The workforce is equalizing!

[Judge]

I interpreted NB79's comment to mean that some men may have gone the extra mile because of their competitive nature.
More diligence beyond the call of duty and longer hours, sort of thing.

Are men more competitive than women? - PubMed

Assuming some validity in the research:
I wonder if instinctual needs have something to do with financial/wealth success desire/emphasis?
I.E. Historically, men were the aggressive hunters.

In the example I gave, my real point had nothing to do with gender disparity in pay, but something far more ominous, in my opinion. That in making closer relationships with managers over the years, I discovered the horrifying reality of how merit increases always were a secondary consideration if at all to whether or not any and all increases in pay were completely in line with annually established budgets.

Which amounted to a small group of managers per-determining who is "most likely" to perform on a merit basis, versus who is not. Whether they did or didn't. That it was seldom how an employee performed in any point in real time, but rather how they were perceived to perform over the fiscal year.

To say the least, this particular administrative reality left me with "a very bad taste in my mouth". Ironic to look back and see how literally this corporate establishment so seriously took the notion of "perception being reality".

I can understand the administrative logic of such a practice, but on a more human level I found this to be repulsive.

 

[Jonn]

In the example I gave, my real point had nothing to do with gender disparity in pay, but something far more ominous, in my opinion. That in making closer relationships with managers over the years, I discovered the horrifying reality of how merit increases always were a secondary consideration if at all to whether or not any and all increases in pay were completely in line with annually established budgets.

Nepotism?

Which amounted to a small group of managers per-determining who is "most likely" to perform on a merit basis, versus who is not. Whether they did or didn't. That it was seldom how an employee performed in any point in real time, but rather how they were perceived to perform over the fiscal year.

So not nepotism?

To say the least, this particular administrative reality left me with "a very bad taste in my mouth". Ironic to look back and see how literally this corporate establishment so seriously took the notion of "perception being reality".

I can understand the administrative logic of such a practice, but on a more human level I found this to be repulsive.

You have lost me, but meh. <shrug>