Podcast-Intro: Welcome to
Testing, Testing 123, a podcast

brought to you by TestGenius.

Jenny Arnez: Hello everybody.

We're so glad you joined us today.

My name is Jenny Arnez.

I'm from TestGenius and you are on
the Testing Testing 1, 2, 3 podcast.

With me today is my co host, Mike Callen.

He's the president of TestGenius and
Mike, do you want to say anything?

Mike Callen: Greetings.

Glad that you're here joining us.

And we're excited about today's podcast.

We've got a great guest with
us and frankly we're all

going to be learning stuff.

This is new- new territory
for us outside of our scope.

And so it's going to be
a fun couple sessions.

Jenny Arnez: That's right.

Today we are recording our
first session of two with Dr.

Brian Marentette.

He's from Berkshire Associates.

He's the Director of
People Insights there.

Brian's going to, well, he's
going to be teaching us.

This first episode is just about pay
equity basics, and so Mike and I will be

asking Brian lots of questions, and we
hope this is a beneficial time for you.

Brian, would you like to tell
us a few things about yourself?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.

Thank you for having me.

First of all, it's an honor to be here.

I am a former member of the Biddle team.

Through two different stints with
Biddle but recently we were acquired and

joined the Berkshire Associates group.

So I know the Biddle folks
well, and it's nice to be back.

Speaking with you, but
yeah, Brian Marentette here.

I'm an IO psychologist that specializes
in a number of different areas across

the HR space and EEO compliance doing
sort of TestGenius type work as well

with testing and validation, but also
other statistical analyses surrounding

personnel decisions in the workplace.

So hiring, promotion,
termination, and compensation,

which is what we'll talk about.

today with pay equity.

Nice to be here.

Wonderful.

Jenny Arnez: Wonderful.

Thank you.

So my thought for today is that we would
do the reporter questions, the what,

who, why, when, and how of pay equity.

And why don't we just
start with a definition?

What exactly does pay equity mean?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah, great.

So it's a term that's thrown around a lot.

And there's probably several
definitions out there.

Fundamental common thing that you'll
see is equal pay for equal work.

That doesn't mean same pay for same work.

It's a relative term in that it's
considering individual's attributes,

their characteristics that they're
bringing to the table, the characteristics

of the work that they're performing
and then considering pay after we

take those factors into account.

Jenny Arnez: So can you
elaborate a little bit more?

You said it doesn't mean same.

So that kind of brings a
question mark in my mind.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.

So assume Mike and I
are doing the same job.

All right.

We're both we're not going to be the
president of test genius, but we're

a consultant doing the same job.

And I was just hired a year
ago, fresh out of grad school.

And Mike was hired 10 years ago and
he has had several other jobs as well.

In the consulting space, he brings
a different level of expertise and

experience knowledge to the table.

If we were paid the same pay
for the same work, that would

mean we're making the same.

Amount of money, regardless
of any of those other factors.

And that's where the pay equity
concept comes into play is that we

should not really be paid the same.

That's actually not equitable.

I don't think Mike would be happy if he's
making the same amount as me as a newbie.

And so he has compensated more
and you'd see that in raw numbers.

And it would appear that there's
a disparity there, but behind the

scenes, the equity piece would
explain that there's other factors.

That contribute to that.

So once we factor those things in.

We actually are making equal pay for
the equal work that we're performing.

Now, my work isn't going
to be equal to Mike's.

And that's where some of the
more complicated statistical

analyses come into play.

But the concept there is that
pay equity factors in these other

relevant pieces of information that
might influence somebody's pay.

Mike Callen: Does it make
sense to ask now, or if not,

we can push it off till later.

But one of the things that I always wonder
about when I hear this term has to do with

job performance ratings, for instance.

How are different people performing,
unlike the example you used, assuming

we're working in the same role,
it's been the same amount of time.

How does that come into play as well
in terms of determining pay equity

or in terms of the analysis for pay
equity, or is that something that

occurs outside or is it not even
something that gets considered?

