Blog

A key blind spot I keep seeing in organisations is that they struggle to look beyond their poor ethnicity and disability pay gap figures.Yes, the figures matter. Pay gap reporting is built around them, so it's natural that the numbers command the attention. But I'm increasingly seeing too much focus on this one element, at the expense of everything else.What do I mean by this? In private conversations, many share about how bad their ethnicity or disability pay gap figure is and how bad it will look once they have to publish it. There's real anxiety about reputation, about how stakeholders will react, and about what the headline number will say about them.But very few are asking the more important question: why does it look the way it does?That is the real question. A pay gap figure is not the problem in itself. It's the symptom, the output of a series of decisions, structures and experiences within your organisation. Treating the number as the whole story is a bit like focusing on a fever without asking what's causing it. A pay gap is rarely the result of one thing. It typically reflects a combination of factors, which might include:<ul><li>Representation at different levels.</li><li>Who is concentrated in lower-paid roles, and who is present in senior, higher-paid positions?</li><li>Recruitment and progression. Who is being hired, who is being promoted, and how quickly?</li><li>Access to opportunity. Who gets stretch assignments, sponsorship, development and visibility?</li><li>Culture and trust. Do people feel safe and supported enough to bring their whole selves to work, including sharing information about their identity?</li></ul> Until you understand these underlying drivers, any action plan risks being cosmetic. You can't fix what you haven't diagnosed. Then, there's another layer that often gets overlooked: the quality of the data itself.Not everyone will want to share their ethnicity or disability status, and that's completely fine. People have the right to as much data privacy as they choose, and that right should always be respected. Disclosure must be voluntary and organisations can't pressure anyone into sharing personal information.But this is where the tension grows. When an organisation has extremely low return rates on its diversity data, yet describes itself as inclusive, something is wrong.Low disclosure rates are rarely random. They often signal that people don't trust how their data will be used, don't believe anything will change as a result, or don't feel safe enough to share. Employees who have seen previous surveys lead to nothing, or who worry about being treated differently, will understandably opt out.In other words, a low return rate isn't just a data problem. It's a cultural indicator. It tells you something about the relationship between your people and your organisation, and that relationship is exactly what inclusion is meant to be about.If you're worried about what your ethnicity or disability pay gap figures will show, the answer isn't to obsess over the number or to hope it goes unnoticed. It's to get curious about what's driving it.Some practical places to start:<ul><li>Look at your disclosure rates. If they're low, ask honestly why, and listen to what your people tell you.</li><li>Be transparent about purpose. Explain clearly why you're collecting data, how it will be used and who can see it.</li><li>Close the loop. Show people what has changed as a result of the information they've shared. Trust is built through visible action.</li><li>Analyse beyond the headline. Examine pay, progression and representation across levels and functions to find where the gaps actually emerge.</li><li>Commit to a plan. Publish your figures (internally to start) alongside a credible, evidence-based account of what you're doing about them.</li></ul>The numbers matter, and they will be scrutinised. But organisations that only concentrate on how the figures look are missing the opportunity to understand what they mean.The organisations that will make genuine progress are those willing to ask harder questions: why does our data look like this, and what are our people telling us through the information they do, and don't share?That is where your focus should be.Ready to look beyond the numbers? If you’re preparing for ethnicity or disability pay gap reporting and want to understand what’s really driving your figures, I can help.I work with organisations to:<ul><li>Diagnose the root causes behind their pay gaps</li><li>Understand and improve disclosure rates in a way that builds trust</li><li>Develop credible, evidence-based action plans they can publish with confidence</li></ul>Get in touch to start a conversation about what your data is really telling you.

