It's Time to Revalue the "doing" of Women in the Workplace.

It's Time to Revalue the "doing" of Women in the Workplace.

How are women “doers” and what does it do to my value if I let go of that mindset? I was recently asked this question based on my statement that women are “doers.” I never want to speak for a group of individuals in totality because I realize identity is more than a singular grouping, and each person identifies within a group differently. But I do feel that women have been given a different value currency than men in the workplace. And a lot of that has to do with the way we view their acts of "doing."

When assessing women’s roles across various cultures, a common element of “doing” exists. Historically, in a traditional American culture, women used to be the ones who stayed home with children. Their "doing" consisted of domestic duties, child-rearing, and maybe some community involvement. The currency for this work was typically non-monetary. In African cultures, the historical "doing" -I say historical to give credit to the changing attitudes regarding gender roles and sexuality in Africa- was deeply tied to the gathering duties or agricultural work. Planting and harvesting crops, processing and preparing food, gathering water, etc., are some examples of the tasks performed. The currency for this work was non-monetary but still important- sustenance. Men oversaw the sale, distribution, and money associated with crops.

From a historical standpoint, this is a similar scenario in many cultures- women performing activities that traditionally yield a non-monetary currency. Throughout history, women’s rights have evolved, lifting restrictions on what women can do and opening doors for them. The American culture looks different today. More and more members of households share domestic tasks equally, regardless of gender identity. And they share the financial burden of supporting their households. But the value currency assigned to women continues to lag and has yet to reach that equivalent to men. While we may have evolved beyond trying to define a “traditional" structure in the home, we have yet to carry that evolution of thought into the organizations employing these women.

Europe is a great example of working to create gender equality. Sweden’s gender equality policy gives women the same power as men to “shape society and their own lives"( That sounds like a goal I can get behind! Then why is there still a pay gap between men and women, even in Sweden? In 2020, women’s salaries were 90% of men’s. It's because we have work to do in bringing a change of mindset to life. In the US, women still made 84% of what men did in 2020 -those who remained employed (
While we have seen women as equal contributors and embraced women in "doing" things in exchange for monetary currency, some organizational values and architecture pre-date this modernized thinking. The industrial era brought women into the workforce, but it was not designed for today's working women. The first and second industrial revolutions occurred before women had the right to vote. And when the third industrial revolution took place in 1969, the basis for expanding business with a woman in mind was made when less than 40% of women were part of the workforce.

The shaping and building of the traditional organizational structure lacked a diverse voice. This means that a shift towards re-valuing women requires a mind shift change; it is not inherent to the core of a traditional structure. We believe in women as equal contributors. But that is no longer enough. We must start looking at how traditional organizations are structured and understand why we are not living out those beliefs. Why are women getting paid less? What parts of the organization enable or even perpetuate this?

In doing that work, we can support the shift in thinking of women as "doers" to women as equal contributors. Currently, lower-paying jobs are in higher demand for women. And they tend to come with a higher quantity of work. But we need women in leadership roles to bring that "doer" mindset into leadership and reframe it from task-oriented to strategy-oriented work. We need allies for women to develop into these roles. This means we need to grant permission to change how the work is done. And we need to compensate them adequately for their contributions.

One way we can support the development of women into leadership roles is to uncover the barriers they face in getting a leadership position. What is preventing women from growing in your organization? Simply asking the question would yield some valuable feedback. The reasons are different for every organization, but there are some underlying themes when we think about creating the organizational model during the industrial era. We have already established that the foundation created during this era didn’t have a woman leader as a main player in its design. And we have established views that women are changing and evolving. But what infrastructural elements have failed to keep up?

Consider the evolution of family medical leave protections as an example. How are they interpreted and applied in your own company? Are they updated to address current barriers? Pregnancy discrimination is one of those items that was intended to support the evolution of women in the workplace but has carried unintended consequences that now might be working against their growth efforts. Having a child is still viewed as a disability under the EEOC ( While this might be the right step to protect someone from discrimination, to protect their job during a leave, and to ensure equal job opportunities, the designation alone carries a subconscious association with one’s ability to do a job. When someone leverages a “disability” benefit, how does your organization see them? Does their time off continue to count towards days worked?

What does that do for their seniority track? How does it affect promotional opportunities? And what are women left to grapple with in this instance? Care for a newly born child (sometimes without pay) and heal their body from a massive undertaking? Or rush back to work to start the clock ticking again so they may be considered for the next opportunity. This example perpetuates the psychological concept of “doing” and proving. Pay is equated to tasks. The more doing, the more pay. Women are historically doers. And some outdated organizational infrastructures have not caught up with the evolving view of how that “doing” has changed and should be compensated. What if a company didn’t stop that clock during maternity leave? What would that do to women’s opportunities when they returned? How much would that cost a company? While this is just one example, the message is the same.

We must challenge what we have known about organizational structure and culture in the past and be willing to change it. We must also recognize and accept that women have been in the workplace less than men but haven’t worked less than men. 

About the Author

Tiffany Grandchamp Melnik is the Founder of Women Lifting Women. Her passion for helping women and for equal pay runs blood deep. Tiffany raised three children as a single mother and has experienced the inequities of women in the workplace, stereotyping, and discrimination. Her experiences shaped her educational choices, career path, and, ultimately, the companies she launched. Tiffany spends her time advocating for women, helping companies analyze equity data and re-write policies, writing, coaching, and training leaders, traveling, and spending time with her family.

Back to blog

Leave a comment

Please note, comments need to be approved before they are published.