Brian Marentette, PhD: No, good question.

That is, that comes up with almost
every single client that we work with.

Many organizations out there claim to be
a pay per for pay for performance model.

So they pay people more
for better performance.

And oftentimes that is quantified
through performance ratings.

That is a legitimate factor that could
be considered in somebody's compensation

I will tell you more often than not

regardless of how strong a client pushes,
me to use those ratings, they actually

have a very weak relationship to pay.

There might be some sort of individual
cases where your star performer indeed

has the highest ratings across the
board and they are making the most,

your lowest performer might have
the lowest ratings and the lowest

pay, but all the noise in the middle

doesn't usually track very cleanly.

But performance would be one
of those factors that could be

an influencing pay certainly.

Mike Callen: And that's
an interesting point.

We hear very often when there's
conversations either internally or

externally about job performance
ratings very often it's a gift.

That everybody gets one time
a year, somebody says you're

spectacular and that could really
throw a wrench into these things.

So there are other
metrics available as well.

If you're doing an assembly
job, you're making widgets.

If you you could be, you could look
at the attendance or lateness or,

maybe there's a whole host of other,
uh, metrics that might be available.

Do those ever get factored into
the work that you're doing or

get considered as criteria?

Brian Marentette, PhD: In some cases, yes.

In situations where you have those
objective quantifiable outputs.

Yes, they often do factor in and that's
usually on like variable compensation, so

non base pay commissions, incentives yeah.

So in, these days, there's not a lot
of jobs that actually make widgets

where people can quantify the number
of products they're producing and

things, but in some cases attorneys.

Oftentimes we'll see that obviously
billable hours impacts the some of

the bonus structures that they have.

And it's really pretty formulaic in
those cases where if you hit certain

targets, you get the incentives of course.

Yeah.

But those need to be factored
in when you're looking at

some of those non base pay.

Incentives and commissions and bonuses.

Yeah

Mike Callen: I know.

I have a friend who is an apprentice
electrician and he is almost ready

to become a journeyman electrician.

And obviously they have structures
that are based around merit, which

is really associated with the steps
that you increased through your

education, the amount of years
that you put into each program.

And there's really a natural cadence
from apprentice to journeyman to

supervisor, those kinds of things.

Is that a realm that you
prefer to operate in?

Is it, are things more clean there?

Or do you even need to do compensation
analysis in a realm like that?

Or, do you prefer to do it in some of
the areas that are more subjective?

Or do you think it's more
necessary in those areas?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Great question.

And yes, most of the compensation pay
equity work is done in environments

that are not so structured.

It's particularly like unionized roles.

We have organizations
with unionized workforces.

We oftentimes don't even analyze
the union employees because they

are tied to that rigid structure.

And there's actually very
little you can do about it.

And when you see disparities they're
often, at a job title level, as soon as

we control for the grade that they're in
or that step that they're in, it wipes it

out because that usually explains almost
all the variability in somebody's pay.

It's tied to these steps and levels
that they're on so it is the subjective

pay decisions that are most prone
to bias potentially or just general,

poor practices that produce unintended
consequences that might appear as

bias that are caused by other factors.

It's pretty deep into it but yeah,

Mike Callen: So is it an effect
of the way that those unionized

environments are organized.

It's pretty clear that there is very
little inequity that exists because

it's happens to be very much structured.

And so people don't tend
to have to look at that?

Or is there some other nuance that
directs you in terms of, you know what

what you might

need to do or for whom you do the service?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Right.

There's very little opportunity for
their, for inequity to exist when you

have such a rigid step type of system
And if you're finding any differences,

it's going to reflect people that
are deviating from whatever has been.

So there shouldn't be any
opportunities for inequity because

it's so structured like that.

And that's why we will leave it alone.

I will say from a different perspective
there's kind of two lenses you

can look at pay equity through.

One is a legal lens.

Are they violating any federal or
state or local laws that might prohibit

disparities or, apparent bias in pay?

