LinkedIn·Wednesday, 19 August 2026·7d ago

445 managers received exactly the same two CVs. One sentence was different. And it determined who received the larger bonus. Companies that…

Elke Kraemer

Helping tech companies retain & attract more women in tech to boost innovation | Founder Clusity, the community of women in tech in Belgium

445 managers received exactly the same two CVs. One sentence was different. And it determined who received the larger bonus. Companies that are proud to call themselves a meritocracy are often the ones where women get paid less for the same work. Not because HR or managers have bad intentions. But because they believe they're fair. That belief is stopping people from checking their data. MIT Sloan School of Management's Emilio J Castilla and Stephen Benard tested this with 445 experienced managers. Same company, same performance reviews, two employees (Michael and Patricia) with identical records. The one thing that changed was: how the company described itself. If: - the company pays "on merit alone": Michael had a bigger bonus. - the company mentioned nothing about fairness: Patricia had a bigger bonus. The sentence about "meritocracy" tipped the whole thing. Both outcomes are wrong. So, when managers "believe" in their systems, they stop analyzing their decisions and backing them up with data. What I like about this research: it gets specific about what closes the gap. Three things (none of them are just a mission statement on your website): 3-step: 1️⃣ Audit → 2️⃣ Assign ownership → 3️⃣ Define criteria) 1️⃣ Audit: Track who applies, who gets promoted, who gets what bonus. Then check: does gender still impact the outcome once you control for skills and experience? If yes, you've found where to look further. 2️⃣ Assign ownership: One company found women were getting smaller bonuses, because bonuses weren't automatic and women asked for them less often. The organisation decided to make payouts automatic. Gap closed. 3️⃣ Define criteria: Google found women were promoted more slowly than equally strong men. Reason: men nominated themselves more often. Setting clear criteria on when to nominate closed the gap. My question to you: What data do you analyse? Know other examples where "gender" gave you new insights?💡 Please share in comments (below)! P.S. In our Inclusive HR workshop Soukaina Bouddount and Rein Meirte work with our partners to find "Michael and Patricia" moments before they might cost you your best talent. 🥰

♥ 12💬 2

View on LinkedIn