• During EEC accession, Ireland tried to carve out flexibility on equal pay—warning about cost, jobs and “disruption” in low‑paid, female‑dominated sectors. Sound familiar?
• Europe said no to the derogation/postponement request: equal pay was non‑negotiable. Ireland adapted—marriage bar gone (1973), women’s participation in the workforce rose, and the Irish legal framework caught up fast.
• Irish domestic law followed the refusal of a derogation: Anti‑Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974; enforceable equal pay from 1976—after some time‑boxed postponements.

• The pay transparency genie is well and truly out of the bottle. If you competitors can be transparent about their approach to pay, and you can’t, this is not a legal issue—this is a leadership issue.
• Waiting for Ireland’s exact timeline is a comfort blanket. While there has been postponements across other EU member states on the Directive, these postponements are usually 6–12 months—less than one pay review cycle and a short time in the context of the amount of work required to prepare for pay transparency.
• If you can’t explain your pay and job architecture in plain English, you are “not ready”—you are exposed.
• Reporting gender pay gaps is the easy part. The hard part is agreeing (and sticking to) robust and explainable pay practices, a clear job levelling methodology and robust governance on who gets to make exceptions.
• Your biggest risk is not the gender pay gap  % —it’s your pay transparency story, your legacy pay practices, your “special cases” that you cannot explain, quiet market adjustments you undertook in the past but can no longer explan, and the degree of manager discretion practiced within your organisation with no audit trail.
• Start now: clean your hr and pay data, invest in data analytics and reporting capability, ensure robust and explainable job levelling, calibrate salary ranges, define pay exception governance—and write the narrative you want leaders and employees to repeat about your organisation pay practices (because they will tell one either way).

• reduce bias of both the conscious and unconscious variety
• ensure internal pay equity. If organisations are not using job evaluation as the basis for pay equity, I would love to know what they are using instead!
• build defensible pay structures by linking salary bands to relative value of jobs in their organisation hierarchy
• comply with equal pay requirements. It is no coincidence that employers heartache with job evaluation got much worse when it became clear that the EU Pay Transparency Directive, shifted the burden of proof from the employee to employers in equal pay claims.

• agile job architectures
• skills‑based frameworks
• digital evaluation tools
• regular refresh cycles

• Market pricing alone? This would appear to be volatile due to the lack of robust market data. My personal lived experience over 30 years looking at market data is that the quality and robustness of market data has deteriorated over time. An additional consideration is that for most hot jobs, market data does not exist.
• Manager discretion? Too risky. I can pretty much guarantee that there is no better way for an employer to lose an equal pay claim case than justifying pay differences on the basis of  “manager discretion”.  
• Unstructured relativities? e.g. where job levels or pay differences that have evolved organically over time.  These will simply not stand up from an equal pay for work of equal value perspective.

• lighter, more flexible frameworks
• integration with skills and career frameworks
• frequent updates
• digital tools that reduce administrative burden
• alignment with market data rather than replacement of it

Click on pdf file icon below for a copy of the slides

gurren-pay_transparency_cipd_rev_29-1-26.pdf
File Size:	569 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

