Women are generally found to be paid less than men – Agree / Disagree | Ashneet Kaur | Asstt. Professor – Organisation and Leadership Studies | SPJIMR

I agree that women in India are generally paid less than men, though the reasons are layered and structural rather than purely discriminatory at the income level. Data from national surveys and global reports consistently show a gender pay gap across formal and informal sectors. However, the gap is not explained only by unequal pay for equal work; it is also shaped by occupational segregation, interrupted career trajectories, and differential access to leadership roles.

Women are disproportionately represented in lower-paying sectors such as care work, education, and informal employment. Even within corporate India, women tend to cluster in support functions (HR, communications, administration) while revenue-generating and technical roles, often more highly compensated, remain male-dominated. Career breaks due to caregiving responsibilities further slow wage progression. The “motherhood penalty” continues to affect compensation growth, while the “fatherhood premium” remains socially legitimised.

At senior levels, the glass ceiling persists. Board representation has improved due to regulatory mandates, but executive pay gaps remain substantial. Transparency in pay structures, gender-neutral promotion criteria, and return-ship programs are beginning to address these disparities. Yet, until caregiving responsibilities are more equitably distributed and organizations structurally redesign work for inclusion, the pay gap will persist.

Thus, the gender pay gap in India reflects systemic design issues, not a lack of competence or ambition among women. I believe, ‘Women are not paid less because they contribute less; they are paid less because the system still undervalues the work they disproportionately carry.’

● Are organisations really working better for women? – Yes / No

Yes, but unevenly and often superficially.

Over the last decade, Indian organizations have made visible strides in supporting women through maternity benefits, POSH compliance, flexible work arrangements, and leadership development programs. Several large corporations, such as Tata Group, Infosys, and Hindustan Unilever, have introduced returnship programs, second-career initiatives, and gender-diversity targets. These are meaningful structural shifts.

However, policy presence does not always translate into cultural transformation. Flexible work, for example, may exist formally but may stigmatize those who use it. Leadership pipelines remain sharply narrowed after mid-career levels. Women are frequently supported at entry-level hiring but underrepresented in P&L leadership roles. Inclusion without power redistribution remains cosmetic.

Additionally, support often benefits urban, educated women in formal sectors, leaving behind women in manufacturing, gig work, and the informal economy. Intersectionality, caste, class, disability, and the rural-urban divide are rarely addressed in corporate gender policies.

Some progressive organizations are moving toward outcome-based evaluation, hybrid leadership models, sponsorship (not just mentorship), and equitable parental leave policies for men and women. These initiatives signal genuine progress.

In summary, organizations are working better for women than before, but progress is concentrated, uneven, and still evolving from compliance-driven diversity to culture-driven inclusion. I believe, “We have moved from policy creation to policy celebration, but we are still learning how to build cultures where women truly thrive without penalty.”

● Why must women continue to work? – Reasons

Women must continue to work not merely for economic necessity, but for structural, social, and psychological transformation.

First, financial independence fundamentally alters bargaining power within households and society. Employment reduces vulnerability to economic dependency, domestic violence, and life shocks. In India, where female labor force participation remains low relative to global averages, increasing women’s employment directly contributes to GDP growth and national productivity.

Second, work enables identity formation beyond relational roles. When women participate in paid employment, they gain networks, confidence, and social capital. Research consistently shows that economic participation enhances self-efficacy, decision-making power, and intergenerational aspiration building. Daughters of working mothers are more likely to pursue education and careers.

Third, women’s participation strengthens institutions. Diverse teams are associated with better innovation, risk management, and governance. In sectors like healthcare, education, entrepreneurship, and public policy, women’s representation leads to more inclusive solutions.

Finally, continued workforce participation challenges entrenched gender norms. Visibility matters. Each woman who sustains her career redefines what is socially acceptable for the next generation.

Thus, women must continue to work, not only for themselves, but to reshape economic systems, families, and futures. Please note: ‘A woman’s employment is not just about income; it is about identity, agency, and rewriting the possibilities for the next generation.’