Low disclosure, high stakes: What your pay gap data is trying to tell you

"We're a UK business, so this doesn't apply to us."It's a comforting thought and it's a risky one.The EU Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to proactively disclose pay information, justify pay differences and take corrective action where unjustified gender pay gaps exist. That moves pay from a private management matter to a regulated, evidence-based one.But the real impact is cultural. The Directive removes organisational discretion over whether to explain pay, and it forces leadership to defend how pay decisions are made, in public and at scale.This makes the EU Pay Transparency a signal of a wider shift within workplaces, not a compliance event to be carried out at specific points of the year. It exposes cultural and structural weaknesses around pay and progression that are already there, and UK businesses are feeling the pressure whether or not the law applies to them directly.The question for HR and Reward leaders isn't "Do we have to?" It's "What are we at risk of losing control of if we do nothing?" Here are some insights on things to consider.&nbsp; 1. You've already lost control of the pay narrative Pay transparency isn't coming. It's already here. It's just that it is unmanaged.Your employees can access crowdsourced pay data and compare notes with peers across borders thanks to AI tools. They can also read public commentary about employers at scale. Pay is discussed in WhatsApp groups, Reddit threads, LinkedIn DMs, Instagram stories and Threads, usually without HR in the room. That changes the dynamic around pay in the workplace."Market forces" is no longer an acceptable explanation because people can check in minutes. Silence on the subject is read as guilt and inconsistency is labelled as unfairness. You can no longer shut a conversation down and trust it will go away.&nbsp; Yiu can no longer just tell people they're being greedy for asking (yes, I've spoken to female employees that have been told that by HR), and you risk losing their trust and sending them looking elsewhere. The commercial consequences are real: more pay disputes and escalations, faster attrition once concerns surface publicly, and reactive pay corrections that cost far more than proactive design. Employer brand damage is also expensive to reverse.If your pay story can't survive basic social media scrutiny, it won't survive EU-style transparency either. &nbsp; 2. AI is your employees' new pay and career advisor This is a game changer that many in HR are unaware of. Your people are now being professionally coached by AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT and HR isn't in the room to control and guide the conversation where they want it to go.Employees are using AI tools to benchmark pay and roles instantly, prepare negotiation and grievance language, test whether pay decisions are defensible and decide when staying 'no longer ' makes financial sense.All of this means that they arrive to these meetings more informed,&nbsp; more confident and less deferential. This is not a bad thing, but it does mean that HR and Reward teams have to be as prepared&nbsp; as their colleagues when holding pay conversations. Managers will become increasingly outmatched in pay conversations if this is not taken seriously, and HR's expert authority will quietly be replaced by AI.So what are the consequences?<ul><li>Longer, more complex pay disputes</li><li>Managers escalating issues HR thought were settled</li><li>Lost trust when explanations don't stand up to scrutiny</li><li>More regretted attrition in your highest-value role </li></ul>If an AI tool can dismantle your pay logic in mniutes then it's clear the problem isn't the employee. It's the pay framework that you have been using for years. &nbsp; 3. Pay equity no longer stops at your payroll boundary This is particularly pertinent for those of you with global offices. EU pay transparency widens accountability across subsidiaries, contractors, outsourced functions and acquired entities. At the same time, stakeholders increasingly connect supplier practices to brand values and demand data on your organisational position and actions."We don't employ them so this doesn't concern us" is no longer a justifiable&nbsp; shield. We already see this in government contracts, from anti-slavery requirements to DEI goals, and these directives and initiatives come with their own ecosystems.&nbsp; Supply chains very quickly become enveloped within new initiatives, especially when new legislation and access to financial investments collide. Recently I spoke with a UK based energy company who wants to audit its supply chain for gender pay gap issues.&nbsp; Ten years ago this would have been unheard of,&nbsp; but as legislation on pay fairness and equity becomes increasingly normal for so many organisations and their stakeholders, it becomes inevitable that the circle of accountability widens. Pay gaps have now become a question of commercial credibility, not just an internal HR metric.The business impact includes:<ul><li>Supplier risk exposure</li><li>ESG and investor scrutiny. One British retailer edged out a competitor because it could demonstrate a genuine, internal commitment to DEI through a diverse team.</li><li>Reputational damage from inherited or ignored pay gaps</li><li>Higher due diligence costs after an acquisition</li><li>Your weakest pay practice, even if it sits outside HR, is now part of your brand. &nbsp; In short the combination of regular social media use and new pay legislation has taken the pay narrative out of your hands. AI has given your employees a sharper and easier to use toolkit than most managers have aaccess to and supply chain accountability has pushed pay equity beyond your own payroll.</li></ul>EU Pay Transparency is not just a test for European businesses. It's a readiness test for the UK too. UK organisations are at a fork in the road: proactive cultural redesign, or reactive, expensive clean-up.Leadership teams need to stop asking "Do we have to?" and start asking: "What will this expose if we don't do anything?" &nbsp; Ready to get ahead of it? If any of this sounds familiar, whether it's pay conversations you can't control, managers struggling to defend decisions, or gaps in a supply chain you'd rather not look at, Equality Pays can help you build pay gap strategies that work in practice.Simply get in touch → <a data-mce-href="https://bookme.name/equalitypays/lite/call" href="https://bookme.name/equalitypays/lite/call" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Book a consultation call</a>Let's work out what your pay framework would reveal, before someone else does.&nbsp;

