Abstract
Francoise Brougher joined Pinterest as a chief operating officer in March 2018. Earlier she worked with Square and Google. She worked hard to augment the revenue of the company from US$500 million to US$1.1 billion in a short span of about two years. A large team of about 1,500 staff reported to her. However, soon after joining the company, she realized that the decision-making was monopolized by cronies of the chief executive officer (CEO). At the time of filing application for initial public offer, she noticed discrepancies in her compensation as compared to her male counterparts. Raising the issue became a bone of contention between Brougher and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Todd Morgenfeld. The matter became worse as the CEO Ben Silbermann also sided with the CFO. Ultimately, Brougher was shown the door in a most unceremonious manner. Anguished by the treatment meted out to her at Pinterest, Brougher filed a lawsuit against gender discrimination and retaliation. Both the parties reached an out-of-court settlement that instantly hit the headlines across the globe because of the magnitude and nature of the terms of settlement. This case explores the underlying questions emanating from the nature of the case as well as general incidence of gender discrimination and retaliation at the workplaces across the world.
Introduction
Since time immemorial, labour markets across the globe have been infested with the discrimination of sorts. For example, there has been remarkable prejudice against African Americans in hiring by organizations in the USA (Quillian et al., 2017; Weller, 2019). Likewise, Indian organizations in the private sector have also demonstrated subtle discrimination against the Dalits and minorities, especially regarding high-paying and stable white-collar jobs (Banerjee et al., 2008; Newman & Thorat, 2007; Shetty, 2020; Thorat, 2018). The scenario in other parts of the world is no different. However, the worst form of discrimination is gender in all kinds of organizations. Gender prejudice often results in higher depressive symptoms among female employees (Kim et al., 2020). Also, it has been observed that gender discrimination erodes the subjective well-being of female employees. Hence, gender discrimination is not only limited to creating roadblocks hiring, pay parity with male counterparts and promotions but also encompasses severe impacts on the health and well-being of female employees. Gender discrimination is further fuelled by the nature of organizational relationships, such as unfavourable leader–member exchange. Some of the team members are excluded from consultation and critical decision-making. At the same time, the top boss prefers his/her in-group members (Quttainah & Said, 2020). Deliberate exclusions induced by unfavourable leader–member exchange invariably affect the performance of the concerned employees and augment their turnover intentions.
Interestingly, gender discrimination often results in retaliation in the wake of reactions of the victims of the perennial prejudices (Sincoff et al., 2018). Hence, most cases of gender discrimination remain unreported. However, gender discrimination at the workplace adversely affects the performance of female employees and increases their turnover intentions. Gender discrimination also reduces employee commitment and job satisfaction, while it increases stress among the female staff (Channar et al., 2011). Female employees are drained emotionally, physically and mentally due to gender-based discrimination. The subjective well-being of female employees takes a toll due to gender discrimination (Kim, 2015). Unfortunately, not many organizations take up the issues related to gender discrimination seriously until they get out of hand in terms of class-action lawsuits and subsequent media coverage. It appears that gender discrimination is embedded in institutional processes amplified in organizational culture and structure (Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011; Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). The career aspirations of female employees often get compromised due to gender discrimination in promotions in organizations. For example, for every 100 male employees promoted to managers’ roles in the USA in 2020, only 86 female employees got managerial positions (McKinsey & Company, 2021). Moreover, besides being passed over for promotion, it is common for female employees to get lesser pay and fewer benefits than their male counterparts (Robinson, 2021). Employees have abysmal remedies to contest gender discrimination in countries with a lower incidence of labour policy integration and implementation than those countries with a higher degree of labour policy integration and enforcement (Triana et al., 2019).
About Pinterest Inc.
Pinterest is an American social media platform driven by Pinterest Inc., headquartered in San Francisco. Founded by Ben Silbermann, Paul Sciarra and Evan Sharp in 2010, Pinterest allows the users to share pioneering ideas around fashion, art, home décor, food, gardening and Do It Yourself on a virtual bulletin board promoted as pinboards. Soon, Pinterest apps were developed so that users could publish their photos and content over mobile phones. With time, Pinterest added features such as visual search and shopping catalogues. The company was valued at US$12 billion in 2019 when Pinterest went all out for initial public offering after about nine years of being in the market (Farrell, 2019). By 2020, Pinterest recorded 459 million monthly active users (Tankovska, 2021).
