
Research: The Gender Wage Gap Tipping Point
While there are numerous proposed explanations for this persistent gender wage gap—including women choosing to work in lower-paying jobs or working fewer hours than men, leaving the workforce for caregiving responsibilities, or facing gender bias and discrimination —some have argued that simply increasing the representation of women in the workforce is enough to naturally eliminate the gap.
We know that this ' add women and stir ' approach is important and can yield some improvements, but it isn't enough on its own to solve the persistent wage gap problem. However, we wondered whether there is a specific point where the proportion of women in a given occupation meaningfully affects how much they're paid compared to men.
Our research, published in Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, found that having more women in a job category does, in some capacity, help close the wage gap. But there's a tipping point: Once women make up a certain proportion of an occupation, the wage gap narrows more slowly. This shift suggests the relationship is more complex than it might appear; it is not as simple as 'the more women, the smaller the gap.'
The Research
Our analysis focused on the Canadian labor market, which compared to the U.S. offers a more representative view of OECD countries based on the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Global Gender Gap Index. The data is also widely inclusive of 40 diverse job categories like professional occupations, senior and middle management, office support, and care providers across different industries, making it particularly useful for examining the wage gap. The 40 job categories cover nearly all of Canadian employment. We analyzed 22 years of annual data from 1997 to 2018 for each of the job categories. For each job category, the gender wage gap is defined as female full-time workers' median earnings divided by male full-time workers' median earnings.
Our results showed that the gender wage gap closed more quickly when there were fewer than 14% women in the category—in other words, when women were more underrepresented. But once women made up a certain proportion of the occupation—the 'tipping point'—progress continued but at a much slower pace. For example, before the tipping point, adding just 1 percentage point more women to a job category, say from 8% to 9%, shrinks the wage gap noticeably. But after that point, progress slows such that it takes adding about 3.6 percentage points more women, say from 20% to 23.6%, to achieve the same improvement.
Why Is There a Tipping Point?
The 14% data point we identified echoes findings from Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter's landmark work on tokenism. Kanter's research examined group dynamics when one group heavily outnumbers another, defining a 'skewed' group as one where there's 85:15 majority-to-minority ratio. Up to the point of 15%, underrepresented individuals are known to face polarization from the majority or be pressured to conform to stereotypes. Ultimately, these people are often seen as symbols or 'tokens' rather than individuals, and may feel isolated based on how they are treated.
However, their sparse presence and anomaly status also heightens their visibility. And when there are social or legal pressures to improve equity or to achieve diversity goals —in our case, to improve gender equity specifically—the incentives to protect the organization's reputation and image may motivate companies to increase the proportion of women and/or improve pay equity. In short, a more deliberate effort is made to close the gap and early gains are made.
However, once these initial gains are achieved and the pressure lessens, organizations may assume the problem is resolved and scale back their efforts too soon. As women become better represented, it can create a perception that gender barriers are breaking down and that equity is improving. Akin to reaching a 'false summit,' where a hiker mistakenly believes they have reached the top of a mountain when there is still more to climb, organizations might make the hasty determination that pay equity has been sufficiently achieved and cease making changes.
Making Headway
Despite a slowdown in the closure of the gender wage gap after the tipping point, there is some good news. Our analysis found that by 2002, there were meaningful improvements in the wage gap across almost all occupations compared to 1997. This improvement continued throughout the rest of the years studied, and by 2018 the wage gap was smaller for 36 of 40 occupations. As noted by Harvard economist and recent Nobel laureate Claudia Goldin, 'equalizing earnings within each occupation matters far more than equalizing the proportions by each occupation.' If pay equity within occupations is achieved, the overall wage gap shrinks, even if more societally embedded practices like occupational segregation remain.
That said, we also found that those occupations with a rising share of female workers exhibited more improvement in the closure of the gender wage gap. Across the years of the study, for 31 of 40 occupations with improving female representation, the wage gap closed by an average of 10.6 percentage points from 1997 to 2018, almost twice the 5.6 percentage point average improvement for the nine occupations with declining female representation.
Ultimately, closing the wage gap is about ensuring equal pay for equal work in concert with representation, and organizations not lessening efforts before real progress is made.
. . .