The hidden cost of ignoring EU pay transparency in the UK

Gender pay gap reporting has got an upgrade through the Employent Rights Act 2025. In this podcast epidode recorded with Brightmine, I talk through what those changes are and the implications for employers.Simply click the link below for the podcast episode and transcript.<a data-mce-href="https://www.brightmine.com/uk/resources/gender-pay-gap-reporting-lessons-learned-and-what-comes-next/#transcript" href="https://www.brightmine.com/uk/resources/gender-pay-gap-reporting-lessons-learned-and-what-comes-next/#transcript" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gender pay gap reporting - lessons learned and what comes next | Brightmine</a>

Gender pay gap reporting – lessons learned and what comes next

Three quarters (78 per cent) of women have been described as ‘emotional’ in performance reviews, compared to just 11 per cent of men, new data has revealed.The study by Textio, which analysed performance reviews for more than 25,000 people at 253 organisations, revealed that almost three in five (56 per cent) women received feedback labelling them as ‘unlikeable’ in performance reviews, a criticism faced by only 16 per cent of men.&nbsp;And while two thirds (67 per cent) of men were described as intelligent, only 32 per cent of women said the same.More than a decade ago, in 2014, a Textio report found three quarters (76 per cent) of high-performing women had received negative feedback, compared to 2 per cent of men. Descriptors relating to personality, such as ‘abrasive’, ‘difficult’, ‘friendly’ and ‘helpful’, were commonly used to describe women, but rarely for men.Gifty Enright, diversity and wellbeing speaker and author, said the figures were “disheartening but sadly not surprising”.“A decade on we’re still battling the same old issues. It’s frustrating to see how little progress has been made,” she said.&nbsp;Elizabeth Willetts, founder and director of Investing in Women, deemed the findings “deeply concerning”.“Despite years of conversations about workplace equality, it’s clear that language bias in performance feedback remains a significant barrier for women and marginalised groups to achieve their full potential,” said Willetts.“This bias not only impacts individual confidence and career trajectories, it also contributes to systemic inequities such as the gender pay gap and underrepresentation in leadership roles.”The gender divide Regardless of performance level, women received around 22 per cent more personality-based feedback than men, regardless of whether they were low or high performers.The study also found that while women were seven times more likely to internalise negative stereotypes about themselves, men were 2-4 per cent more likely to internalise positive stereotypes.&nbsp;The term ‘overachiever’ – applied to good performers transcending low expectations – was most frequently applied to women of colour.Men were three times more likely to recall being labbelled as an underachiever.&nbsp;The gender of the manager was not significant in the findings, as both male and female managers gave similar biased feedback.&nbsp;According to the 2024 Women in the Workplace survey from LeanIn.org and McKinsey &amp; Co, more than a third (36 per cent) of women thought their gender played a role in missing out on a promotion, pay rise or a chance to get ahead, compared to 15 per cent of men.&nbsp;Willetts said the language used in reviews held “incredible power” because it “shapes how employees see themselves, how their colleagues perceive them, compensation decisions and, ultimately, how their careers progress”.“When women and marginalised groups are disproportionately described as ‘unlikeable’ or ‘emotional’, it reinforces damaging stereotypes, creating additional hurdles for them to overcome,” she explained.&nbsp;Enright added that the language in performance reviews was so powerful because it “doesn’t just reflect bias, it reinforces it”.&nbsp;“Words such as ‘unlikeable’ or ‘emotional’ don’t evaluate performance; they attack character and create barriers. It is not right to be attacking women's character. For women and marginalised groups, it’s exhausting to constantly navigate these damaging labels,” she said.Enright warned that this kind of bias in language could diminish confidence, hinder career growth and push talented people out of organisations entirely. “It’s a waste – not just for the individuals, but for companies that lose out on the brilliance and innovation that diversity brings,” she added.