Disparities in salary packages paid to male and female employees

Disparities in salary packages paid to male and female employees

Disparities in salary packages paid to male and female employees have been widely documented and publicized for many decades. This trend has resulted in continued criticisms of gender-based societal domains. In the sports industry, there is significant wage inequality among female and male head coaches (Mckenna, 2016; Traugutt, Sellars, & Morse, 2018 ). Basketball provides a strong case in which there are profound disparities. For example, North Carolina Men’s basketball coach, Roy Williams earns a base salary of more than $2 million while the women’s head coach, Sylvia Hatchell, receives about $650,000 (University of North Carolina, 2016). This persistent disproportionate compensation in this industry underlines the continued problem that women have been undergoing in labor circles. In 2015, the difference between men and women pay gap was about 20.4% for full-time employees (Ament, 2017). Effectively, this gap implies female workers earned 79.6 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. While strides have been made over the years, the gender pay gap continues to exist in various industries (American Association of University Women, 2017). This essay uses the Decision-Making model by Kerwin, Quarterman, and Li (2014) to identify the problem and suggest an appropriate solution. Indeed, this problem can be resolved through the implementation of an equality committee to spearhead the harmonization process.

The Problem

Gender-based salary disparities continue to be a significant problem in the intercollegiate athletics industry. This trend has elicited vicious criticisms in the role of gender in the sports sector, especially how male and female coaches are compensated (Ament, 2017). As early noted, male coaches in basketball earn far more than their female counterparts. For instance, men coaches in this sector were the highest paid in 2016 as compared to women trainers (Gibson, 2018). Therefore, this problem ought to be resolved to ensure parity in pay between male and female coaches.

Criteria for Decision-Making

When making major decisions over specific problems, the Kerwin et al. (2014) model emphasizes the importance of following clear criteria. In the sports industry, this approach entails several aspects that shed light into the existing pay gap in coaching along gender lines. Firstly, it will be critical to drawing a comparison between male and female coaches to determine the extent to which their salary packages differ from each other. For better outcomes, the utilization of a chart comparing these packages based on the power five schools’ pay scale will be vital. Overall, this criterion will provide some insights into the actual pay gap between male and female coaches.

The second criterion that will guide the decision-making process is the examination of the price of tickets. This process should include comparing ticket sales between male and female basketball sports using the power five schools’ scale to ascertain the relative income from each case. The third aspect that will inform the decision-making process is the determination of the impact of the specific job duties that male and female coaches do. Notably, this process should include generating a list of responsibilities for both male and female coaches and comparing them using the power five schools’ scale to ascertain whether they are similar. Lastly, the decision will be informed by the revenue generated by the male and female sports industries. This process will help to determine the side that produces more revenue to universities or colleges.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives

The third step in decision-making, as informed by Kerwin et al. (2014) theory entails the development and evaluation of alternatives. The establishment of an equality committee, implementation of pay transparency, and seeking support from the community are some of the most feasible options to address the challenge of pay disparity among men and women coaches. An equality committee will analyze the factors that contribute to this problem and propose the way forward. The adoption of this alternative will let universities and colleges to take a different approach to employee compensation. On the other hand, pay transparency will raise awareness among women and motivate them to agitate for equality. Effectively, this alternative will require universities and colleges to change their employee contract policy, while enabling the less-paid workers to fight for their rights. Lastly, community support will further exert pressure on policy-makers to address the problem. In this sense, this alternative will attract the attention of both the organizations and the affected individuals.

Selection of The Best Alternative

While the three-proposed alternatives can potentially solve the problem, the most effective one needs to be prioritized. According to Kerwin et al. (2014) model, an option that best responds to the problem should be used to make the appropriate decision on the way forward. Among the three alternatives, the adoption of the equality committee seems the most effective. This approach will have more influence on the institutions because it will be directly involved in the pay policy-making process. Because of this fact, it is essential that universities consider developing a team tasked with the duty of harmonizing salaries between women and men coaches.

Implementation of the Alternative

After successfully identifying the best alternative, its implementation is critical to addressing the problem. This phase entails the people that will be involved in the implementation process and how best decisions will be made in the course of time (Kerwin et al., 2014). Consistently, university and college managements should create a committee tasked with the duty of addressing the issues resulting in unequal pay among female and male employees and proposing ways to bridge this gap. Besides, this committee will raise awareness among university human resource department on the approaches they can adopt to continuously resolve the factors that contribute to the struggles involving women’s sports industry. In assessing the progress of this process, specific checkpoints will be taken into perspective. Within the first six months, a survey will be undertaken to determine the agenda the committee has outlined. After one year, an assessment will be made to determine the number of items on the plan that have been implemented. At the end of two years, an examination will be conducted to ascertain the extent to which pay gap between female and male coaches has been bridged.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Decision

The last phase of Kerwin et al. (2014) decision-making model emphasizes the significance of evaluating the effectiveness of the implemented decision. Firstly, the efficacy of the decision on the creation of an equality committee will be assessed by determining its attractiveness to the institutions. Notably, if a large number of universities and colleges will be willing to implement this approach will confirm its priceless value. Secondly, if women coaches will succeed in having their pay increase from their current status after 1-2 years will justify the efficacy of this decision.

Conclusion

Overall, following an effective decision-making model can be critical in addressing the problem of pay disparities between female and male coaches. For instance, a model established by Kerwin and his friends in 2014 provides an exciting framework for solving this problem. Guided by its principles, the establishment of an equality committee among institutions of higher learning can help them find ways to harmonize pays between the two genders gradually.