The false summit illusion we've identified doesn't mean pay equity is out of reach; it just means the journey takes longer than it first appears and organizations may be easing their efforts toward pay equity too soon. After the tipping point, our research also showed continued improvements in the wage gap closure, just at a slower pace, indicating that closing the gender wage gap requires both increasing representation and ensuring equal pay for equal work. Organizations must stay committed, push beyond early progress, and avoid complacency to achieve the sustained goal of pay equity.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
South Korea Weighs Painful Concessions to Avert Trump's Tariffs
South Korea will hold high-level trade talks with the US on July 25, accelerating efforts to head off sweeping tariffs by weighing politically sensitive concessions that could reshape ties between the two allies. Finance Minister Koo Yoon-cheol and Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo will meet their US counterparts, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in a so-called '2+2' format in Washington, Koo told reporters Tuesday.


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Ukraine Risks Becoming to Trump What Afghanistan Was to Biden
On the face of it, the US involvement in Ukraine bears little similarity to the 20-year Afghanistan war, not least because there are no American boots on the ground in Europe. Yet there are similarities for President Donald Trump: resolving the conflict is proving no easy task, and he risks getting shackled with responsibility — and potentially blame — the longer it goes on.

Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Big Oil Rethinks Renewable Investments
BP has sold its onshore wind power business in the United States. The news comes amid a steady flow of reports that both wind and solar companies are in major trouble, thanks to President Trump's energy agenda and a small but meaningful Republican majority in Congress. It is the latest in a string of developments that raise questions about the financial sustainability of transition energy projects. For BP, the move represents another step away from wind and solar and back to oil and gas, as indicated by the company's senior management repeatedly over the past year. In the broader industry context, it is indicative of the overall retreat of Big Oil from business ventures that do not yield the expected profits, even with the subsidies that governments are willing to shower over businesses involved in wind and solar. 'We have been clear that while low carbon energy has a role to play in a simpler, more focused bp, we will continue to rationalize and optimize our portfolio to generate value.' BP's vice president for gas and low-carbon energy, William Lin said in comments on the news of the divestment. It involved a portfolio of 1.3 GW in already existing capacity, which will now join the portfolio of LS Power, the buyer. Indeed, BP has been clear that it is going back to what it does best and what makes it money, especially at a time of rife speculation in the media that the company should put itself up for sale and let Shell buy it because that's the tie-up that makes the most sense. Shell has denied the news, quite officially, but it is a fact that BP is not in as good a shape as it could be—and some are blaming its transition course, charted by now former CEO Bernard Looney. Under Looney, BP struck off into the green direction with determination and a whole new set of priorities. The company promised to decarbonize fast and furiously and go from being a Big Oil major to a Big Power major in a matter of a few short years. It did not work. Less than five years after the initial announcement of the green pivot, BP scrapped its ambition to boost its power generation from wind and solar 20-fold by 2030 and abandoned earlier plans to reduce oil and gas production to cut emissions this year. All this happened early in the year as evidence mounted that wind and solar may be a noble goal, but they are not a money-making business, at least not on the scale that oil and gas generate profits. Then the Trump factor came on stage, and it came with a bang. The U.S. president has made no secret of his aversion to wind power, and one of the first things he did when he came into office was to suspend new turbine construction, likely causing major panic among developers who assumed their projects would be secure. Indeed, there is sound reason for panic. A recent report by Enverus found that just 57% of wind power projects in the United States would survive the One Big, Beautiful Bill. This means that as much as 43% are under threat of getting destroyed by the end of subsidies, but solar is doing even worse – Enverus estimated that just 30% of solar capacity is resilient to the end of subsidies. It appears BP's management is acutely aware of these developments. It is also on course to generate $20 billion from various divestments per strategic plans made public earlier this year. For this year, the divestment target is between $3 and $4 billion, with $1.5 billion already completed by April. The company did not disclose the size of the wind divestment deal. Meanwhile, BP is moving back to Libya, which it left along with other supermajors when the civil war broke out over a decade ago. Earlier this month, the company signed a preliminary deal with the National Oil Corporation for the redevelopment of two big fields in the Sirte Basin. BP will also reopen its office in the country by the end of the year, the Financial Times reported. Out of wind and solar and back to oil and gas, the course seems to be for Big Oil. Yet this is not the complete picture. The supermajors have invested heavily into their diversification into things like power generation from low-carbon sources, carbon capture, and other alternative energy sources, mostly under pressure from governments but also, probably, out a genuine desire to diversify in order to become more resilient in the long run. The problem with the wind and solar venture was that it did not generate the returns its advocates promised. Wind and solar energy were to be simultaneously cheap for the consumers and profitable for the producers, even though the two were mutually exclusive by definition. Big Oil has realized this. BP's divestment is the latest acknowledgment of the fact. But not all is lost for the transition fans. TotalEnergies just announced a major wind power project in Kazakhstan. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data