&nbsp;Michelle Gyimah, pay gaps strategist at Equality Pays, said: “The fact that language about likeability is still used in performance reviews is problematic because these statistics show that likeability can be, and is being, used as a weapon or a reward depending on the whim or biased behaviours of the person doing the evaluation.”Racial discrepancies&nbsp; The Textio study found white people were more than twice as likely to recall being called ‘likeable’ compared to almost every other group.More than 60 per cent of Hispanic and Black people recalled being called ‘emotional’, compared to 21 per cent of white people.Additionally, about half of white and Asian people recalled being described as ‘intelligent’, compared to just 18 per cent of Black people and 17 per cent of Hispanic and Latino people.There were discrepancies among Asian populations, with nearly a third (30 per cent) of South Asian people recalling being described as ‘difficult’, compared to just 9 per cent of East Asian people.&nbsp;White and Asian men received the highest-quality feedback overall, and were more likely to be described as ‘brilliant’ or a ‘genius’.&nbsp;Willetts said it was "particularly troubling” to see how gender bias intersected with race. “The fact that Hispanic and Black employees are far more likely to be described as ‘emotional’ highlights how deeply entrenched these stereotypes are – and how they can magnify existing disparities in the workplace,” she added.&nbsp;According to the Women in the Workplace survey, 27 per cent of Black women have had their judgement questioned within their area of expertise, compared to 17 per cent of men.&nbsp;The report also found three in five (61 per cent) Black women thought their race or ethnicity had played a role in them missing out on a raise, promotion or chance to get ahead. For Asian women, this figure was two in five (39 per cent).Only 38 per cent of Black women said their employers promoted their contributions to others, compared to 48 per cent of white women.&nbsp;Meanwhile, the Fawcett Society’s Broken Ladders report found three in five (61 per cent) women of colour had changed something about themself to ‘fit in’ within the workplace, compared to 44 per cent of white women. The report also found three quarters (75 per cent) of women of colour had experienced racism at work.&nbsp;How can organisations combat language bias?&nbsp; Enright urged organisations to take language bias in performance reviews seriously. She suggested managers be trained to spot and challenge their biases, and tools be used to check for biased language in reviews. An objective framework can help ensure performance evaluations are fair.“Most importantly, hold people accountable. Change won’t happen without real commitment at every level… Ultimately, this isn’t just about women or marginalised groups – it’s about creating workplaces where everyone can thrive,” she said. “The evidence is right there. Now it’s time to act.”Gyimah said performance reviews should focus on the outputs provided, not on personal traits or characteristics that have been decided by the person doing the review. “Skills, outcomes and measurable contributions are what is important here. Taking this approach can help eliminate subjective descriptors that do more harm than good in the workplace,” she explained.&nbsp;Willetts said organisations must take “proactive steps”, including training managers on the impact of bias in feedback and equipping them with the tools to provide constructive reviews. She urged organisations to standardise performance reviews with clear criteria “tied to measurable outcomes rather than subjective impressions”.&nbsp;She said: “Bias in feedback doesn’t just hurt individuals, it hurts organisations by limiting the potential of diverse talent who could have a real positive impact on your business's bottom line. Addressing this issue is not just a moral imperative – it’s a business one.”The orginal article was posted in People Management in 2025 and can be found <a data-mce-href="https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1903895/three-quarters-women-labelled-emotional-performance-reviews-study-finds-suggesting-lack-progress-gender-based-language-bias" href="https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1903895/three-quarters-women-labelled-emotional-performance-reviews-study-finds-suggesting-lack-progress-gender-based-language-bias" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.

