Breaking down "pipeline theory"

by Ray Bass

Up until a few weeks ago, I had never heard of pipeline theory. Maybe you haven’t either. “Pipeline theory” is the idea that firms can create diversity at the top by hiring diverse candidates (namely women, but also those who identify as non-binary, those with non-heteronormative sexual orientations, etc.) in junior positions who will eventually rise through the ranks, thus diversifying their executive and C-suite levels over time. 

The question is, though, does this theory of workplace hiring and positioning actually work? I dug into articles and studies on the subject to find out. 

Depending on who you ask, the perception of pipeline theory is sort of a mixed bag. Those who are in a position to hire tend to see it in a positive light, because they feel they’re playing the long game, ensuring diversity over a period of time. In general, though, pipeline theory is viewed negatively, as it’s often used as justification for companies not hiring more diverse candidates for upper level positions in the first place (or at the very least, it discourages them from doing so, because in their eyes, diversity is “on its way”). 

Recent studies related to pipeline theory underscore the simple truth that while it may get more women into male-dominated industries, it doesn’t actually help women achieve equality in the workplace. The below is an excerpt from a study of 23,413 men and women:

The pipeline theory suggests that increasing the number of women in male-dominated fields should lead to more equality in the labor market. This perspective does not account for differences in the expectations of men and women within the pipeline, which may serve to perpetuate inequities. 

Our results indicate that, although women are increasingly entering male-dominated fields such as science/engineering and business, they continue to have lower salary expectations and expect a longer time to promotion than their male counterparts. 

Another study from 2017 reaffirms that women do not benefit from pipeline theory, and states that proponents of pipeline theory are ignoring the disparity in women’s placement and pay:

Under the pipeline theory, women will achieve pay parity in due course. But [this] ignores an aspect of the pipeline theory that works against women. The critical career paths for senior management positions begin with line positions, such as those in marketing, sales, and production, or with critical control functions such as accounting or finance. Women are more likely to be placed in support-staff positions, such as personnel, human resources, public relations, communications, and customer relations. 

Since movement between staff and line positions seldom occurs in most major companies, women are less likely during the course of their careers to be assigned pipeline positions that lead to senior management. The pipeline, therefore, actually perpetuates the barriers that have traditionally kept women from moving up the corporate ladder.

Looking back, I now see that companies I’ve worked for—male or female-dominated—utilized this “building a pipeline” idea. My first job out of college was for a tech company started by a few guys in graduate school, so it wasn’t surprising to me that when I arrived, there were few, if any, senior women. Over the next few years, they did hire two senior women (one of which was the “head of the department,” but still reported to a higher level male), but mostly they continued to build a pipeline. They placed women in junior positions, claiming they were on track to assume leadership roles, but not really giving clear timelines for those promotions.

When questioned about the lack of women in leadership or management roles, companies will often claim that there were no qualified candidates at the higher level that could fill that VP or C-Suite role, and say that, in time, junior women will be promoted to that role. Not only is this unlikely to happen—women are promoted at a much slower rate than men and only 7.4% of CEO jobs in the S&P 500 are occupied by women—but this advancement is contingent on women staying for years in those lower positions without any guarantee of a raise. Plus, unless it’s in writing, employers aren’t bound by any promise they make to employees. Even if you’re told you’ll “rise through the ranks,” there’s a chance you may never get that role. 

Women also tend to stay at their jobs longer than men, regardless of pay advancement. As Ashley Milne-Tyte, reporter and host of The Broad Experience, puts it: 

Women tend to be loyal, and to put others’ needs before their own, which is part of what keeps us in one place. A man I once interviewed for a story told me, “Women make great employees, because they understand the company’s argument of, ‘We can’t afford to pay you any more.’”

In other words, women back down when told it’s not a good time for the firm to give raises. Men, he said, routinely ignored that argument. They would announce they had several other offers and threaten to quit if the company didn’t meet their request.

The bottom line here is that we’re far from equality in the workplace—for women, for people of color, for anyone identifying as non-binary, LGBTQ+, and more. From where we’re standing, pipeline theory just hasn’t proven to be an effective way to add diversity in male-dominated fields—instead, it’s denied non-male employees opportunities for growth, promotion, and equal pay. In reality, we need people from marginalized groups in positions of power—and I mean a LOT of them. Only then can we say we’re working towards equality. Right now, we’re still stuck in the past.