But the other is more of a D,E, & I
lens or a more of a diversity lens

where let's say we look at that job of
electricians and we're not controlling for

those different steps and we see a huge
disparity in pay between, men and women.

Now what does that mean?

Does it mean we have pay bias against
women or does it mean that we have

only, got our female employees
stuck down in these lower steps?

They haven't moved out of
those lower grades and steps

to get up to higher levels.

Sure.

We can explain away the difference.

We can statistically tell
you, ah, it's not an issue.

Once you factor in those steps, but
then you then have to self reflect

as an organization and say why do
we have, all of our females are all

of our Hispanic or black minority
employees stuck in these lower levels.

And then it becomes a separate issue.

It's not really a pay equity issue.

It's more of that career progression,
glass ceiling type of a problem,

which is a, another benefit of
doing pay equity work is that it

can spotlight some of those issues.

Mike Callen: Another associated problem.

So there's two things I want to ask.

I'm going to throw this out here because
I don't want to forget the comment that

you just made about, identifying some of
these issues that could really potentially

point toward a systemic issue, right?

If you find that something's happening
over here on the compensation

side you should probably look
elsewhere within your organization.

And the second part, I'm
just going to throw this out.

So I don't, I'll go ahead and answer that.

No I'll type myself enough.

Go ahead.

Brian Marentette, PhD:
Yes, no, you're spot on.

It ties into a tangentially related
concept, which is the pay gap problem.

Okay.

Which is.

And I can define that
before Jenny has to ask me,

which is really just looking at like
an unadjusted sort of like ratio of,

let's say male to female compensation.

We're not factoring in any of these
relevant pieces of information that

might come into play performance,
education, whatever it might be.

You'll hear about the pay gap
statistic in the United States.

It's published by the Census Bureau when
they run their census every so often.

And the most recent figure is like
83 cents on the dollar, right?

Females earn 83 cents on the dollar
compared to their male counterparts.

And that leads a lot of people
to think, Oh, we have a huge pay

equity problem in the United States.

And it's not necessarily true.

It's not really a pay equity problem.

It's more of a labor market availability
or a talent acquisition problem.

You've got your highest paying jobs.

And we know from census data that
there are more male employees

available out there in the labor
market for these higher paying roles.

And the females are much more
available out there in the

lower paying bands and things.

When you just look at an
organization, and say, what's the

average male versus female pay?

Of course you're gonna see
this 83% or 17% gap, right?

Females making 83% of
the male counterparts.

And so through a pay equity analysis, you
get a look at your like, job title level.

Are we paying people the same for,
equal pay for equal work after we

consider these relevant factors?

But then you can also look at
that broader sense and see.

Okay.

Do we have more of a
talent acquisition problem?

Because we've got these pockets
where if we take job title out and we

look at average pay, there's a huge
gap over in this one business unit.

We're not bringing in any female
or minority employees into any

of the high (level positions)..

And that conversation changes
to again, the TA team.

It's not a comp issue.

It's not a dollar problem.

It's are we getting people in the door?

Are we not getting enough applicants?

Are we not recruiting appropriately?

So there's a lot of questions that get
opened by these pay equity analysis.

Mike Callen: So if it's a an
availability issue, then does that

enter the narrative in your report?

I think that would be a really important
aspect, especially use that basic

example of national equity between
males and females and a gap of 17

cents, and you're explaining it based
upon, of an availability issue, is that

something that you folks ferret out?

Or do you leave that to the employer to
really try to help to present that in

terms of taking action moving forward.

Brian Marentette, PhD:
Yeah great question.

And that would be an kind of an
add on to a pay equity analysis,

because with pay equity data,
we don't, we're not necessarily

looking for market availability.

We don't typically include
that in a pay equity study.

It is something we might do as
a follow up or other clients

would say that's great to know.

We'll go and drill down on that.

We'll take it from here.

