I'm going to break something to you - work, recognition and pay is a popularity contest in many organisations. Someone who is seen as a trouble maker gets alienated quickly, regardless of talent, skin colour, gender or looks. I have managed a few large teams (100+ people). My observations were: - gender was not a factor in income, nor was race - but being one of the "players" was important (regardless of competency) - performance appraisals were popularity contests (ratings were often changed or negotiated with senior management) - people that caused trouble (regardless of gender, race) were ostracised. Language was also a major barrier, or cliques that established for one reason or another. They usually worked against the culture management tried to create and were seen as a threat. - good people were nearly always paid well, unless they pissed the wrong people off.

So Colin spoke the truth (as far as I can tell). It is very hard to change a bad culture unless the person at the top is committed to it. I fought a number of injustices and was kicked in the balls many times (metaphorically of course). You learn what you can and can't get away with or end up on the outer - truth be damned. I was often respected for my principles but seen as foolhardy for my commitment to truth. From my experience, gender and race is no basis for judging decent & compassionate management either. I worked with some brutal men and women over the years. It doesn't take Einstein to sort the Wheat from the chaff, people normally knew - although terms like "makes stuff happen", "doesn't take prisoners", "hard ass" were some alternate names for these brutal types. I can't speak for all work environments, but I've seen hundreds of salaries and appraisals over the years. I can not guarantee my experience reflects the broader world of business.