Reward Heads
Using our heads to solve your Reward challenges.
Most people assume pay transparency pushes salaries up. The reality is far more interesting — and far more useful for employers who are worried about cost control.
Across the UK, many organisations are nervous about publishing pay ranges or talking openly about pay. The fear is predictable: "If we show people the range, they'll all expect to be at the top of it." It feels intuitive, and it feels risky. But the evidence we do have, from US pay transparency laws and from UK gender pay gap reporting, tells a different story.
Transparency tends to compress pay, not inflate it.
And in some cases, average pay actually falls.
That sounds counterintuitive until you look at how bargaining works inside most organisations today.
Why transparency changes the economics of pay
In a low-transparency world, managers often make quiet exceptions to keep the wheels turning. A counteroffer to stop a resignation. An out-of-cycle increase for the squeaky wheel. A discretionary uplift for a favourite. These deals often sit outside the range and outside the policy — and crucially, outside the spotlight.
No one else knows, so the cost feels containable.
But once pay becomes visible — whether because employees are legally free to compare notes or because ranges and actuals are published, those quiet exceptions start to cause real problems:
The rational employer response is simple: stop making exceptions.
And that's exactly what the research shows. A 2023 US study by Cullen and Pakzad-Hurson looked at state-level laws protecting employees' rights to discuss pay. Once those protections were in place, average wages fell by around 2%. Not because people were paid less individually, but because employers stopped making the expensive, opaque deals that had previously inflated the pay bill.
Transparency forces discipline, it also can narrow the spread between the highest and lowest paid.
It doesn't drag the whole distribution upwards.
UK gender pay reporting showed the same pattern from a different angle
We see a similar dynamic in the UK with gender pay gap reporting.
Research from the Centre for Economic Performance at LSE found that employers required to publish their gender pay gaps reduced those gaps by around 19% relative to similar employers who didn't report.
But the mechanism is revealing.
Women's pay grew at roughly the same pace in both groups. The difference came from men: male wage growth slowed in organisations that were reporting.
At the same time, women became more selective. Experiments showed women were willing to accept salaries almost 5% lower to avoid an employer with a large gender pay gap. Men didn't show the same sensitivity.
So disclosure changed behaviour on both sides:
The gap narrowed, not because women suddenly received large increases, but because employers became more constrained in how they rewarded men, and because women walked away from employers with poor data.
Again, transparency created discipline.
What this means for UK pay transparency
We don't yet have EU-style pay transparency rules in the UK, but the direction of travel is clear. And the combined evidence from the US and UK points in the same direction:
So the real question for employers isn't "Can we afford transparency?", but "Are our policies and ranges strong enough to withstand it?"
If transparency exposes a tangle of legacy deals, inconsistencies and unclear logic, you'll face a painful period of unpicking. But if the groundwork is solid, transparency can actually help contain costs by:
Done well, transparency can actually become a cost-control mechanism, not a cost risk.
The hard part: a proper policy and a clear narrative
Publishing a range is the easy bit. The real work sits behind it.To make transparency work, you need a robust, well-communicated policy that answers four very practical questions:
1. How are ranges built? - What data do you use? How do job levels link to ranges? What's your market position for different roles?
2. What determines where someone sits in the range? - Is it experience, performance, skills, time in role, market scarcity — or a mix? How do you avoid bias?
3. How do people move through the range over time? - What does progression look like? How do promotions, lateral moves and skill development translate into pay?
4. When are exceptions allowed — and who can approve them? - If you step outside the rules, on what basis? How is it monitored so it doesn't quietly become the norm?
And just as importantly, you need to be able to explain all of this in everyday language. A policy only Reward understands won't help when transparency bites.
Where UK employers should focus first
For organisations preparing for future transparency rules — or considering moving early — three priorities stand out:
1. Sort the framework before you share numbers.
Get job architecture, ranges and internal relativities into a place you're comfortable with.
2. Write a policy humans can read.
Test it with real managers. If they can't explain it back, simplify again.
3. Practice the conversations.
Equip managers with examples, phrases and FAQs for the inevitable questions:
"Why am I here in the range?"
"What would it take to move up?"
"Why is X on more than me?"
Transparency doesn't have to be a cost risk. It can be the thing that stops your pay bill being driven by exceptions, firefighting and side deals. It d starts anchoring it in a system that is fair, consistent and defensible.
How Reward Heads can help
These are exactly the conversations the team at Reward Heads have with clients every day — not just about the number, but about how to explain where someone sits in the range and why.
There is no generic answer. It depends on your organisation, your legacy, and whether performance, service, skills or something else should drive position in range.
That's where our bespoke approach comes into its own.
We ask the questions that lead you to the right answer for your organisation and your people.
If you'd like to explore how we can support you, drop a note to rewardsolutions@rewardheads.co.uk and we'll set up a chat.
John Freeman, Consulting Manager - Reward Heads