By Melissa J. Anderson

There are many jobs – particularly in finance or sales related positions that are compensated based on commission – which appear on the outset to have objective measurements regarding success. Did someone make money or did someone not make money? In some cases, women appear to underperform compared to men – this has been chalked up to women choosing less demanding accounts, choosing to work fewer hours, or just not being as assertive or risky.

In these cases, cries for more pay equality are met with a response that performance measurement is based on a meritocratic system. If anyone was compensated less than average, the line of thinking goes, it’s because they didn’t work as hard.

But a new study by a Wharton researcher shows that there are organizational biases at play when it comes to so-called meritocratic, commission based jobs. It points to the reasons that, while formalized pay structures can help decrease inequity, management plays a key role in who makes what. Therefore, line-managers must be a part of discussions around diversity and equity in companies – even those where pay is based on commission.

By Melissa J. Anderson

When leaders speak out about the importance of diversity and inclusion, they are in essence making a promise. They are declaring their support for an issue that can be difficult to solve, one that will require money and resources, continuous care and monitoring, and buy-in from the rest of leadership all the way down through the organization. Change is difficult to achieve and not everyone likes it.

But more than being vocal about diversity initiatives, leaders have to be sure to keep their promises on this issue. Nothing will discredit a program more than the notion that it’s all talk, full of hot air, or just a passing caprice. The same applies to a leader.

That’s why it’s so critical that leaders understand that words must be followed by actions. And that’s why the situation with the European Central Bank is so interesting.

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to a new global survey [PDF] of over 1000 board directors by Women Corporate Directors, Heidrick & Struggles, Professor Boris Groysberg of Harvard Business School, and researcher Deborah Bell, men and women had remarkably similar views on the most critical issues facing companies today – economic outlook, regulatory concerns, business challenges.

“Gender differences practically disappeared when we looked at how men and women directors think about issues like the economy,” said Bonnie Gwin, vice chairman and co-managing partner of Heidrick & Struggles’ North American Board and CEO Practice. “These bottom-line business issues tend to allow for the greatest consensus in the boardroom.”

In fact, both men and women both named the “regulatory environment” as the number one challenge facing their companies. Second, both named the need to “attract and retain top talent.”

But that’s where the similarities ended. On issues of talent and diversity, male and female viewpoints were considerably different.

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to a report by the Financial Times, the EU is preparing to launch a proposal on gender quotas in October.

The FT’s James Fontanella-Khan reported that, by 2020, the boards of Europe’s listed companies will have to be 40% female if the proposal is approved. The move comes after the EU’s justice commissioner Viviane Reding declared that while she doesn’t like quotas, they get the job done when it comes to boardroom gender balance. She suggested that if companies didn’t begin to make their own changes, the EU might force those changes upon them.

Companies did little more than call her bluff, and to their surprise, in March of this year, she said that not enough had been done in terms of gender diversity and quotas were on the way.

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to new research by Boston Consulting Group, real gender equity at corporations won’t be achieved until companies take a pragmatic and measured approach to pipeline management. The authors, Susanne Dyrchs and Rainer Strack, explain that quick-fix approaches like women in the boardroom initiatives that are purely based on pumping up numbers at the top won’t make a difference in the long-term.

They write, “It quickly became apparent early in our research that there is limited benefit to be gained by initiating yet more affirmative-action programs or by simply placing more women on boards of directors, for example.”

That’s why companies need to approach gender balance from a cultural pipeline management standpoint – understanding that each company must diagnose its own particular challenges and address them in a way that is uniquely appropriate to the situation.