    I also assume that if the board offers, unwisely, to keep her on as permanent CEO and she wants a better offer than they gave her, she will understand when she when the board says "sorry, we don't negotiate and since you don't appear happy with our offer and we want a CEO who is happy with their situation, we retract the offer -- don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  13. Re:It's never for 'promoting equality' by Darinbob · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So when women duplicate the personality traits of males they become feminazis?

  14. Re:Negotiating is necessary. by cas2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, if someone asks me what I would like as a starting salary, I'll give an answer. And they rarely ask me that anyway, usually they ask my current salary and then the offer is a bump up over that. But that's not negotiation.

    i've found that most employers do ask you what you expect as salary, knowing that most people will under-value themselves.

    i'm terrible at negotiations (coz i'm not an extroverted sales-arsehole) but even i know to reflect that question back by asking what's being offered.

    about the only thing i am consistently good at in negotiations is gettring rid of any clauses that say that whatever i do (whether in my time or theirs, on my equipment or theirs) belongs to them. I have my own projects and i contribute to various open source projects and i bring my own personal toolbox of tricks and techniques (that i've developed in my own time over many years) in to benefit my workplace - there's no way in hell i'm going to let them own that for any price. i have any clauses like that replaced with clauses that say, in short, that what i do on their time on their equipment is theirs and anything else i do is mine. if they're not willing to agree to that, then they're not the kind of employer i want to work for.

  15. Re: Negotiating is necessary. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All Ellen Pao is doing here is guaranteeing overpayment for mediocre workers. Think about it. To get the best talent she'll have to pay top dollar. But that doesn't guarantee everyone hired is top talent.

    If you read the summary carefully, they are not stating a salary value for a job in advance of making a offer to someone.

    They are interviewing and then making an offer they feel is appropriate for that interviewee, that means that they can still adjust the offer based on the person in front of them (and who is to say the hiring managers don't offer less to women?). All thats changed is that the offer is set in stone, the interviewee either takes it or leaves it.

    This scheme will live or die on how well they predict the job market for the roles they are hiring for but I don't see how it really addresses the stated goal of equalizing pay ranges between genders.

    This scheme doesn't work too well anyway - I won't go for the interview without an upfront statement wrt the salary. I don't think I've ever gone for an interview which did not have a salary range stated upfront. As recently as Monday I've told a slave-trader that the job-spec he sent me neglected to mention a salary range. He came back with "They offer competitive market rates" and I replied with "I don't interview for people who cannot afford me". I will not be going on any interview soon (mostly 'cos I'm happy where I am, but regardless).

    It's actually quite simple - if they cannot afford me then they should waste my time. If I'm unable to adjust my expectations downwards then I won't waste theirs. There is no "Well, we'll offer you competitive market rates for your skills after we interview you," there is only "don't enter the fitting room if you can't afford to buy!"

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.