Part B – Findings and conclusion organisations are differences in the number of steps within grades for male- and female-dominated occupations. This was not found to be an issue at Massey University. Organisational factors that the committee do consider to be contributing to occupational segregation are: Specific practices that contribute to an undervaluing of jobs that are traditionally women’s work, or aspects of women’s work Organizational rules, practice or behaviour that support or maintain occupational segregation. These are discussed in more detail below. Undervaluing of women’s work or aspects of women’s work Undervaluing of women’s work, or aspects of women’s work, relates specifically to the way in which jobs are sized, and therefore to the setting of the grade for that position and its associated pay range. Common ways in which undervaluing of women’s work can occur are: not rewarding similar pay for work of similar value (job size) or through using a job evaluation system that is not current enough and may not be adequately capturing the dimensions of female occupations (such as interpersonal skills, the number of people being provided services to, or emotional demands). It is this latter dimension that the committee judged to be a particular issue at Massey University. As discussed earlier, the current general staff pay system operates around a grading structure that was built following a job evaluation exercise in the 1990s, and many general staff jobs have been graded through a process of whole job comparison rather than a points-factor evaluation. The committee was not confident that, given its age, the current system was capturing all aspects of women’s work, and that there have been many changes to jobs and job evaluation systems since the mid-1990s, some specifically to address the invisibility of women’s work in these schemes. Massey University has begun a new job evaluation exercise in conjunction with TEU to review whether current positions are sized appropriately and whether the relativities established in the 1990s are still relevant, or may involve some changes in the pay structure. The committee also felt that it did not have sufficient information about the ‘new’ evaluation scheme being implemented to feel fully confident that this job-sizing instrument is gender-neutral. In the last few years New Zealand has undertaken some ground-breaking work in this area and the committee was of the view that the new system should be tested against either the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Standard or the Equitable Job Evaluation system. Survey results also provided additional cause to consider this issue carefully. Results indicated a level of staff dissatisfaction with job sizing and relativity. A third of women respondents and a quarter of male respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed to the survey statement “I believe I am paid fairly compared to others doing different work but using similar skills within Massey University”.