Right from its inception, Pinterest had caught the imagination of the users, thanks to its innovative offerings and algorithms that invariably augmented their experience. Within a year of the launch, Pinterest joined the league of top 10 social websites in terms of the number of visitors (Sloan, 2011) (see Table 1). Further, Pinterest was also included among the top-50 websites in 2011 by the Time magazine (McCracken, 2011). The exponential growth of Pinterest was fuelled by funding from various corners, including US$10 million from Bessemer and US$27 million from Andreessen Horowitz (Kincaid, 2011). In yet another financial deal, Pinterest raised a US$225 million round of equity funding which increased the value of the company to US$3.8 billion in 2013 (Shih, 2013). The valuation of the company continued to grow phenomenally. In 2015, Pinterest was valued at US$11 billion (Guynn, 2015). In 2017, Pinterest raised US$150 million from a group of existing investors (Huet & Frier, 2017).
A series of acquisitions further consolidated the financial position of Pinterest. In 2013, the company acquired Livestar and Hackermeter (Isaac, 2013; Kumparak, 2013). In 2015, Pinterest acquired the Hike Lab mainly for its expertise (Perez, 2015), while URX and Instapaper joined the bandwagon in 2016 (Lynley, 2016; Yeung, 2016). One of the most notable acquisitions by Pinterest was that of search engine start-up Jelly Industries in 2017, which also brought on board its co-founders Biz Stone and Ben Finkel (Brown, 2017). These acquisitions strengthened the financials of Pinterest and brought home many talented people who were willing to boost the forward march of the company.
Dropping of the Pins: Hitting the Ground with Discrimination and Retaliation
The mood at Pinterest was quite upbeat as the company had fared well with the initial public offering in 2019. Its shares traded at US$24.40 at the close of day 1 (Farrel, 2019). Pinterest reported an advertising revenue to the tune of US$1.7 billion in 2020, which was 48% more than the previous year (Sloane, 2021). Things were moving smoothly for Pinterest until its former Chief Operating Officer Francoise Brougher published a blog titled ‘The Pinterest Paradox: Cupcakes and Toxicity’ in August 2020. Suddenly, all hell broke loose. Brougher (2020) observed, ‘although 70 per cent of Pinterest’s users are women, the company is steered by men with little input from female executives; Pinterest’s female executives, even at the highest levels, are marginalized, excluded, and silenced’. The first-person account of Brougher (2020) actually reignited the public discourse on gender discrimination at the workplace across the world:
I started at Pinterest in March 2018. In less than two years, I grew Pinterest’s revenue from $500 million to $1.1 billion, increased the advertiser base from 10,000 to 80,000, and expanded operations to 20 countries. Half the company’s 1,500 employees reported to me. According to Pinterest, I was fired not for the results I achieved, but for not being ‘collaborative’. I believe that I was fired for speaking out about the rampant discrimination, hostile work environment, and misogyny that permeates Pinterest.
Brougher (2020) led the charge from the front and accused the Pinterest chief executive officer (CEO) of cronyism as he monopolized the decision-making process with the help of two to three trusted male colleagues with little knowledge about the ground reality. Despite being a member of the leadership team, she was left out in the roadshow campaign before the launch of the initial public offering and subsequently to the board meetings (Brougher, 2020). Her only fault was that she had raised discrepancies in the executive compensation at Pinterest, which was discriminatory towards female executives. Raising the issue of inequity in executive compensation eventually led to her abrupt exit from the company, reflecting the retaliatory attitude of the board and executive team dominated by male members (see Tables 2 and 3). Brougher became a victim of the proverbial ‘boys’ club’ of Silicon Valley, reflecting the typical ‘tech bro’ culture at Pinterest, which had most female users on their online platform (Neate, 2020).
Top 10 Social/Networking Sites by the Number of Visitors
Board of Directors, Pinterest Inc
Executive Positions at Pinterest Inc
Many Pinterest employees rallied behind Brougher and joined the chorus against discrimination and retaliation (Neate, 2020). But the real change was yet to come. Brougher filed gender discrimination and retaliation case under the provisions of class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled out of court. The nature of the settlement itself became an instrument of change at Pinterest. As per the settlement, Pinterest agreed to pay US$22.5 million, out of which US$2.5 million would go as a donation to charitable organizations involved in working for women and underrepresented minorities in the technology-driven industry with a concentration on education, funding and advocacy (Griffith, 2020). Not every lawsuit revolving around gender discrimination and retaliation see the light of the day. For example, the FinTech start-up Carta (San Francisco, CA, USA) had contested the charge of its former Vice-President for Marketing Emily Kramer concerning gender discrimination and retaliation (Griffith, 2020).