Mike Callen: The other point that
I was going to ask you about was

something that you mentioned a
little bit earlier was regarding,

sometimes it's an issue of legality
and sometimes it's an issue of DE& I.

And so there are certain classes
of employers who are under the

auspices of certain federal
agencies for certain reasons.

And then there's other ones who maybe
aren't under the auspices of those

oversight agencies, but they are
wanting to be very transparent and

they're wanting to do the right thing.

And therefore, they're spending time,
energy and money on having these studies

done so that they can be equitable.

I think that probably a lot of people.

In our space and maybe even
protect, particularly on the talent

acquisition side, our side of
HR, they don't really understand

what that is or what that means.

But that's, you grew up in that space,
the consulting and the affirmative action

and the EEO and the pay equity analysis.

That all really has everything
to do with those two spaces.

Can you spend a couple of minutes
and define those two arenas for us?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.

So within the, I'll call it the EEO
compliance realm, because even if you're

not a, like a government contractor,
for example, just about every employer

is subject to Title VII laws, right?

From the Civil Rights Act that prohibits
discrimination based on protected

characteristics, age, race, religion,
age isn't necessarily part of that,

it's the Age Discrimination Act.

Age, race, religion, gender
disability, veteran status.

So these are all protected
characteristics, right?

If there's any differences in pay that are
large enough to flag as being significant

and they fall along any of those lines.

Yes.

Employers are liable really for a
potential pay discrimination suit for

those employers that are focused really
just on legal compliance, there's that pay

equity answers those questions as well.

It's the same analysis that you would do
for legal compliance versus a proactive

look where people just want to know,
Hey, do we have any pay potential

pay problems that are out there?

The difference on the proactive
approach is that, a a legal standard

is going to be very specific.

We're looking at employees that are really
doing they're called similarly situated

technical term in the field, meaning,
basically they're doing the same job.

You can look beyond that though.

You can see for, Employees that are
doing similar work, are we paying

differently for employees doing
similar work and do those jobs

predominantly, employ female versus male.

And, there's a case study out there.

That's a good example where an
organization had a daycare on site.

It was run predominantly
by female employees, right?

And they had a parking garage and a valet
service with parking car attendants,

predominantly male occupant that role.

And guess what?

The parking car attendants, their base
salary was like 5 more than the female.

Daycare caregivers.

And, you got to ask yourself as an
organization, okay, you're paying

fairly within these two jobs.

There's no discrimination going on.

We're not paying unequally.

But then what's the value that
we place on those two jobs that.

Arguably, the daycare providers are even
doing more complex work, more higher risk.

They've got the lives of children there.

Mike Callen: But

certainly more hazardous,

right?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Hazardous,

more stressful.

I have three young kids.

I know that.

I've done both jobs.

Actually, I was a valet and
I did caregiving for my kids.

And I would say this is a much
harder job being a daycare provider.

But looking at it from a legal lens,
Find any problems because within

these jobs they're paying equally.

But when you look at then across similar
types of jobs, so like that band of jobs,

that's, just support work throughout
the organization you're placing more

value on these male dominated roles,
and that's where some of those subtle

biases that maybe existed decades ago.

Have just become the norm.

And of course we pay our parking
lot attendance, 25 an hour.

And our daycare providers, 20 an hour.

So we've always paid them and
it's never been a problem.

You don't know that until you run
something, like a proactive pay

equity analysis that goes beyond the
legal standard to really root out

those areas where as an organization,
have you made sort of biased

decisions in the past that are no
longer even a thought until they're

surfaced in one of these analyses.

Jenny Arnez: So let me jump
in here really quickly.

And I, you've used the term several times.

I've heard pay equity analysis.

Let's say I'm an employer maybe
I'm a VP of HR or HR manager.

At what point do I consider having a
consultant like yourself come in and

conduct an analysis of our pay structure?

Brian Marentette, PhD: What
would be a trigger you mean to?

Jenny Arnez: Perhaps maybe talk
about proactive versus reactive.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.

Okay.

