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.

So here is another example of not understanding the basics of statistics.

The statement was 'more likely to fire than give a raise'. This does not mean that these are the only two options available. 'More likely' just means the chance is higher overall, whether it's 99% likely to fire or 2% likely to fire.

It's also not what was said - it wasn't "chatting led to a concern", it was "self-reported, self-selecting study says X". That stuff really is a red flag to folks who have a decent grounding in statistics.