1. Philosophy: some organisations just do not believe that incentives work and believe there are more effective ways to motivate employees. Personally, I think this is nonsense, and if you disagree, think about how incentives influence sales employee behaviour in your organisation!  Other organisations believe that incentives may work but believe that the adverse consequences on employee behaviour outweigh the potential upside. I believe this is the wrong way to think about incentives, but I understand why some organisations take this view, as indeed there can be unintended adverse impacts on employee behaviour. I also believe it is perfectly valid for an organisation to decide not to utilise incentives if they have thought through the consequences and implications for their reward proposition and have taken alternate steps to ensure they have a compelling and competitive reward proposition.
2. Rewards Strategy: some organisations have thought through how they want to prioritise their rewards proposition and consciously decide not to utilise incentives and/or decide to use incentives in a very targeted way, e.g., only senior managers and sales employees are eligible for incentives. Organisations that do not use broad-based incentives will focus on differentiating themselves from their competitors via other elements of rewards, e.g., higher base pay, better benefit programmes or market-leading career opportunities.
3. Organisation culture: some organisations are just not suited to utilising variable pay because of their culture. They may feel that they are already paying employees enough, or they may feel that incentives do not influence behaviour, or they may not want to share the wealth with employees, or they are not ready to link pay to performance. These views are all valid, provided that the organisation is prepared to live with the consequences of not utilising variable pay. Organisation culture is about behaviour and organisations tend to get the behaviour they reward. Another aspect of corporate culture that reduces the appetite for variable pay is the need for transparency on how incentives are calculated and transparency on eligibility for incentives by employee category. Some organisations are simply uncomfortable with this level of transparency and thus shy away from utilising incentives. Given the direction of travel on pay transparency, this thinking is a bit like arguing with gravity! It is only a matter of time until all organisations will be dragged kicking and screaming into the limelight over their pay practices. 
4. Incentive pay is too hard to get right; this view does have some validity. It is relatively easy to design incentives programmes, but it is quite another matter to operationalise them effectively within your organisation. Key challenges include ensuring managers and employees fully understand the incentive program and key performance metrics, and ensuring managers can clearly explain the linkage between employee’s jobs and behaviors and their incentives, i.e., how the employee can impact the performance metrics. Organisations that are unwilling to put substantial time and effort into effectively communicating incentives within their organisation would be better served if they abandoned using incentive programmes. Organisations will only leverage the impact of incentives if they put the time and effort into deploying them correctly.

1. Senior management must internalise that the key goal of incentives is to improve organisational performance. Incentives clarify the most important goals for employees and managers. Incentives provide a framework for goals to be cascaded from the organisation to the business unit and to the employee base. Incentives help to foster employee engagement by providing a framework for feedback and enabling employees to see how they contribute to or make a difference in the organisation. Incentives also acknowledge desired behaviors and results and provide positive reinforcement to employees. Senior management must see the value of deploying incentives to achieve business objectives before it is worth the organisation's time to implement incentives.
2. Organisation's readiness for incentives. Even if an organisation has an appetite for incentives, some organisations still need to consider the best timing for the introduction or revision of incentives to ensure the timing is right and that the approach to incentives is properly integrated with the wider rewards strategy.  If an organisation is introducing incentives or changing incentive practices, the incentive should be tied to clearly demonstrable results that the organisation is looking to achieve and to timelines associated with the achievement of these results.
3. Performance must be measurable. This seems obvious and common sense, but common sense is not always common!  Incentives are paid based on performance against pre-determined metrics. These metrics must be communicated and widely understood. Organisations need to be able to measure performance systematically on a regular basis, be it monthly, quarterly, or annually. It is not uncommon to see organisations struggle to collect data in a timely manner to measure incentive performance.
4. Costs and resource availability. The cost of incentives needs to be calculated and modelled so that the organisation is getting a robust return on investment from the incentive programme. The introduction of a new or revised incentive can strain resources in any organisation. The actual design and approval of the incentive programme are generally only approximately 20% of the work. The other 80% of the work and time is spent on effective communication with managers and employees and ensuring the effective administration and governance of the incentive once it is in place.
5. Employee engagement. The normal rules of employee engagement apply to incentives as they apply to the other reward elements, i.e., employees must perceive that their incentives are fair relative to internal and external peers doing similar jobs.
6. Consider external factors.  As well as the internal factors mentioned above, organisation also need to consider a myriad of external factors. These include the need to keep pace with the labour market in terms of offering a compelling reward proposition. Organisations need to keep abreast of what is happening in their industry, including relative labour costs. Organisations also need to ensure they can adhere to legal or regulatory issues, both current and impending.

• You must choose or prioritise the elements of your reward proposition that comprise your reward strategy. You need to choose the reward elements you are going to excel at.
• Your reward proposition must differentiate you in the market. Yes, understanding what your market is doing in terms of rewards practices is important, but it is only of strategic importance if you use the data to differentiate your organisation's reward proposition and
• You must have the resilience to persuade your stakeholders that the proposed rewards strategy is the right one for the business and organisation culture.