Sure

Mike Callen: Sorry the aspect of
whether you end up in the legal side

of the scrutiny versus just the public
opinion side of you know the DEI side

of things You know, I think that all
factors into that as well, depending

on which side of commerce you're on.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Might trigger a legal review would be, you
can still do proactive, legally oriented

pay equity analyses, but that really is
going to be coming from your council that

might think Hey, since that there's some
up there and, there's been complaints, but

maybe California has some
fair pay activity here.

Any individual employee can kind of.

file a claim and say, Hey, I
think I'm being discriminated

against based on gender.

And so from a legal sense, yeah,
that there's no necessarily

like a trigger for that.

If you get a claim, you have to respond
to that with a reactive analysis

to support your legal counsel and
rooting out what the real story is.

And is there an issue here?

And do we need to settle and
how much should we settle for?

And what's the back pay and That's
a whole nother world, right?

That gets activated when
there's a lawsuit that's filed.

But as an HR vp these days, I think
almost every organization needs to

be doing at least annual pay equity
analysis for a number of reasons.

First if they haven't been doing them,
they've probably got some pay disparities

that they're just not aware of.

And until you resolve those you're just.

You're not treating your employees fairly.

But the other thing with the transparency
era, now the state by state seems

like almost every month, another state
is coming out with more, regulations

coming out all over the place.

There's going to be more questions
about pay and what I'm making.

And, even if it's not within the same
job, like my comparison earlier with the

daycare and parking car tenants somebody
can easily point to another employee.

That's doing similar work.

And if you don't understand how
your pay practice is operating,

you have guidelines that.

Your team uses in making offers and your
managers when they're making promotions

should be following these guidelines.

But it's, it can be a lot of little
small decisions that lean in one

direction against one group that over
time start to compound and can produce

these disparities that again, like
typical adverse impact theory, it's,

facially neutral practice that results

outcome.

And even if it's not a legal claim
that you're responding to, just as an

organization, you need to understand these
metrics, you need to know what your pay

practice is producing, for your employees.

Jenny Arnez: Now, is that
true for any organization?

Let's say a small business that has
10 employees versus one that has 200.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.

Good question there too.

If you have 10 employees, you
can still do pay equity analysis.

Now it might look a little different
than how we might do it for 200, 2000.

200, 000 the technique or the analysis
that's employed will change, but you

can still be doing pay equity work.

And this actually might be a
good time to differentiate two

critical types of pay equity.

One is going to be your internal pay
equity, internal equity, comparing

employees within your organization,
maybe with, within the job title, one

against another or like I said, maybe
you're looking at broader groups in your

looking at substantially similar work
still all within your organization that's

internal pay equity, often confused with
external equity, which is how you pay

relative to what the market might demand.

All right.

And there are a lot of organizations that
will say, yeah, we do pay equity work.

We've been doing it for years.

We use XYZ company.

They give us the survey data.

They tell us what all
of our positions are.

You know what the average should be
and we stick to that pretty closely

And that's when we know like red flag.

They haven't looked internally.

Yeah, and the internal piece is
where the focus Usually lies with

differences that fall on race gender
age, etc you know the external

.
Mike Callen: The real
problem areas, right?

because the market tends to take
play take the market tends to fix

those external problems on its own,
because if organization A isn't paying

enough and B is paying twice as much,
people will start get up and they'll

start flocking over to a different.

Organization, right?

Brian Marentette, PhD: And it's
incumbent on the organization to

create their own philosophy there.

How do they want to pay
compared to the market?

Some nonprofits say, you know what,
we're not looking for the best and

the brightest, we're not going to
pay in the 75th percentile we want

people that are just going to do this
work in an altruistic way, and we're

willing to pay at the 40th percentile.

So they're going to pay below the
market rate for that job, knowing

That's where they're going to pay.

So externally, they're not very equitable
to what other employers might be paying

for the same work, but they don't care.

As long as they're paying everybody
at about the 40th percentile relative

for their standing, then it's fair.

