However, you seem to take no notice of the fact that white men who are unqualified are also promoted and that although many minorities have longer tenure, they are often started at lower salaries. However, I’m not surprised at your continued oversight of this issue as it is a constant theme in your column.

atgo, if you’ll note I pointed out that in these types of analyses time in position is one of the variables. If women and POC aren’t being promoted they’ll have a much longer time in position and the salary differences would reflect that.

Citigroup hasn’t released their formulas (nor would I expect them to), but I would be shocked if they didn’t take time in position into consideration.

From an anecdotal standpoint, I’ve seen this happen–promoting someone who is not ready so that diversity numbers look good. It ultimately destroys the career of the promoted person. It’s a bad,bad thing.

It would be shocking if it were at 100 percent. And there are plenty of times women earn more than men and no one screams.

99 percent for two separate groups is pretty darn good. I wouldn’t be surprised if next time you look at the numbers is 101 and then fluctuates back.

I’m really surprised and perturbed by the perspective that seems expressed in this post – that promoting women and POC would mean promoting people who are underqualified. There’s nothing to say that there aren’t qualified folks of all races, genders, etc. out there for these roles.

Given the breakdown on the numbers, I’m in agreement that it’s positive that men and women are paid equally for equal work. But men and women should also have access to the same leadership positions and promotion opportunities, and imbalance at the top clearly means that this isn’t happening.

LH Holdings, I must respectfully disagree with you that “discrimination against men is not real”.

Please see the following article from this very website:
https://www.evilhrlady.org/2018/03/youtube-shows-how-not-to-do-diversity.html

and there was another article (I believe on this website) about a non-profit whose job ad stated something similar to “only minorities should apply”.

So, while it may not be systematic, discrimination against men does exist.

Dorothy — but the difference between men and women DOING THE SAME WORK is 1% as in almost absolutely equal pay for equal work. It seems like you’re comparing apples and oranges here: pay equality versus diversity hiring. If I read Suzanne’s article correctly, it appears that Citigroup would pay all their diversity hires (i.e., everyone, since everyone must be measured to determine diversity) equally (or at least as equally as practical without hiring a whole accounting division to ensure that pay was equal within 99,99998%)

“How do you get to these numbers in 3 years without some serious discrimination against the men who currently hold these jobs and some serious unprepared promotions for the women they want to place in these roles.”

I’m with granny bunny on this. Sure Citibank has some highly specialized positions that require oh-so-special skills. But the vast majority of positions aren’t rocket science. And women can learn to do them as well as men can. I doubt that the hiring managers at Citi are lying awake nights worried over finding the single best human on the planet to manage a call center or run a card-producing plant or even provide HR support. For most jobs at Citi there are likely dozens of perfectly well qualified candidates.

And we often choose candidates for other reasons than pure qualifications. We seek diverse candidates because we know a diverse workforce, while arguably less comfortable to manage, brings many benefits to the table such as points of view and ways of thinking.

And there’s no reason, in a field of qualified candidates, not to choose women sometimes.