Three quarters of women labelled ‘emotional’ in performance reviews, study finds, suggesting lack of progress on gender-based language bias

Think back to the last time you had to navigate a major, organisation-wide software change, like implementing a new HRIS or performance management system. Was it easy? Most likely not. You didn't just flip a switch on a Friday afternoon and everything was done by Monday morning. Your process to move from the old to new, started with a long, hard look at your current, messy systems. It required mapping out every data point, training skeptical managers and working through countless glitches. The work to reach that happy place could only happen if you went through the uncomfortable change process. The grueling, granular process of migration and change management.Tackling your organisation's pay gap internally is a lot like that. It requires messy, uncomfortable work.&nbsp;Maybe you're considering this in-house path because of budget constraints. Or perhaps, you've encountered a different hurdle: a lack of support for bringing in outside help. I often find this is wrapped up in a belief that "we should be able to solve this ourselves," or even a sense of embarrassment about what the numbers might reveal.Wherever you're coming from, I get it. This is a no-judgment zone. The desire to handle this internally is not only understandable, it is entirely possible. But you have to be ready for what it truly asks of you. HR teams can own this process from the inside out. Ultimately, it's great for you to work on your pay gap plan internally, but you do have to be clear on the effort (skills, capacity and time) that is required.&nbsp; So what does this look like in real life? Being honest about your capacity and resilience. You can’t just squeeze pay gaps between performance reviews and recruitment interviews It needs dedicated space and resilience for when you get pushback on this. You will need to champion this cause, when momentum slows or when findings make people uncomfortable. The emotional labour is real, but it is a reality of doing this work in-house. The importance of data and context. You have the data, but data without context is just a set of numbers that people will pick apart to fit their agenda. The real skill here is in the interpretation and the courage to hold everyone accountable (including yourself). It’s also about asking the hard questions: <ul><li>Why is there a discrepancy here?</li><li>Is it in starting salaries or promotions?</li><li>Is it in who gets visibility/who doesn't get visibility?</li><li>Is it because we don’t encourage flexibility the higher up the organisation we go? &nbsp;</li></ul>This is where your team’s insider knowledge about how things really work become your greatest asset. You’re not just crunching numbers; you’re facilitating a difficult but necessary conversation about your company’s practices. Accepting that this is a marathon, not a race, is the ultimate test of patience. The initial analysis is just the first stage Don’t be fooled into thinking that analysing the data is the work, it’s just the starting point. Next comes the ongoing work of refining salary bands, auditing new hire offers, reviewing your promotions process, auditing your learning &amp; development access, training managers, building transparency and more. It’s a long-term commitment to doing better, step by step.Choosing the in-house path can absolutely be done, we know that there are many that have and that have got great results. But it is doable only if you are honest about the level of work required from you and your team.&nbsp;

The real cost of closing your pay gap without a consultant

Close-up of trader's finger pressing illuminated Enter key to execute cryptocurrency market trade

The pay gap reporting landscape is set for a significant upgrade, driven by the 2026 Employment Rights Bill. So what’s changing? Employers will soon be required to produce a mandatory action plan alongside their gender pay gap report, as well as include a menopause plan. These additions make it clear that organisations must now evidence decision-making, progress, and impact not just tick the box on reporting and data compliance. Weak or generic action plans won’t just fall short of expectations; they’ll expose boards to regulatory, reputational, and employee challenges.The stats show us that for too long many organisations have approached their pay gap actions as 'just something else that needs to be written about.' At a panel discussion earlier this year with Verditer Consulting and Joanne Pagett - Performance &amp; Menopause Coach,&nbsp; Verditer shared some interesting statistics about the latest round of gender pay gap reports from 10,588 submissions:<ul><li>Only around 43% of organisations published a voluntary narrative</li><li>8% of those had contained broken links</li><li>Only 31% had a voluntary action plan</li><li>Only 10% mentioned menopause</li></ul>With the new requirements all that is about to change. The question will no longer be about whether you publish a narrative or an action plan, but whether the equality action plan that you must publish will be able to withstand public scrutiny.A recent client example comes to mind that highlights why this is important. After joining a new organisation as HR Director, they reviewed their data and discovered that the organisations gender pay gap was stalling year after year. At first it was unclear why. When we dug into the data and practices, the problem was obvious. The previous predecessor had simply copied and pasted their gender pay gap plan into reports year after year (obviously with board approval).&nbsp; Rearranging a few words and sentences was the extent of their combined efforts. Unsurprisingly, they made no progress with their pay gap.The problem here is that anything to&nbsp; do with addressing pay gaps is viewed as a one time fix rather an an ongoing risk that requires ongoing attention and action. It's not uncommon for&nbsp; audits to highlight that the main issue is inconsistency during recruitment and promotion cycles for so many organisations. Without a structural fix, they are simply destined to be in the same position next year and each cycle carries both reputational and legal exposure. Not understanding this makes it difficult to explain why the pay gap is not shifting.&nbsp;Yet, with these new regulation changes, clarity on what you are doing and why is going to be so much more important. Not just for the board, but for employees, stakeholders, investors and your future employees (who are watching you, whethere you know it or not). For the first time you'll be judged not by if you decide to write a narrative, but what you say AND how you follow through on it.

Why pay gap action plans can no longer continue to be a board-level tick box exercise

Equality Pays

Equality Pays supports organisations to create pay gap strategies and action plans. These actions are rooted in business data and focus on attracting, retainig and progressing high quality diverse talent.

Equality Pays

Insights

Low disclosure, high stakes: What your pay gap data is tr...

The hidden cost of ignoring EU pay transparency in the UK

Gender pay gap reporting – lessons learned and what comes...

Three quarters of women labelled ‘emotional’ in performan...

The real cost of closing your pay gap without a consultant

Why pay gap action plans can no longer continue to be a b...