Blog

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

Security officer's gloved hand operating access control keypad at building entrance

There are some big changes coming to UK workplaces regarding pay gaps.&nbsp; As you are probably aware equality action plans will become mandatory from April 2027.&nbsp; Mandatory means more than publishing a number, it means setting out what you're actually doing about it.But there is one other change that hasn't gained as much attention, but will have a big impact on UK workplaces.&nbsp; From April 2026, the bar for statutory union recognition dropped. Unions no longer have to show a majority of a bargaining unit is likely to support them before triggering the process, a simple majority of votes cast is now enough, and the old 40% turnout requirement is gone. From October 2026, unions gain a new legal right to request access to workplaces to meet, support, recruit and organise workers, whether or not that employer has ever dealt with a union before.In addition to that, employment tribunal time limits are set to double, from three months to six, from October 2026, giving unresolved grievances twice the runway to turn into a claim. Meanwhile the maximum protective award for collective consultation failures has already doubled to 180 days' pay, a clear signal of where financial risk is heading across the Act more broadly. These three things changes, show a sequence of events that could happen if you don't prepare yourselves.&nbsp;Recognition gets easier, a union rep can walk into a workplace that's never had one, that rep now has a legal right to ask about pay, mandatory pay gap action plans give them a specific document to interrogate, not just a headline number and longer tribunal windows mean any friction that follows has far more time to harden into a formal claim. In short: easier access, harder questions, longer exposure.<h3>What this means in practice</h3> If you're an employer or HR leader: Don't wait for a union rep or a tribunal claim&nbsp; to be the first person asking why your gender pay gap looks the way it does. Audit your pay gap narrative now. Know the "why" behind the numbers, not just the number itself. A published gap with no credible explanation is no longer just a reputational soft spot; it's a specific, foreseeable trigger for both union organising and litigation on pay gap issues.If you're an employee, or union-curious: Your leverage is changing. You'll have longer to raise a claim, and — if your workplace doesn't already have a union — the door to getting one recognised is opening wider than it's been in years. Understanding your own organisation's pay gap action plan (once mandatory) gives you a concrete document to point to, not just a vague sense that something's off.<h2>The engagement blind spot</h2> Most organisations still measure employee engagement through an annual survey and treat pay gap reporting as a once-a-year compliance moment. Neither was built for a world where a union can request workplace access almost on demand, and pay gap plans are a standing, document rather than an annual snapshot. Poor engagement scores, an unexplained pay gap, and easier union access increase the risk of pay gap problems surfacing if you are taking no/limited action.&nbsp;<h2>What could happen in 2027/28?</h2>By this time next year, expect the first wave of union-initiated pay transparency disputes brought under the new access rights,&nbsp; not generic pay claims, but disputes explicitly built around an employer's own published pay gap action plan being used against it as evidence.Organisations that get ahead of their own numbers now will look proactive.&nbsp;

How union access reform is reshaping employer exposure on gender pay gaps

The EU Pay Transparency Directive is an EU law aimed at enforcing equal pay for equal work between women and men by strengthening pay transparency and remedies for discrimination. It must be transposed by member states by 7th June 2026 and will apply to most employers across the EU. Key features include mandatory disclosure of salary ranges in recruitment, employees’ rights to access pay information, gender pay gap reporting for employers with 100+ workers, and action where unjustified gaps above 5% persist.For most organisations this new legislation will require new ways of operating both from a compliance viewpoint and a communications viewpoint. Naturally as the deadline approaches many are focused on compliance. Things such as understanding what the directive requires of them (particular to their member state adoption and implementation process), updating job architecture, pay structures and reporting mechanics. But because employees will now have the right to ask for and expect more pay related data, technical compliance alone will be insufficient. Organisations will now have to also prioritise better communication planning, transparent pay philosophies and operational implementation as the real risk areas.Focusing solely on technical compliance with the EU Pay Transparency Directive, such as updating pay structures and reporting mechanics, carries significant risks. These risks include employee mistrust and backlash, inconsistent manager messaging, and pay questions escalating faster than the organisation can respond to. This narrow focus can also lead to an overemphasis on employer reporting obligations while neglecting the introduction of new employee-facing rights.The Directive introduces a new level of scrutiny that will expose weak narratives and untested processes. This is why robust communication planning is now a core compliance control tool. Treating communication as a routine 'HR communications task' is dangerous, as a mere focus on metrics and reporting formats will only increase risk factors.To manage this, organisations must carefully design their communication outputs, distinguishing between:External disclosures: Information shared outside the organisation, such as salary ranges in job advertisements and candidate information. Internal disclosures: Information shared with existing employees, including their right to access pay data and explanations for any gender pay gaps. The key elements of effective communication planning involve establishing a clear organisational position on pay fairness and decision-making, proactively anticipating employee questions before data is released and ensuring leadership, HR, and managers are aligned on language and intent. A failure to plan will lead to the danger of reactive communication once the data is live.Beyond communication, this Directive will also have significant day-to-day operational impact which most organisations are not accustomed to. Because talking about pay remains a taboo subject in many workplaces, there are several critical points where pay transparency implementation could break down:Managers unprepared to explain pay decisions with clarity and confidence. Inconsistent application of job architecture across regions and/or departments. Over-reliance on central HR without enabling the business to make independent decisions. To prevent these breakdowns, it’s vital to provide managers with robust guidance, training, and preparation for different scenarios. Additionally, improving cross-functional ownership (HR, Legal, Comms, Finance) of communication implementation is essential. Without these steps, operational failures will become a compliance risk, even if the underlying pay framework is technically sound.To formalise this move from technical tick-box compliance to sustained operational success, organisations should establish a Pay Governance Framework. This framework should form the foundation of the new transparent pay philosophy, moving it from an abstract concept to a documented, actionable standard.This framework should comprise of two key, intertwined components. First, a clearly articulated Pay Philosophy Document that defines for all stakeholders from new hires to the leadership team what 'fair pay' means within the organisation. It must detail the factors that genuinely drive pay decisions (e.g., skill, performance, market data) and explicitly state the rationale behind any pay differences. This public narrative is the first line of defence against mistrust.Second, a Cross-Functional Governance Board is essential. This body, involving HR, Finance, Legal, and Communications, should meet on a regular basis, to review the effectiveness of the pay policy. Their mandate must include actively monitoring employee feedback channels for emerging pay questions, reviewing pay gap movements, and integrating evolving legal interpretations from member states. This structured, continuous review ensures that the organisation is adapting in real-time, proactively identifying and mitigating risks before they escalate into a compliance crisis. It's the mechanism that turns the daunting prospect of 'ongoing pay conversation' into something much more manageable.Adjusting to this new pay landscape will take time, and organisations must understand that the common "one-and-done" compliance mode is simply insufficient here. Instead organisations should be prepared for ongoing conversation and attention, employee feedback and challenge, evolving interpretations of fairness and regulatory clarification as constant factors. While this may seem daunting, viewing this ongoing review and refinement as a strength not a weakness is the best approach that will yield the best results. By building in feedback loops and robust governance structures early on, organisations will have the best opportunity to minimise risks as they implement the new Directive.This blog was first published for <a data-mce-href="https://www.payscale.com/compensation-trends/effective-communication-planning-around-the-eu-pay-transparency-directive" href="https://www.payscale.com/compensation-trends/effective-communication-planning-around-the-eu-pay-transparency-directive" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">PayScale</a>

Equality Pays

Insights

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...

How union access reform is reshaping employer exposure on...

Effective communication planning around the EU Pay Transp...