Mateo Rasmussen· Compensation Consultant, Independent
Asked in Pay Equity & Transparency ·
We are a pharmaceutical manufacturer in Switzerland with about 3,300 employees. Our merit matrix ties increases directly to a five-point rating, so rating is a genuine driver of pay and leaving it out of the model makes the residual look larger than the pay decisions warrant.
But the rating distribution is not even. In commercial functions 24% of men and 16% of women received one of the top two ratings last year. In research the figures are within a point of each other.
Including rating gives an adjusted gap of 1.4%; excluding it gives 2.5%. I do not know which to report as our number, and our consultants gave me an answer that amounted to it depends.
2 insightful · 4 replies · 24 views · 8 following
Director, Total Rewards, Halcyon Financial Group
We include it but only after testing it. Each year we run a logistic model on who gets a top rating, controlling for level, function and tenure. If gender is significant, rating comes out of the pay model for that year. It has come out in two of the last five years. Having the rule written down in advance stops the argument about which figure flatters us.
HR Business Partner, Meridian Health Systems
People Analytics Lead, Silverline Media
I would not split the model by function for that purpose. You end up with two methods and an invitation to ask why you chose each. Report 2.5% as the headline, show that 1.1 points of it runs through ratings, and make the rating disparity in commercial a finding in its own right with its own action. One number, clearly decomposed.
Gabriel LarsenCSI, CBS
Benefits Analyst, Independent
Leaning towards the last suggestion, with the pre-test adopted as a standing rule for future years. Reporting the larger figure will be uncomfortable, but showing that 1.1 points of it passes through commercial ratings gives that leadership team something specific to own, which the blended 1.4% never did.