Settlement wrested by Brougher was unique because it scored several goals: first and foremost, it provided relief vis-à-vis loss of income. More importantly, it provided the victim with an instrument to champion the cause of women’s empowerment in technology-driven companies. She had been allowed to keep talking about her woes at Pinterest as part of the publicly announced settlement. However, the flip side of the whole issue was that Pinterest had not admitted to any liability as part of the settlement. In a way, the company had paid off a considerable sum to Brougher without accepting any wrongdoing.
Picking Up the Pins: Building an Inclusive Culture
The fallout of the largest publicly announced settlement in any gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit to date was quite positive for the employees and other stakeholders of Pinterest. The company decided to use the lawsuit settlement as a trigger for building a more inclusive work culture at Pinterest. The board and executive team were also recast to accommodate female members. Further, the company brought in transparency in executive compensation. The company got on board Tyi McCray as the Global Head of Inclusion & Diversity to drive an inclusive culture. After the lawsuit settlement, Pinterest stated that it recognized the importance of fostering a workplace environment that was diverse, equitable and inclusive, and would continue its actions to improve its culture (Neate, 2020).
Even Brougher wanted Pinterest ‘to be successful and part of being successful means having a culture where people feel safe and respected and can succeed’ (Wigdor, 2020). She refused to sign the non-disclosure agreement to overshadow her victimhood and champion the cause of empowering women in leadership positions, especially in technology-driven companies across the world. She came out to challenge the elite boys club and tech bro culture to ensure that women get their rightful role in the board room instead of having the cosmetic presence to showcase diversity and inclusion. In several other cases not reported in the media, female executives who become victims of gender discrimination and retaliation prefer to remain silent as they are compelled to sign the non-disclosure agreements at the time of termination of their employment contracts.
But did Brougher indeed win the gender discrimination and retaliation case against Pinterest? Pinterest Chief Financial Officer Todd Morgenfeld, who was named in the complaint by Brougher, remains in the company and retains his position in the elite in-group of the chairman and CEO of the company. Is gender justice at the workplace an illusion? Is it possible to address the core issues rather than litigations, settlements and ad hoc interventions to plug the gaps? How can one break the boys’ club syndrome and tech bro culture? Can increasing the female representatives address the misogynistic mindset of the board? The historic settlement of the gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought out by Brougher poses several questions that need open discussion and holistic interventions.
Epilogue
The present case has triggered a holistic discussion revolving around the causes, impacts and management of gender discrimination induced by male chauvinism in organizations worldwide. The response of Pinterest in handling the discrimination and retaliation case of Francoise Brougher demonstrates a deep-rooted bias against women. The top management has paid a hefty compensation to Francoise Brougher without accepting any wrongdoing. Possibly Pinterest is concerned about consumers’ perception as most of the company’s clients are female and may not appreciate the treatment meted out to Francoise Brougher. A negative consumer perception inducing anger against the treatment of female employees may erode the organization’s customer base (Rana, 2021). Even the loyal customers having a nostalgic association with the company may decide to break away in the wake of negative perceptions generated by controversies that undermine the reputation of the organizations (Rana et al., 2020).
After the Brougher controversy, Pinterest has adopted a superficial diversity and inclusion programme. However, the case has undoubtedly generated a lot of attention of the corporate leaders as well as managers and employees regarding the male bias that transcends national boundaries. However, the class-action lawsuit that formed the basis of this case may not answer deep-rooted gender discrimination at the workplaces across the world (Brown, 2011). The way forward is the change in the mindset of top management regarding gender equality that goes beyond lip service or cosmetic changes like creating the office of diversity and inclusion or organizing occasional training programmes to sensitize the employees about gender equality. Indeed, ending gender discrimination requires more than training programmes, specifically changes in the organizational processes and structures that undermine the root causes of gender-based prejudices (Gino, 2014). People have realized that gender discrimination can no longer be business as usual.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.