Jenny Arnez: So Brian, how often
should a pay equity analysis be

conducted by an organization?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah,
there is a lot of factors that,

influence that answer, but really
an annual analysis will do, usually.

Most companies are not changing
pay more than, once a year.

So they have an annual merit cycle.

They look at their, annual increases
and adjustments they make them,

and then it sits for another
year and they review it again.

And their pay planning.

It makes sense to do it at
some point before or after

that decision, ideally before.

So you can look to see if
we're, where are we at?

Are there any gaps that
need to be addressed?

And you can do that through that cycle.

And if not, you look at it at some other
point in the year, knowing that you've

got several months to remedy any issues.

The one Other factor there that would come
into play as the flux of your workforce.

So if you have a lot of turnover, a
lot of hiring, a lot of acquisitions

going on divestitures, you need to
look at that much more frequently.

So we do have a couple of clients
that look at it every six months.

Other ones that will, tap us every.

A couple of times a year, three times a
year, if they have several acquisitions

going on and they need to see how do
we look now that we've reshuffled and

integrated some new employees in here.

Jenny Arnez: So we are getting close
to our 30 minutes length for our

first episode, but would you mind if
I asked you a couple more questions?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Of course.

Of course.

I don't mind.

Jenny Arnez: Thank you
for clarifying that.

So I heard you say pay transparency.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.

Jenny Arnez: And I think that's more of
a technical term than I think that it is.

Can you speak to that?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.

So yeah, and pay transparency often
gets lumped in with pay equity.

But transparency is really more just
that employers having to share more

information about their pay practice,
how they make pay decisions, even

what they are paying employees.

So there's certain
states you have to share

if an employee asks.

A lot of states, you
have to share the range.

First of all, the range for the
position that's being applied, it has

to even be shared in the job posting.

And so like states like Colorado, that
has to be within your job posting.

What is the salary
range for this position?

Other states and organizations, you
have to provide the average within your

job so that any employee can say what's
the average pay within My job here.

And am I below or above that average?

And so the transparency era is
that's really what everybody's

referring to is just being more
public with how decisions are made.

What are the factors that, that go
into, salary increases when it comes

time for raises and things like that.

But then also what are the data points.

relative for the position
that somebody might hold.

Jenny Arnez: Great.

Thank you.

Mike, it looks like you have a question.

Mike Callen: Yeah, and I don't
know whether it's a session

two question or not, and feel
free to kick the can forward.

But I'm curious, I've read, I won't say a
lot but often enough to be curious about

people being hired in because the market
is tight right now at much higher pay

rates, pay levels than Existing employees
are getting paid for the same job that

they have way more experience for.

In other words, if you looked at
really rehiring your own personnel, it

would cost you a lot more to do that.

And so that certainly is identifying
an issue, whether or not it's

a legal issue, it might just
be a moral ethical issue, but.

Is that something you want to talk
about now or do you want to cover

that in the next next session?

Brian Marentette, PhD:
I can briefly hit that.

And it is a phenomenon that we see.

We refer to that as pay compression,
where in general, some of your newer

employees are going to be making more
than your more tenured employees.

And typically when we're running
these pay equity analyses, we

try to account for the fact that.

Employees that have been there
longer should be making more.

And so when you put that into
the equation, you actually

see the inverse and it's not a
legal factor or a legal concern.

These can pay however they want.

However, if all of your recent hires
that are making more fall into one

particular group, that could be
creating an equity issue along.

One of the other demographic
protected group so companies

need to be mindful of that.

Again, it's not going to be
a race, gender equity issue.

It's going to be.

Probably just more of a, are our
older, more tenured employees valued.

Okay.

Maybe we need to bring them up closer,
start closing that spread between

that group that we've just hired
recently with a much higher rate.

Mike Callen: It's bad water
cooler talk, bad optics, right?

This is what it creates is, it is.

Brian Marentette, PhD: And that's the
downside of some of the transparency

work that's, that people are pushing
is that now that those ranges are out

there and Incoming applicants can see
they ask for the moon and they have more

leverage to push their salaries higher.