• Make sure your reward strategy and philosophy are fully understood. Spread the reward strategy and philosophy far and often throughout your organisation. Make certain that the organisation's people managers have received comprehensive training on the organisation rewards philosophy, reward strategy, the process utilised to establish market competitiveness of current paid rates and criteria utilised by the organisation to determine employee’s salary increases. Salary makes up a sizable proportion of an organisation's overall rewards costs. As such, a reward strategy will not succeed unless people managers are able to defend and explain salary decisions to employees. Employees need to understand how their salary increase were determined and the process the company followed to determine salary levels. The acid employee engagement test in relation to salary, is whether employees perceive that their salary is fair, relative to both their internal and external peers.​
• Internalise that salary levels are important to employees. There is quite a bit of claptrap spoken about the relative importance of salary versus other elements of total rewards to employees. It is commonplace to here that salary is not the most important element of rewards and e.g., elements like wellbeing or work life effectiveness are equally or more valuable. For the avoidance of doubt, I think this is nonsense.  Salary is typically the single largest element of what an employee earns in terms of monetary value. Salary is also a hygiene factor, so salary levels must be understood and valued by employees to ensure employee engagement. For those who believe salary is less important to employees compared to other elements of rewards, please consider that salary is the primary driver of an employees, and their families standard of living. Regurgitating mantra’s that salary is of limited importance to employees is simply not credible.
• If you are going to link salary increases to employee performance, then buckle up and prepare for the ride! Management have been very creative in their efforts to find ways to camouflage pay for performance e.g., rating less performance reviews. Linking salary levels with employee performance is in my view a noble endeavour, as it makes sense at both a business and employee level. My advice to organisations is to decide to either go all in here or decide that pay for performance is not for them. The concepts and practices of linking pay to performance have been around since the 1940’s so I do not intend to rehash them here. Linking pay with performance is one of those things that should be done well or not at all.
• The annual salary review process requires stellar project management and stakeholder management skills. It is my lived experience that 80% + of the issues associated with the annual salary review process can be addressed via effective project management and stakeholder management skills. Effective project management ensures that the various stakeholders know what they need to do, why they need to do it and when to do it. Effective stakeholder management ensures that the workload burden is spread evenly across the stakeholders.
• Finally, begin with the end in mind. Organisations should think about how their employees will experience the annual salary review process. Key questions to address here are, Will employees understand our reward philosophy/strategy? Will employees understand how we established the market paid rates for their job? Will employees understand the criteria we used to determine their salary increase? Will employees perceive that their salary level is fair relative to internal and external peers? If, the answer to these questions is yes, then the organisation is in good shape.

1. The drive for pay transparency is not limited to EU countries or indeed regulations or laws in other countries. Pay transparency is a must do for organisations to effectively attract and retain talent. Generally, employees aged 40 years or younger (generation Y & Z) simply expect transparency on pay to be the norm and assume the worst when organisations are not willing to demonstrate transparency on pay matters. If organisations want to earn employees trust and have credibility with their workforce, they have no choice but to front up on pay transparency. 
2. It is not possible to engage employees unless your organisation is transparent about how it determines employee pay. A fundamental building block of employee engagement is that employees perceive that their pay is fair relative to internal peers and market paid rates. Proactive and open communication on pay determination is key to ensure effective employee engagement.
3. For some organisations being transparent on pay and pay determination is just how they do business. For example, it is common practice in most parts of the Hi-Tech sector to share information about salary bands and bonus opportunity openly with employees. At the other end of the spectrum, is also common practice if an organisation has unionised employees, that these employees typically enjoy clarity on how their paid rates are determined.  The world has not stopped spinning in these organisations just because they are transparent on pay practices which I think should provide some solace to companies struggling with the change to more transparency on pay. 
4. No rocket science is required to create transparency around pay. The building blocks (clear rewards philosophy/principles, a sound rewards strategy, job evaluation process, job levels and salary bands) have been around forever. The sooner organisations make the investment in building these frameworks the better, as they will have more time to understand the key issues and implement appropriate communication strategies and processes. A key first step is to internalise that pay transparency is not going away and in fact the drive towards greater transparency on pay will intensify in future years. 
5. Organisations need to square away their approach to pay transparency with their organisation culture. For some organisations the stakes of implementing pay transparency are high. Some organisations will need to pivot on their organisation culture to a more transparent approach. This can require a significant change effort in terms of both manager training and employee communication, but the benefits of pivoting towards transparency far outweigh the investment required. ​