But at the same time,
existing employees have that.

it as well.

Now it's harder once you're in
to negotiate your salary upward

than it is at that offer stage.

So

Mike Callen: I wonder if that's
why people use hiring bonuses.

So maybe it doesn't get,

Brian Marentette, PhD: that's a question.

Yeah.

Mike Callen: Let's factor it in.

The part two question.

Brian Marentette, PhD:
Part two question for sure.

Mike Callen: Yeah.

Brian Marentette, PhD:
How to manage your equity.

Yeah.

Mike Callen: Well, there's a
cliffhanger for session two.

If you're dying to understand the
answer to that question, then be sure

and join us on the next Next episode
of this conversation with Brian.

So cool.

Jenny Arnez: Yeah, Brian as we wrap up our
first session together I just I want I'm

curious as to your why- I know you to be
a very purposeful Intentional individual

and you've dedicated well gosh what
years of education in this space, right?

So yeah, what's your personal
motivation for this career?

Brian Marentette, PhD: Gosh it's
a field that I'm naturally drawn

to and that it the field of IO
Psychology, it's involves people.

It's not quite HR per se,
but touches HR obviously.

But I'm drawn to that type
of work for whatever reason.

And then on the technical side of all
the schooling that I went through,

We learn quite a bit about statistics
and analyses and how to quantify

and use data to inform decisions.

And I'm also drawn to that.

I think the best decisions
are made with data.

So then taking those two things together
and then looking at, a career that

can be fulfilling and do some good in
the world, preventing and correcting

discrimination along race and gender,
any line really, it's rewarding.

Makes you feel like maybe
you're doing something.

Mike Callen: So I have the last
question, if that's okay with you, Jenny.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.

Mike Callen: I want to know, and I know
everybody else wants to know this as well.

Does being a pay equity expert make
you a better parent of three toddlers?

Brian Marentette, PhD: No.

Mike Callen: No winning that battle.

Brian Marentette, PhD: I always say
it's tough to transition from work Brian

to a dad within a matter of seconds
as a work from home employee and the

rigidity and the regimen that you must
follow with pay equity work and data

analysis to them, the chaos of trying
to wrangle kids are starkly different

and I enjoy both of them, but it takes
a little bit of a re reconfiguration

Mike Callen: hat shifting.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Absolutely.

Mike Callen: Yeah.

Yeah.

I'll bet you around the dinner table
when you hear that's not fair, the answer

from you is really original and special.

Brian Marentette, PhD: So have
you considers how old you are?

You are and he is nine.

He's had a lot more on experience.

Mike Callen: He's been on this
job for much longer than you.

So

so much, Brian.

It's always a pleasure
to to chat with you.

And this is a really great time
spending time on the podcast with you.

And we want to thank you very much
for taking time out of your day, to

come and share with Jenny and I, and.

And as well, anybody else who
happens to listen to this, it's

been incredibly informative and I am
looking forward to part two as well.

So thank you very much for that.

Brian Marentette, PhD: Thank you both.

Jenny Arnez: Brian, if somebody
wants to get in touch with you,

they want to know more about
conducting an analysis for their own

organization, how can they do that?

Brian Marentette, PhD: My email
would be the best if you can throw

it in a window or a chat right there.

Jenny Arnez: How about that?

Perfect.

We're

fancy.

We're fancy around here.

Brian Marentette, PhD: I love it.

Yup.

Yeah.

Shoot me an email.

I'm happy to chat with people whenever.

And sometimes offer some
free free advice as well.

Jenny Arnez: Wonderful.

Thank you to our listeners and to our
viewers as well for joining us today and

make sure you tune in next time for part
two with our conversation with Brian.

Thank you very much.

Podcast Outro: Thanks for tuning in to
Testing Testing 123 brought to you by

TestGenius and Biddle Consulting Group.

Visit our website at testgenius.com
for more information.